5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A review by a Palauan Political Science/History Major, May 16, 1998
This review is from: Embattled Island: Palau's Struggle for Independence (Hardcover)
Leibowitz's work is unique among the recent works done on Palau in that he is not as condemning of the United States as his predecessors (Sue Roff, Ched Myers, Robert Aldirge, Roger Clark, John Hinck). In fact, he is critical of the "advocates" from the "left" and points out that Roff's work ". . . is [a] very selective, one-sided telling of the tale, omitting, for example, any mention of Salii's death . . ." Leibowitz's work is indeed valuable as it presents a different angle and does include some aspects of the "tale" which shed more light on the happenings of the 80's. Moreover, it is at least a bit more expansive in the sense that, unlike his literary predecessors, his work begins with Palau's earlier history and ends with the independence celebration. Of course, he has the advantage of time since independence celebration was held after Roff, Aldridge, Myers and others had published their works. But what of the United States role? For Leibowitz, the United States did fail in several ways including its delay of self-determination. However, the United States is not solely responsible for the troubles, he asserts, since the Palauans were in on the act as well. Palauans, Leibowitz argues contrarily to Aldridge and Myers "society of people" thesis, were competitive and self-confident people. They have a history of internal competition which explains much of the pro-Compact and pro-Constitution stances which the divergent camps took. Instead of a "society of people" theirs is more like a "society of competitors." Moreover, Leibowitz argues that the pro-Constitution group were not as potent in their opposition if it were not for the liberal press and the legal aid provided by outside groups such as Greenpeace. In other words, the water could have been calmer in the Palau if outside meddling by interest groups was limited. The anti-Compact Palauans, therefore, were merely pawns controlled for the most part by the motives of outside gr! oups from the left. As for American neglect, it is regretful, Leibowitz concedes, but the United States was not necessarily deliberate in its neglect since it "hated its own imperial role and seemed to take out its anger by providing stingy budgets for the islands." Leibowitz makes his case although he too is guilty of the same charge he makes, specifically that of the other writers' omission of other aspects of the "tale." For instance, he fails to explain his views on some specifics such as the shots fired at the home of a staunch anti-Compact legislator (Sen. Olikong) as well as the overprinted ballots. These are just a few and Leibowitz's work is hence sketchy at times, not to mention its unclear or unspecified documentation. His halfhearted defense and sometimes evident admiration for Salii might be explained by the fact that he was the president's attorney at a critical point in the "tale" and when he accounts for some of his tasks under Salii, he seems to be taking on the role of a lobbyist more so than an attorney. Furthermore, and ironically for a lawyer, he seems to disregard or at least treat lightly the leftist legal argument that the Compact was indeed undermining the struggle for self-determination which in turn violates U.S. responsibilities provided in the Trusteeship Agreement. Other omissions can be noted but engaging each would be too tedious and perhaps might be overstepping the constraints of a short review.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No