Fool Me Once: Pacific Free Trade (Pacer PLUS Negotiations).

Pacific Islands Business Magazine "We Say" column echos the sentiment of the Trans-Tasman 'bait & switch' gamesmanship and diplomatic sleight of hand deals, occurring around the fringes of the Pacer-PLUS Trade negotiations. Apparently,  as the article alluded to, some of Pacific Island States, haven't heard of the idiom: "Fool Me Once".

Croz Walsh's blog July 6th posting does address the fact of the sinister removal of Dr. Roman Grynberg, employed as Economic Governance Director at the Pacific Forum.

The excerpt of "We Say":
WE SAY: [Pacific Island] Leaders hijacked by powerful nations

 

‘It is time Pacific leaders stop bending backwards to see the western point of view that clearly runs counter to their own interests and find their own way in matters of trade that would benefit them all as a region. The old lesson of strength in unity holds true particularly for the Pacific Islands, which as stand-alones can be so easily exploited. Pacific Islands leaders must acknowledge that the Pacific Way is all about inclusiveness and seeing the whole picture for the benefit of all’

The outcome of last month’s Pacific Islands Forum Trade Ministers meeting in Samoa and the manner in which the ANZAC nations so easily got away with so many points to their advantage once again shows the tendency for Pacific Islands leaders to aim for the low hanging fruit, then allowing their agenda to be hijacked by powerful western nations and finally showing satisfaction when crumbs are thrown their way by these nations.
It also shows the tendency of the western nations in the region to ride rough shod over Pacific Islands leaders and by extension their people while making it appear that great favours have been conferred on them.
At last month’s meeting, the Pacific Islands leaders have given too much away too soon and too easily without adequate consultation among themselves despite earlier commitments to do so.
For instance, at the previous trade ministers meeting of African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) leaders, the Pacific Islands nations’ leaders had categorically stated that national consultations before any PACER-Plus negotiations could take place. More sensibly, it was also stated that a fully functional regional trade office, headed by a competent chief trade advisor, needed to be in place to head the office.
Significantly, at this ACP meeting where these statements were made, the trade ministers of Australia and New Zealand were not present. But at the Apia meeting last month which Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean and his New Zealand counterpart Tim Groser attended, the Pacific Islands leaders seemed to have made a mockery of those earlier statements and gave in so easily to the ANZAC nations’ demands.
Consequently, the Pacific Islands leaders gamely agreed to start trade negotiations immediately after this year’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Cairns and that too without the important office of the Chief Trade Advisor (CTA) being in place.

Effectively, this leaves no time for national consultations as was agreed to by the leaders at the ACP meeting since the Forum meeting is due next month. Worse, the islands are nowhere near the process of setting up the CTA office or identifying and appointing a competent official to head it.
It is no surprise that trade advisers to the Pacific Islands leaders were left disappointed at this development where the leaders gave away so much in the course of a closed door lunch meeting with the ANZAC nations’ leaders—reminiscent of the green room meetings that happened with leaders sans their advisers at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) meetings.

Not only did the Pacific Islands leaders agree to starting the negotiations after the conclusion of the Forum meet in Cairns, but they committed to finish the process within a timeframe of five years though the western nations are highly unlikely to wait that long and will fully take charge of the agenda and exploit the cracks in the Pacific Islands’ collective leadership to press for a conclusion of the negotiations far earlier.
Knowing well the disarray in the leadership and the weak stance of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in most matters when it comes to dealing with the western donor nations, they won over the Pacific Islands leadership by committing to set up the CTA office and funding it to the tune of half-a-million dollars every year—which indeed must have been seen as a huge favour by Pacific Islands trade ministers.

This seemed to be incentive enough for the islands ministers to bow reverentially and gratefully to what Australia and New Zealand wanted.
Having gamely agreed to these concessions, it is a question of time when the two economically powerful nations get the smaller and poorer Pacific Islands nations on their side to extract further concessions much to the disadvantage of the larger and far more resource rich islands nations like Papua New Guinea and Fiji, which have rightly begun voicing their concerns already.
This is a classic ‘throw a freebie, win them over and then drive wedges between them’ colonial-style policy at work. Divide and rule is a time tested colonial policy that has been used successfully by western powers over the centuries. The trouble is that some of the nations—particularly the Pacific islands countries—are none the wiser for it and still fall for it just as they did a century ago.

There is little doubt this will lead to deepening fissures between the bigger Pacific Islands nations and the smaller ones as the negotiations progress. And going by how beholden the Forum Secretariat has shown itself to be to western powers leaves little hope that it can ever play a conciliatory role.

 Its recent response on a number of issues including the handling of the Fiji situation is testimony to its increasingly weaker role in regional affairs.

This clearly raises big questions in the minds of Pacific people whether their trade ministers and their leaders have the nous to guard their interests both nationally and regionally.
Leaders and people from the more resource-rich Melanesian nations who have more recently come to value their natural wealth and also begun to realise the potential of their economies can only feel betrayed by the smaller nations that have comparatively little to lose vis a vis the niggardly favours that they can expect in return. They cannot be blamed for harbouring such feelings.

This does not bode well for regionalism, the pursuit of which has begun to look akin to chasing a chimera for some time now with such a string of non-starters in regional initiatives over the past several decades. 
It is time Pacific leaders stop bending backwards to see the western point of view that clearly runs counter to their own interests and find their own way in matters of trade that would benefit them all as a region. The old lesson of strength in unity holds true particularly for the Pacific islands, which as stand-alones can be so easily exploited.
Pacific islands leaders must acknowledge that the Pacific Way is all about inclusiveness and seeing the whole picture for the benefit of all. Indeed, that is the ethic that has helped the Pacific people thrive so well in some of the world’s remotest locations.