REGION
WHO CONTROLS THE PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM?

One wonders how the founding fathers of the South Pacific Forum meeting in 1972 would have thought then of an Australian Secretary-General for the Pacific Islands Forum.

By STAN SIMPSON in Suva

Feedback to the Toktok page

One wonders how the founding fathers of the South Pacific Forum meeting in 1972 would have thought then of an Australian Secretary-General for the Pacific Islands Forum.

Perhaps one could ask Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara this question. But we could also recall his message at the 30th anniversary of the Forum in Nauru in 2001 warning Pacific leaders to be vigilant in ensuring that they remained fully in control of their own destinies.

"Too often, aid had strings attached, and projects were devised which were more in line with the thinking of the donors," Ratu Mara warned, adding that the Forum's metropolitan members, Australia and New Zealand "have not always been ready to show understanding of our problems, and they have sought to impose their solutions in an insensitive way."

Well, despite strong opposition and against the wishes of many Pacific countries we now have an Australian leading the Forum.

But this is not about Greg Urwin. This is about Australia.

This is about how much the Forum has changed over the years, but in particular, who is influencing these changes and for what purpose. This is about the danger in the imbalance of power at the Forum which is weakening its regionalism and its ability to decide as a region what to speak or act on.

Is the Forum enabling Pacific states to have a stronger independent say in international affairs, or has it become a means to manage the voice and actions of Pacific states?

To try to be positive, perhaps one could say that what we now have is a more honest picture of who really runs things at the Forum. Let's not kid ourselves that a Pacific Islander at the helm will make much difference, because in reality Australia runs the show.

Is there any initiative or policy change suggested by Australia in recent memory that has been rejected by the Forum because it is not in the interest of island countries? There is a chronic symptom with the Forum that Australia pushes and pushes until there is "consensus&Mac226;" and it gets what it wants. Our leaders have not learned to say "No" to Australia, or if they do, they have been outmaneuvered, lacked the capacity, or are simply bulldozed. Most often it has ended up with "Yes, Sir, Australia," and "Thank You Sir, Australia."

Forum communiqués from past years have had to be significantly watered down to satisfy Australian interests.

In 1997, in the Cook Islands, John Howard simply remained stubborn on the issue of climate change refusing to entertain the request by small island states that a strong statement was needed on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. After having his way, he came out to smilingly tell reporters that "there was a wide range of views, but in the end there was consensus". Island leaders were left stamping their feet in frustration.

Since 2000, when West Papua finally made it onto agenda, the Forum has been dragging its feet over the issue because Australia has been adamant about not ruffling Indonesia.

The Forum Communique 2002 statement on plutonium shipments was seriously undermined because while it reiterated island leaders continuing concerns over the shipments of radioactive materials through the region, it had to note the "reservation by Australia."

Also last year, despite pressing concerns such as the crisis in the Solomon Islands, Australia was much more concerned about the Forum making a strong statement on Zimbabwe, as it was leading the group looking at Zimbabwe's membership of the Commonwealth.

A little resistance was put up by island states during negotiations for the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), and Australia and NZ were excluded from this, but they cleverly brought themselves in again with the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER). Officials insist PACER is not a free trade agreement, but regularly fail to disclose the clause that qualifies it as a free trade agreement in the making. Forum officials do admit that there will be "major adjustment" for Pacific countries like Fiji when PACER becomes a free trade agreement, but one wonders already what lollies or threats will be thrown our way to make us adjust.

While some have argued that the region does benefit from various forms of Australian aid, AusAID itself admits: "The objective of the Australian aid program is clear. It is to advance Australia's national interest. The Australian private sector plays a significant role in helping to achieve that objective - the program and its success relies heavily upon Australian expertise to identify, design and implement aid projects".

It is estimated that 70 per cent of Australian aid goes into the pocket of Australian consultancy corporations, and some have rightly pointed out that "economic reform and governance" projects in the aid program seek to export Australia&Mac226;s own neo-liberal policies into the states, public institutions and economies of the Pacific countries.

What is alarming is this increasing and unabashed trend where the Pacific is being created in Australia's image, politically and economically. We now see proposals for a single currency for the region - the Australian dollar. Surely all can see who this will benefit.

There is also this ridiculous suggestion from Australia that the smaller island countries of the region are not viable, and should form themselves into a political federation of states to avoid costly national political and bureaucratic structures and "inappropriately elevated international representation".

It is not only insulting to present day populations of the Pacific, no matter how small, but also insulting the history of the islands that have had viable sustainable communities for many centuries. Who is defining what is viable here?

People are not being seen as peoples but as entities that should be managed and governed.

In its obsession with the management and efficiency of Pacific islands in order to facilitate its economic interests and security, Australia forgets that governance must respect people's rights. But Pacific peoples and leaders themselves must also remember to stand up for their rights. Learn to say "No".

Stanley Simpson is the Coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG). The views expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of the network.