Pacific regionalism…it’s tricky

It does not come as a surprise to learn that the summit to discuss Pacific regional architecture that was due to be held in Sydney in March has now been postponedapparently ‘indefinitely’. The short lead-in time between itsannouncement in October and the proposed time slot was always going to be a significant hurdle for DFAT. Their ability to persuade leaders from the region to attend was further hampered by the government reshuffle that saw Brett Mason replaced as Parliamentary Secretary by Steven Ciobo, whose Pacific experience is limited.

Whilst there were some who viewed this Australia/Fiji sponsored initiative positively, it would appear that the more widely held perception in the region was that this summit was neither necessary nor appropriate – an argument wearticulated when the summit was first announced.

The next best opportunity to discuss issues pertaining to regional architecture will be at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting to be held in Port Moresby in July. However, this is not as straightforward as it sounds. As things currently stand, Fiji has declined to rejoin the Pacific Islands Forum so there is no guarantee (or indication) that Prime Minister Bainimarama will attend that meeting. The Fiji government moved quickly to prepare a position paper outlining its proposals for refashioning PIF membership and has been busy canvassing support from others, including Tuvalu and Tonga. But the anticipated forum for this discussion was a summit in Sydney with Fiji as co-sponsor not a Forum Leaders’ meeting in Port Moresby with Peter O’Neill in the host’s chair.

It all goes show: Pacific regionalism is tricky, even for big players like Australia and Fiji.

Sourced from Development Policy Centre

Advertisements

Dame Taylor calls for greater regionalism

Dame M Taylor DBE c

The Pacific Islands Forum Secretary General, Dame Meg Taylor, is calling for a focus on greater Pacific regionalism this year.

Last year’s Forum Leaders’ summit in Palau endorsed the formation of a sub-committee to focus on the implementation of their ‘Framework for Pacific Regionalism’.

Dame Meg says the framework calls for a new regional public policy process.

Ms Taylor has told the Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific that it demands game-changing interventions in support of a new regional politic.

Dame Meg says at the heart of deepened regionalism is clear control by leaders of the regional agenda.

She says if the Forum cannot collectively support the leaders’ vision then it needs to re-think what it is there to do.

Source: Radio New Zealand International Service – 9th/02/15

Why first impressions matter – Fiji putting its best foot forward demonstrating a military power state

Modi_frank_PTI_650x400_big_story

A commentary by Maureen Penjueli

Coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG)

Let’s face it – Fiji had only one chance to make a great impression on the world’s largest democratic leader Narendra Modi when he visited our shores on Wednesday.  Apparently over two-thirds of a person’s impression is actually formed within moments of seeing you for the first time, this is even before you have had the opportunity to speak.  Frank Banimarama love him or hate him fully understands the symbolic importance of first impressions.

So how does a country like Fiji present itself to the world’s largest democratic leader Narendra Modi – by presenting Fiji as a military power house soften by a multicultural outlook?  It is not surprising therefore that Modi was welcomed at the Nausori airport by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces in all their glory.  Frank Bainimara understands that Fiji’s ranking in the global world of politics is in part built on this image of Fiji as a strong military powerhouse acting as world peace keepers.  This is our global footprint.

But the first impression doesn’t stop there.  Since the landslide victory of recent Fiji election at the helm of coup leader Frank Bainimarama, the public transformation from coup leader to a statesman is in full force.  Frank Bainimarama receives Modi, in a i-taukei suit spotting a baby pink tie, with not one but two Fiji flags pinned to the lapel of his jack.  The pink tie is perhaps to soften the hard military image of a coup leader while the flags stamp his Fijian credo.    He is accompanied by his wife and a lone i-taukei school girl dressed in traditional attire help to further soften his image.  While his team of ministers complete the first impression of strength, unity and solidarity.

Modi on the other hand wearing simple white traditional attire contrasted with a deep blue jacket with a single pen in his breast pocket.  Perhaps Modi understands the power of the pen and what it represents in relation to Fiji.  No less than 15 bilateral agreements were signed signifying the dawn of a ‘new era’ of Fiji/ India relationship.  Modi announced that both countries agree to consult more closely on international issues of mutual interest namely international trade, climate change, UN peacekeeping and UN reforms.  India has also expressed interest in expanding deference and security co-operation, including assistance in deference training and capacity.

With the stroke of the pen, Modi also confirmed Fiji’s leadership in the region as the hub for stronger Indian engagement with other Pacific Islands.  No doubt we will not be seeing any condemnation of the recent signing of uranium export deal between Australia and India.  Nor will we be seeing any signs of condemnation around the issue of climate change.

But what does this first impression say to the people of Fiji.  Firstly that Frank Bainimarama is still a military man at heart and he has the full support of the Fiji Military Forces behind him.  Secondly public appearances don’t hide the fact that this is a man who rules with an iron fist.  Even with a clear majority in Parliament and significant people support, there was no graciousness towards the leader of the opposition, nor to the Vanua and the Church.

Not giving the leader of the opposition the opportunity to deliver the vote of thanks shows his disregard for the importance of the role of the opposition in a democracy.  Unfortunately and perhaps he really did understand the leader of the opposition only too well – at the first real test of international diplomacy they decide to boycott parliament seating.

Source: PANG

Fiji’s Mataitoga on Japan-Pacific Relations and the future of the Pacific Alliance Leaders Meeting (PALM) Summit

Fiji’s-Ambassador-to-Japan-H.E-Mr-Isikeli-Mataitoga-delivering-a-lecture-on-‘Climate-Change-and-its-Impact-on-Fiji’-at-the-United-Nations-University-UNU-Headquarters-in-Tokyo.-PHOTO-BY-UNU

Interview by Director Development at the Pacific Island Society, Keiko Ono, published on www.pacificislandssociety.org

 
Pacific Island Society: At PALM6, participants adopted the Okinawa Kizuna Declaration, which highlighted five themes for follow-on action: (1) response to natural disasters (2) environment and climate change (3) sustainable development based upon human security (4) people-to- people exchanges and (5) maritime issues. How have the participants faired in fulfilling their commitments in these areas?

Ambassador Mataitoga: It difficult to make the assessment you have posed in your question. The reason for that is that no criteria are provided for each of the five areas you have rightly identified as focus areas under the Okinawa Kizuna Declaration of PALM6. There is a financial envelope that Japan has stated it has made available for these five areas of development activities. The amount in the envelope is USD $500 million over a three-year period. Only one party – Japan – knows how this money is spent and how much is left. This is where the lack transparency is most evident and why sometimes difficult to understand the claims being made in some quarters on how this funds have been utilized.

Pacific Island Society: For PICs, one of the key facets of the PALM Summit is aid. Yet, Japan is yet to fulfill its three-year pledge to give US$500m. In contrast, China’s presence in the region has been increasingly noticeable. Between 2006 and 2011, China is estimated to have contributed US$850m in bilateral aid to eight PICs. Your counterpart in London even remarked, ‘China stepped in when other western development partners, such as the US and the UK, withdrew’. From your perspective, how does Japan’s delivery of aid affect its strategic partnerships with PICs vis-a-vis China? Are PICs expecting more from Japan at PALM7?

Ambassador Mataitoga: First thing first – Japan must decide what are its foreign policy objectives regarding its relations with the PICs. Having decided on that, it must state it clearly and denominate the framework to deliver those objectives. If we ask, MOFA for their foreign policy priority in PICs, the reference you may be given is the PALM Process. Apart from that, there will be a general reference about Asia-Pacific Security issues. As I earlier noted in PICs with severe climate change adaptation issues, Japan’s aid delivery does promote a positive impact in its bilateral relations. But it should be note that most PICs do not engage with Japan in competition with China. Rather, they see relations with both Japan and China as complimentary to their respective development goals. The difficulty with PALM7 is the process. The issues to be discussed are highly controlled by Japan. There is little real engagement with senior officials from the PICs to work up the agenda for PALM and to promote ownership amongst all the parties. In terms of expectation, there is therefore little to expect because PICs are in the dark in their understanding of the actual financial resources available and how they would be used. In the case of Fiji, we would like PALM to address issues of market access for Fijian made goods and services into the Japanese market. This is a forlorn hope because Australia and New Zealand are members of PALM and they would demand similar concessions. We also would want the next PALM to be hosted in one of PICs – to make a truly Pacific Island and Japan framework for development.

Pacific Island Society: A fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Greg Polling, recently criticized Japan’s leader-centric approach to engagements with PICs – specifically citing the PALM Summit as an example. How would broader stakeholder participation in the PALM Summits affect the achievement of improving Japan’s ties with PICs?

Ambassador Mataitoga:  Before Mr. Poling made his observation, I was saying this very point to relevant officials in Gaimusho here in Tokyo. If Japan were to be more open and inclusive in its engagement with other important and vital stakeholders in PICs – as referred to in your question – I have no doubt that the Japanese Government image would be much more enhanced in these countries and communities. There is great power in open and inclusive engagement. I believe that widening the participation in PALM to include other stakeholders in development in PICs and Japan will lead to more enhanced relations amongst them. There is so much that the PALM process could benefit from in terms of development expertise. From high-level personnel with valuable experience – the think tanks, civil society, private sector representatives, etc. Japan uses these same stakeholders in the development its own national development goals. It should not be too difficult to do the same with the PALM process. The issues of reviewing the PALM process have come to the fore only since PALM6. And, the issues coming up are membership and whether participation should include stakeholders in development within PICs. For Fiji, PALM is a disguised Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) with Japan as the chief coordinator. And, as our PM recently stated, unless PIF undergoes certain fundamental changes, it is unlikely that Fiji will rejoin.

Pacific Island Society:  At the last PALM summit, there was a significant change in membership with the inclusion of the United States. As a significant partner for Japan and many PICs, how will Japan’s strategic alliance with the US impact future PALM agendas and the power dynamics of the meetings?

Ambassador Mataitoga:  In fairness to Japan, the number one priority issue in any country’s foreign policy is its national security interest. To that extent, it is understandable that Japan often treads very carefully in its diplomatic engagement, whether in develop assistance diplomacy or any other area, that it does not violate its relations with United States – especially if it may be seen [optic again] by Washington to be likely to weaken their “Pivot to Asia” policy. The Japan – United States Alliance directly impacts how and when Japan engages with PICs – generally and on specific issues. How else would anyone explain Japan’s proposal to include the United States into PALM? The question I wish someone to answer is: Why does the United States need to go through PALM to engage with PICs? The United States has a similar framework already in existence, which has been dormant for a while. What are factors [real or imagined] that prevent the United States consulting directly with PICs?

Pacific Island Society:  This will be the first PALM Summit since your country successfully held democratic elections earlier this year. Given your absence from PALM6, what goals does Fiji hope to achieve in the upcoming meeting?

Ambassador Mataitoga: Fiji’s attendance at PALM7 is not a foregone conclusion. Fiji will have to be invited first. We were asked to submit our views on the PALM process by Japan. These have been prepared and submitted to relevant representatives of the Japanese Government. Within that submission are the issues that we would like Japan to consider. We are confident that it will be given active considerations.

Pacific Island Society:  How has Japan’s position on the coup in the past impacted relations? What are bilateral relations between Japan and Fiji like today?

Ambassador Mataitoga: Japan did not terminate its diplomatic relations with Fiji following the change in government in Fiji in late 2006. This was in sharp contrasts to other countries, which suspended diplomatic relations with Fiji. This was a sign of maturity in Japanese diplomacy because they kept the door open for dialogue with Fiji – which was essential in promoting understanding during those difficult days. The first few years 2007-2012, were difficult years in Fiji – Japan bilateral relations. Since the Japanese Parliamentary Election in December 2012, the new Japanese Government has been more willing to engage with Fiji. And, these thawing of relations will be further enhanced following the election in Fiji on 17 September 2014. Now Fiji and Japan are discussing high level of political leaders visit to each other’s country. This will further lift relations to new heights.

Pacific Island Society:  Earlier this month, Japan won membership of the Pacific Islands Forum while at the UN Meeting in New York. Outside of PALM, this appears indicative of Japan’s increasing attention to the Pacific Islands Region. During this time, leaders called on Japan to focus on climate change, Sustainable Development Goals, and the SAMOA Pathway. With this in mind, what do you think this means for Japan’s role in the region?

Ambassador Mataitoga:  Japan’s desire to deepen its engagement with PICs was first made at the PALM Ministers of Foreign Affairs meeting in Tokyo in 2013. At this meeting the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs stated Japan’s desire to be more involved in PICs region. Fiji supported the statement of the Japanese Minister and proposed that Japan should be a member of the PIF. Having proposed this to the meeting, Fiji asked Japan to clearly articulate the role it would like to play when they join. This would allow other members who were silent to the proposal to better evaluate the Japanese desire. This is still to happen. On the role Japan may play in PICs countries, it is something that the Government of Japan, the wider stakeholders in Japan, and PICs need to discuss and articulate publicly.

Pacific Island Society:  What does Fiji hope to gain from Japan (especially in terms of trade) in the future? Will Japan be able to realize its traditional economic objectives (ex. fisheries) and emerging (ex. oil, gas, deep-sea mining) interests in the region?

Ambassador Mataitoga:  Fiji looks to Japan for Small and Medium Enterprise Investors and the development of cooperative business relations that would enhance the development of our agricultural sector to be competitive. In particular Fiji needs Japanese farms technology, management skills and knowledge, in developing on a commercial scale agro-processed products for the Japanese and other overseas markets. In this regard, opportunities for fresh fruit and vegetables, fruit and vegetable extracts, alcohol, water, spa & wellness products, food items etc., would be a priority. Japan is already a large importer of fresh and frozen tuna from Fiji. This will grow in the future and may also target processing these for canned tuna etc. In certain boutique products like pearl, Japanese participation is already significant. In the tourism sector, Japanese interest has grown significantly with some hotels now owned and operated by Japanese for Japanese visitors. Public utilities sector may be of interest to Japanese Companies. And, I hope that one or two of the major projects in the comings years will be built by Japan. These kinds project do carry a high level of diplomatic footprint with them. As regards, Deep Sea Mining (DSM) Fiji is still at the prospecting stage. And, the actual mining of seabed resources will be open to Japan – just as it will be open to any other countries.

SOURCE: PACIFIC ISLAND SOCIETY/PACNEWS

O’Neill says most asylum seekers economic opportunists

Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister says he believes most asylum seekers being held at the Australia-run detention centre on Manus Island are economic opportunists whose claims will be rejected.

In an interview with the ABC, Peter O’Neill said his government believes most of the asylum seekers at the centre are not genuine, saying a substantial number will be returned to their home countries within weeks.

Mr O’Neill said the PNG government was negotiating with those countries — from which the asylum seekers had fled — saying he was hopeful those countries would care about their citizens and not persecute them.

Mr O’Neill said a recent hunger strike and blockade at the centre was fuelled by detainees’ anger at drawn-out processing periods.

Sourced: Radio New Zealand International

 

PNG mining conference calling for investment in destruction

The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) has branded the Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) 13th Mining and Petroleum Conference happening in Sydney this week as an exercise in encouraging investment in destruction.

“This conference is aiming at not only showcasing existing opportunities for destructive investment but also highlighting PNG’s status as the first country to try the untested and potentially devastating industry of sea bed mining,” commented Maureen Penjueli, PANG’s coordinator.

“Investors must know what it actually means to invest in these industries, that it is an investment in environmental, social, economic and cultural destruction, which in turn makes this a high risk investment.”

Nautilus Minerals recently announced its financial report amounting to over K72 million (US$29.2 million) in cash and assets for this year. In addition, the company has managed to secure intellectual property rights as per its agreement with the PNG Government which plans to pave the way for a shipping contract. The Bank of South Pacific (BSP) has footed the state’s 15 percent share in the Solwara 1 project with a loan of US$120 million.

PNG is the first country to approve the process of sea bed mining despite vocal opposition by custom land owners, non-government groups, faith-based groups and scientists.  Recent research has shown that disregarding indigenous peoples rights to consent to such projects will only increase risk to mining industry and investors.

“Nautilus’ Solwara 1 sea bed mining project is fast advancing, yet there are issues that need to be addressed including the concern of provinces surrounding the Bismark Sea and their people…the Government of PNG seriously need to listen to its people,” said Penjueli.

“This project is not only at the forefront of new and unknown levels of destruction to the ocean ecosystems but has the audacity to try co-opt the cultural meaning from the ties that unite the Pacific – our Solwara. Our cultures and histories would never put their name to such disregard for that which has sustained us for centuries and neither should our governments,” she says.

The conference will discuss the impacts of the global downturn in commodity prices and what that means for the PNG economy and mining sectors.

“PNG’s mineral wealth has been at the expense of other economic sectors like agriculture the back bone of the people’s economy that have a greater capacity for greater distribution of the wealth from economic growth. In fact recent research is showing that major mining projects are having a detrimental effect on those sectors of greater importance to Papua New Guineans,” added Penjueli.

PANG argues that the focus on mining projects and attracting some of the richest companies in the world detracts from the real questions that need to be asked about how PNG, and other Pacific Island Countries, create an economic future that embraces Pacific lives and realities and has people at its centre.

“Instead of trying to drum up greater support for companies to pay a pittance to strip away PNG’s wealth, the global downturn is actually an opportunity to ask the harder questions about how PNG gets off its addiction to resource grabbing and focuses on building an economy that embraces and supports the cultural practices and realities of PNG life,” she concluded.

Nautilus Minerals Inc advancement with Solwara 1 project in PNG

  • Nautilus Minerals Inc. announced in May this year that Papua New Guinea’s 15 per cent stake (US$113 million) towards the completion of the first production stage of the Solwara 1 project, once paid, would secure ‘certain intellectual property rights’, along with the charter of a ‘production support vessel’.
  • PNG’s stake in this project is valued at $US120million (K364.74 million) and has been financed by Bank South Pacific.
  • The Papua New Guinea government has reduced its equity in Nautilus Minerals Incorporated’s Solwara 1 project from the initial 30 per cent to 15 per cent.
  • The PNG Government’s nominee in the Solwara 1 project Eda Kopa (Solwara) Limited.
  •  Nautilus announced that following the State nominee, Eda Kopa (Solwara) Limited, paying US$113 million (K284.6 million) into escrow for its 15% interest in the Solwara 1 Project up to first production, Nautilus was to secure for the State’s nominee certain intellectual property rights and the charter of a Production Support Vessel in order for the escrowed funds to be released.
  • There has been heavy opposition internationally and locally in PNG against the project.

lihir-island1