U.S think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently produced publication titled: "Strengthening Governance and Development in the Pacific" highlights the American pivot to the Asia Pacific region and also attempted to frame the issues of Good Governance and Developments in the South Pacific.
Strengthening Governance and Development in the Pacific
By Gregory Poling and Elke Larsen
May 4, 2012
As the United States focuses its energy on engaging the Asia-Pacific region, it has a growing interest in promoting good governance practices in Oceania. More than just democratic values and respect for human rights are at stake, as important as those are. The Pacific population is set to reach 18 million by 2050 and unemployment rates are already alarmingly high. The best means of ensuring regional stability is for economic development to truly take root. But it is difficult to attract capital to a region where poor governance means there is often high risk associated with investment.
It is therefore in the interests of the United States to promote good governance as the key driver of economic development in this region.
Isolation is often blamed as the primary disincentive to investment in Oceania. Isolation undeniably remains an important consideration, but investment can be attracted to even the most isolated islands if good governance is practiced.
A case in point is Mauritius, which lies in the Indian Ocean 1,242 miles off the coast of Africa. Nobel Prize laureate James Meade claimed in the 1960s that Mauritius would likely become a failed state because of its isolation. And yet by 2000 Mauritius’s economic rise was being hailed as a “miracle.” In reality, though, Mauritius’s development was not miraculous, but rather the result of calculated good governance practices that transformed the island into an attractive destination for investment.
Since the 1970s, there has been a consensus in Mauritian politics to promote growth via sound economic policies, export zones, respect for property rights, and zero tolerance for corruption. Mauritius currently ranks 23rd among the 183 economies in the World Bank’s “Ease of Doing Business” index. With a population of approximately 1.3 million, Mauritius in 2011 had a per capita GDP of $15,000.
In contrast, the most diversified Pacific economy, Fiji, with a population of 890,000 people, had a 2011 GDP per capita of $4,600.
Recent developments underscore the negative impact that governance issues can have on development and help explain why the economies of the two most populous Pacific Island countries, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, contrast sharply with those of states like Mauritius. For example, Papua New Guinea’s Esso Highlands Ltd. liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, a joint venture project operated by Exxon Mobil, is expected to create local employment and increase Papua New Guinea’s GDP by 15–20 percent. However, land ownership issues caused serious delays in 2009 and again this year as landowners used threats of violence in attempts to extract rents.
The absence of the rule of law in the Highlands region became apparent with numerous events that stopped work in March and April on the LNG project, and violence by illegal miners near the Porgera Gold Mine prompted the government to deploy troops in January and again in late April. Former military commander Major General Jerry Singirok said of the latest deployment, “It’s important that the investors see the government is concerned about the major investments…it’s an act of deterrence.” Despite the government’s moves to protect foreign investments, however, the highly publicized difficulties faced by Exxon Mobil and other companies will serve as a cautionary tale to potential investors.
Papua New Guinea is also facing political turmoil at the national level.
The judicial and legislative branches have been deadlocked over a March 28 Judicial Conduct Bill giving the parliament the power to remove judges. The bill would have lasting implications for Papua New Guinea’s separation of powers and political stability. This will affect how risky the country looks to foreign investors. Papua New Guinea is already ranked 101 out of the 183 economies in the “Ease of Doing Business” index. Tellingly, its poorest indicator on the index is the enforcement of contracts, on which it ranks 163rd. Undermining judicial independence will only make that indicator worse.
One finds further evidence of the importance of governance on investor confidence in Fiji. According to an International Monetary Fund report released in February, Fiji’s 2006 coup coincided with a severe decline in economic growth. From the 1990s until the 2006 coup, economic growth averaged 2.75 percent per year. It has dipped to less than 0.25 percent per year since, well below Fiji’s potential considering the economic boom elsewhere in the Asia Pacific.
A 2009 World Bank survey found that the greatest barrier to firms investing in Fiji was political instability. The country is presently ranked 77th in the “Ease of Doing Business” index.
There are some bright spots. On March 9, Fiji began a consultation process for a new constitution, and it looks as if the country may be on track for a return to democracy. The military regime headed by Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama has announced that elections will be held in 2014 and will be open to all candidates. These steps toward better governance and political stability have already resulted in greater investor confidence. For instance, U.S.-based Gibson Guitars on April 20 announced plans to open a mahogany processing factory by 2013 that will create 2,000 jobs.
The geopolitics of Oceania are changing, providing the Pacific Islands with an opportunity to break out of their relative isolation. Lying as they do within the vast expanse between Asia and the United States, the Pacific Island countries offer investors largely untapped economic opportunities: mineral resources to meet Asia’s booming demand, the world’s richest tuna fisheries, and vast tourism possibilities, among others. If properly developed, these nations have the potential to link their economies to the massive Asian and North American markets.
But tapping this potential depends on improving governance practices and reducing risk.
The United States has reiterated its commitment to the region’s development and has backed up that commitment with actions: sending the largest-ever U.S. delegation to the Pacific Islands Forum last September, opening a new USAID regional office in October, and supporting Vanuatu’s and Samoa’s accession to the WTO this year, among others. It therefore has a proven interest in promoting good governance as a critical part of helping the Pacific Islands maintain stability and reach their economic potential.
(This Commentary first appeared in the May 3, 2012, issue of Pacific Partners Outlook, http://csis.org/publication/pacific-partners-outlook-strengthening-governance-and-development-pacific.)
Gregory Poling is a research assistant, and Elke Larsen a researcher, with the Pacific Partners Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues.
It seems quite indicative of the CSIS publication to extol the virtues of the World Band and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as well as cite their reports and haphazardly draw conclusions from its findings. The issue of good governance in the context of IMF is contradictory, considering the voting system within the particular institution.
A useful counter point to the sentiments raised by the CSIS publication can best be addressed by Non Governmental Group (NGO) Action Aid., whose 2009 report titled "IMF Policies and Their Impact On Education, Health & Womens Rights in Kenya- The Fallacies and Pitfalls of the IMF Policies" [www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/aaik_imf_policies.pdf]
The above mentioned CSIS publication stated: "According to an International Monetary Fund report released in February,
Fiji’s 2006 coup coincided with a severe decline in economic growth.
From the 1990s until the 2006 coup, economic growth averaged 2.75
percent per year".
The cascading effects of the 2008 Wall Street implosion, gives readers pause for thought, regarding the correlation and causality of any decline in economic growth in Fiji, let alone the world economy.
More so, it calls into questions the inability of the IMF or the World Bank to have prevented the Global Financial Crisis in the first place and dampen the damaging ripples of the financial Tsunami still unwinding in Europe.
The taglines "rule of law" and "good governance" are ostensibly used in many academic reports to point out short falls in a certain nation's state policies, in tackling corruption related problems. Or the lack of political will to reform plagued institutions.
The question that begs to be asked, is whether think tanks like CSIS are equally capable of reporting the shortcomings of governance in Pacific regions, as well as the glaring control frauds occurring in Wall Street or actively point out the revolving door between financial regulators and K- street lobbyists.
PBS Frontline documentary "Money, Power & Wall Street" does provide yeoman's work in examining the timeline and events prior to the Global Financial Crisis.
The above listed Frontline documentary is exceptionally adept in addressing the timeline of events, it rather avoids calling for prosecution occurring for criminal acts within the financial system. The perpetrators in this sense, aided and abetted by politicians, have formed a cartel that controls the levers of power.
Bill Moyers articulated this revolving door syndrome in a TV segment (posted below).
For years, high-ranking administration officials have spun through the revolving door between the White House and American big business. But how have they influenced the regulation and reform of industries from which they came, and American democracy as a result?
Dr. Bill Black,addresses those in grained flaws, in a podcast (posted below) that is fittingly titled:"Our System is so Flawed, Fraud is Mathematically Guaranteed".
CSIS publication ends with the following sentence: "[The U.S] therefore has a proven interest in promoting good governance as a
critical part of helping the Pacific Islands maintain stability and
reach their economic potential".
It is increasingly obvious, that the "good governance" and "rule of law' in the U.S is in fact crony-capitalism, thinly veiled in democratic ideals. Given that resources are presently being exported from the region, readers should be concerned whether the CSIS, is actually advocating the same crony capitalism model for the Pacific, as a means to reach their economic potential.
Fiji One TV segment covers the recent remarks of Australian Ambassador to the U.S, Kim Beazely (K.B) in an interview with "The Diplomat" dated April 14th 2012 titled "How Australia Sees America".
"The Diplomat "(T.D) interview excerpt that focused on US's engagement in the Pacific and Australia's assumed sphere of influence:
(T.D) Within the alliance, the South Pacific has traditionally
fallen within Australia’s sphere of influence. In recent years,
Australia has taken the lead on engaging its neighbors in the region on
behalf of the West, including taking on major peacekeeping operations in
Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands and taking the lead on engagement with Fiji.
However, significant challenges have emerged in a number of these
countries. Democracy hasn’t taken hold and there now appears to be a
slitting of the Pacific Islands Forum along Melanesian and Polynesian
lines.
This raises the question of whether the United States should not
only take a more assertive role in the region, but also advance an alternative diplomatic approach
in situations like Fiji or PNG. From Australia’s perspective, do you
see any tension forming within ANZUS on diplomatic engagement in the
South Pacific? And, how concerned are you about the rise of
anti-Australian sentiment and the emergence of the Melanesian Spearhead
Group as a possible alternative to the Pacific Islands Forum?
(K.B) The thing that we have always appreciated in our relationship with
the United States is that the U.S. has always kept its engagement with
the South Pacific islands under constant discussion with us. They engage
us on where American policy is going. Clearly, from our point of view,
the U.S. determines its own direction wherever it goes. It will
rationalize that policy direction with its friends and others as the
U.S. sees fit.
From our point of view, what’s much more important is that the U.S.
is engaged. We think that it is good for the countries of the region
that the U.S. involves itself. We have been arguing to – rather than
with – the United States for a very long time that they become more
involved in the region. So, we would do nothing but encourage them.
The region is getting increasingly complex as the leaders in the
region become more adept at international diplomacy and more aware of
the character of international relations. Australia doesn’t own any of
this territory. We did once – at least part of it. But, we don’t own any
of it now. So, our concern for that region is that they be wealthy,
happy, cheerful, well-governed. That is our objective. And, we all stand
for democracy. So, we are prepared to provide material assistance where
that aid is sought – not imposed – by countries in the region. Because
the U.S. tends to have very civil values, the U.S. is engaged in
pursuing those objectives too.
We don’t have any problems with the U.S. keeping the backdoor open as
long as they consult with us. Clearly the U.S. will make up its own
mind on what direction it wants to go. So long as it doesn’t give us any
surprises, we have no basis for complaint.
The MSG has been around quite a long while, and we have coexisted
with it jointly. So, it’s not something that has us phased or fussed.
More views from Kim Beazely below:
Trade & Security Lecture At University of Virginia March 28 2012(Video posted below)
The 11th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations is currently taking place in Melbourne, Australia. Although negotiators have agreed to the broad outlines of the TPP agreement, a new trade issue has created a snag in the process: the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions. Australia has refused to accept the investor-state dispute settlement, and U.S. industry associations are urging President Barack Obama to overcome these objections. These investor-state dispute settlement provisions have been included in U.S. investment treaties and trade agreements with more than 50 countries, and there are over 2,500 of these accords currently on record. These provisions, however, give advantages to large economies and can cripple small island states like Pacific Island nations.
Obama describes the TPPA as a "a trade agreement for the 21st century" that improves on and rectifies the past problems in U.S. trade and investment treaties and trade agreements with more than 50 countries, and there are over 2,500 of these accords currently on record. These provisions, however, give advantages to large economies and can cripple small island states like Pacific Island nations.
Nine countries are currently negotiating the TPPA:the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore. Japan is in preliminary talks, and Canada and Mexico are looking to join. Although the negotiations are being held in secret, leaked documents confirm that the TPPA is a “NAFTA on steroids.” Contrary to democratic practice, the documents connected to the negotiations will remain secret for four years after being signed or dismissed.
Arnie Saiki
"For most Pacific Island countries (PICs), trade has been a series of disadvantageous agreements with larger economies that negotiate access to island resources. The PICs have remained economically tethered to larger economies despite attempts at small-island integration by sub-regional institutions like the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) or the more progressive Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Just last year, a new sub-regional group called the Polynesian Leader’s Group challenged the MSG, which had made waves by advocating participation in an alternative economic system."
The United States is leading the negotiations and has a great deal of influence over the outcome of the agreement, which covers a vast range of subject matters, including tariffs on goods, trade in services, labor and the environment, telecommunications, and intellectual property. For Pacific Islands, however, the investor rights chapters may offer the greatest challenge to Pacific Island environmental resources.
The small Pacific Island economies are not formally a part of the TPPA negotiations and yet they are tethered to the larger economies of Australia, New Zealand, Chile, France, and the United States. Pacific Island countries are also not member economies of APEC (the economic regional forum that spawned the TPPA). They participate only as observers through the Pacific Island Forum, which facilitates the neo-liberal economic agenda through a basket of sub-regional agreements like the Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA). Still, larger economies pay considerable attention to the Pacific Island countries because of their resources, like fisheries, precious metals, and minerals, as well as their strategic value as military outposts and waterways.
Pacific Trade
Throughout Oceania, native peoples separated by thousands of miles share similar cultural and often linguistic bonds. Long before contact with the west, Pacific peoples not only were connected by the currents of their ocean homes but had established trans-pacific navigational routes, trade, and for the most part a sustainable relationship with their environmental resources.
For most Pacific Island countries (PICs), trade has been a series of disadvantageous agreements with larger economies that negotiate access to island resources.
The PICs have remained economically tethered to larger economies despite attempts at small-island integration by sub-regional institutions like the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) or the more progressive Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Just last year, a new sub-regional group called the Polynesian Leader’s Group challenged the MSG, which had made waves by advocating participation in an alternative economic system. By joining with a bloc like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), Pacific Islands might do better than the neoliberal programs advocated by PIF.
In comparison with other emerging economies, Pacific Islands have poor performance records. Much of the blame rests on the neo-liberalism of regional institutions like the ADB and APEC. Since the late 1990s, an increase in aid-based relationships has not only stunted the development of many island peoples but also provided a dumping ground for overstock and consumer detritus. Although private investment has had some success in developing traditional farm and fishery practices, these projects are dependent on funding from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the EU, the World Bank, and U.S. and Australian aid organizations.
In a 2006, the ADB examined small island states among the developing member economies, suggesting that isolated and vulnerable economies remain under economic stress as a result of their governments’ inability to guarantee the basic security of their people.
In 2008, as a response to its self-funded study, the ADB worked with international partners to deliver infrastructure services in the Pacific to streamline private-sector investment to industrial sectors like energy, water, waste, security, and telecommunications, as well as mining, cash crops, and fisheries. The Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF) is one such organization.
Privatization is the latest vehicle for the exploitation of island resources. But these international investment projects, along with the bilateral investment treaties that support them, have yet to provide any long-term sustainable cultural or environmental benefit to small island economies.
Impact of the TPPA
Embroiled in a decades-long struggle for independence from Chile, Rapa NuiTPPA that Chile signed in 2005. Since joining the TPPA, Rapa Nui has been fighting a tidal wave of development proposals for mining projects, airfields, ports, casinos, and hotels. These projects, which would irreparably change a UN World Heritage site, primarily benefit the Chilean government and the investment regime. For example, through the transnational Transoceanica Holdings, international investors funded the development of the Hotel Hanga Roa on land belonging to the Hitorangi clan. In 2010, as the Hanga Roa prepared to open, members of the clan occupied the hotel. Rapa Nui erupted in violence when Chilean President Sebastián Piñera sent navy cruisers and hundreds of armed security forces to end the unarmed protests.
In recent discussions around the TPPA, little attention has focused on how a regional “Asia-Pacific” free-trade agreement will actually impact Pacific Islands. But some recent examples of investments in the region are quite revealing. In Papua New Guinea, Canada’s Nautilus Minerals has launched a new deep seabed-mining project called Solwara 1. Large deposits of gold, silver, nickel, copper, manganese, and other rare-earth minerals are buried deep in the seabed, and the method for extracting these minerals – basically vacuuming up the seabed onto a barge – has only recently been developed.
Little is known about the deep seabed, and no conclusive environmental study has been completed. But the life that thrives in this unusual environment is sulfur-based rather than oxygen-based. When the sludge is extracted onto a barge, it is then separated from the commodity metals and minerals and then dumped back into the ocean. The impact of this sulfuric sediment absorbed by fish or reefs is unknown. However, sulfuric changes in the environment negatively affect oxygen-based plants and animals, as people living with vog (volcanic smog) know all too well.
After the International Seabed Authority changed the regulations for deep seabed mineral extraction, Nautilus acquired even more international investment to lease large tracts of deep seabed in Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands, and New Zealand. These changes have prompted other Canadian, U.S., and Australian mining companies to lease seabed areas in the Exclusive Economic Zones of many other Pacific Island Countries. This mining deregulation, which has resulted from agreements like the TPPA, will likely push ocean biodiversity closer to what the International Programme on the State of the Ocean describes as “irreversible, catastrophic change.”
Consider also the case of Endeavor Mining, which recently offered the Cook Islands government a partnership proposal worth $1 billion over three-and-a-half years for mineral and mining rights to the seabed resources. Typically, since Endeavor is also an independent merchant bank focusing on the global natural resources sector, it will likely offer investors a package of financial incentive benefits that will reward investors at the expense of a state whose 2009 GDP was just short of $200 million.
If made responsible for cleanup in the event of accidents, island governments and taxpayers could be liable for any financial losses. As a result, Cook Islanders might find themselves in an ecological catastrophe and mired in debt. Additionally, to qualify for loans to pay back this debt, multilateral lending institutions may well insist on austerity measures that would lead to further deregulation. Locked into a variety of competing investor agreements, the Pacific islands will find themselves in a race to the bottom, both economically and environmentally.
If the investor-rights “chapter 11” provisions in NAFTA provide any clues about how the TPPA will privilege international investor agreements over government regulations, the Pacific Islands will be opened up to tremendous resource exploitation. Environmental regulations are all that protect the fragile biodiversity of the region. And the costs associated with the despoliation will largely fall on the shoulders of Pacific islanders themselves. The corporations will reap the profits; the Pacific Islands will have to pay the long-term bill.
Looking Beyond the TPP
The average GDP of the smaller developing Pacific islands is around $350 million, with the exception of Fiji, whose annual GDP is around $3.5 billion, and Papua New Guinea at around $9.5 billion (for perspective, New Zealand’s GDP is around $125 billion). There is a tremendous gap between the combined GDP of the islands and the value of the resources exploited from these countries.
This gap represents a strategic imperative for Pacific island economies to integrate along the lines of sustainable trade and sensible environmental regulations. The TPPA is certainly not an equitable integration scheme.
Rather, this NAFTA of the Pacific is like tossing a shark in a fish tank. The TPPA will give even less room for PICs to negotiate positive environmental regulations or manage to accrue social or economic benefits from their natural resources.
Pacific Islanders need to be part of the negotiating process to ensure they are at least able to integrate their commodity resources, since they are critically unequipped to develop their economies to scale with the larger economies. They also need to create a regional regulatory agency that can independently manage the various trade and investment agreements. Without democratic input and democratic control, the TPPA will vacuum up all the resources of the Pacific and leave a poisoned ocean in its wake.
Recommended Citation:
Arnie Saiki, "Vacuuming Up the Pacific's Resources" (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, March 5, 2012)
In one of the coming decades’ most important developments, tensions between the United States and China have begun to escalate on a whole host of new fronts. Prospects for the presidency have soared to new heights of monetary nationalism, the Obama administration has announced plans to station 2,500 marines in the Pacific, and Chinese diplomats have turned up the heat on American allies in the South China Sea.
As in all great rivalries, China and America both have proxies whom they support, provided the junior partners act in their interest. One such proxy nation is Papua New Guinea, the resource-rich Pacific nation whose domestic political instability has made it a surprising focus of American and Chinese geopolitical maneuvering.
John F.M. Kocsis
"As in all great rivalries, China and America both have proxies whom they support, provided the junior partners act in their interest[...]
A surface-level reading of this scenario focuses on an internal struggle within government leadership over political control and resources, a common occurrence in developing nations. However, a broader and perhaps more accurate view of the situation requires putting it in terms of American and Chinese interests[...]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished Somare for getting too close to his neighbor to the north. She warned of a “resource curse,” insinuating that he would fail as leader if he lacked commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability. Clinton has taken a Kissinger-esque stand when it comes to the nation, urging the U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, “Let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in and let’s just talk straight, realpolitik[...]"
Of potential flashpoints for conflict in the Pacific arena, Papua New Guinea is generally less studied than its regional counterparts, such as the Philippines and Vietnam. New Guinean history is primarily viewed through the lens of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel. This ignores the island’s long history on the world stage. A battleground between Allied and Japanese forces in World War II, the country was restored to Australian ownership at the campaign’s end. Sir Michael Somare, a perennial leader of Papua New Guinea, finally won his people independence in 1975 – but ever since, the Melanesian state has been fraught with conflict.
Despite recent military developments, Papua New Guinea is ostensibly in the throes of a petty constitutional crisis. Sir Michael Somare, in his fourth nonconsecutive role as prime minister until this past August, has returned from his convalescence in Singapore claiming to be the country’s rightful legislative chief. The person serving in that position now, Peter O’Neill, toppled the placeholder Somare who appointed in August and was voted by the parliament as the rightful prime minister. The small nation’s supreme court ruled that because Somare left for heart surgery with full intention to reclaim his seat, he is legally entitled to the role of prime minister. By and large, parliament disagrees – and Papua New Guinean ministers strongly support the new prime minister, Peter O’Neill. This vehement disagreement at the highest levels of government led to a mutiny attempt to remove O’Neill and restore Somare.
The rebellion was successful at first. Hired by Michael Somare, the Indonesian colonel Yaura Sasa and his troops seized control of the military barracks in Port Moresby, the capital, and captured Brigadier-General Francis Agwi, the Commander of the PNG Defense Force. After days of escalation, soldiers surrendered their weapons on January 30. They promised to stand down instead of facing prison time. The colonel was jailed but later released on the grounds that he was merely operating under government commands. The government of Sir Michael Somare, which the Supreme Court deemed legitimate, had, after all, executed the order.
A surface-level reading of this scenario focuses on an internal struggle within government leadership over political control and resources, a common occurrence in developing nations. However, a broader and perhaps more accurate view of the situation requires putting it in terms of American and Chinese interests. Papua New Guinea is an attractive destination for investors due to its untapped 22.6 trillion cubic feet in natural gas, not to mention its copper and gold wealth. Exxon Mobil is working on a $15.7 billion liquefied natural gas project that should due to be completed in 2014. The China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) is developing China’s largest overseas mining investment, a $1.6 billion attempt to exploit 140 million tons of nickel.
As is typical of situations in which foreign investment is involved, outside nations require government compliance in forging ahead with their designs. China had an easy time injecting itself in the nation when Somare was in charge. The once and perhaps future prime minister supported Chinese interests in his Environment Act, which amended the law so that landowners could no longer contest damaging activities on their land – a move that authorized the MCC’s plan to dump toxic mine waste into the Bismarck Sea. This provision was repealed by the O’Neill government, which claimed to look out for both the environment and the rights of its constituents.
The acts of Peter O’Neill are not necessarily so principled. While Somare instituted a “look north” policy during his tenure, O’Neill has increasingly conducted his primary business with Julia Gillard and her Labor government in Australia. Sir Michael Somare saw China as the country to emulate. He invited members of the People’s Liberation Army to train the Papua New Guinea Defense Force. He also established a program for PNG officers to undertake military training in the People’s Republic of China for up to three years. Historically, since Papua New Guinean independence, training aid had been under the aegis of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. In the past couple of months, O’Neill has attempted to revert to those days, inviting Australian troops back to the island.
Last spring, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished Somare for getting too close to his neighbor to the north. She warned of a “resource curse,” insinuating that he would fail as leader if he lacked commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability. Clinton has taken a Kissinger-esque stand when it comes to the nation, urging the U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, “Let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in and let’s just talk straight, realpolitik.” She bluntly claimed that China is trying to “come in under us” regarding “Papua New Guinea’s huge energy find.” As if there was any doubt, she strongly asserted, “We are in a competition with China.”
U.S. diplomats aren’t the only ones to recognize the recent skirmish’s implications on the Chinese-American divide. Resentful PNG citizens have circulated text messages claiming, “The Somare regime existed through Asian mafia’s funding.” Papua New Guinea has experienced the rapid rise in Chinese immigrants to which the entire Pacific region has become accustomed. Nativist anti-Chinese riots ulcerated in 2009; accordingly, most citizens strongly prefer America to China. However, as America’s unipolar moment fades into a period of increased Chinese assertiveness, it is not hard to imagine a future of Chinese dominance in Papua New Guinea. Pacific Islanders might not like their new neighbors, but many established politicians have a tendency to get along with Beijing just fine. As China’s aggression continues, its influence is unlikely to go anywhere but up. .
Rep. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) is the Ranking Member and former Chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
In Samoa, when a tauta (landman) advances an opinion about fishing or navigation, he is met with the reply "O le va’ai le tauta" – or, "that is the opinion of a landlubber."
In response to Fiji’s 2006 coup, Australia and New Zealand have advanced a policy to force Fiji back to democracy. Based on a Eurocentric mindset that fails to take into account Fiji’s colonial history, complex ethnic mix and chiefly, provincial, religious and family rivalries, Australia and New Zealand imposed a wide range of sanctions on Fiji and cut off diplomatic channels.
Having no policy of its own, the U.S. marched in time, applying section 508 sanction law which severed U.S. aid to Fiji. U.S. sanctions, however, have had no consequence because U.S. aid to Fiji was less than $3 million per year.
Of consequence is Pakistan. In 1999, when General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the democratically-elected government of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the U.S. waived 508 sanction law, despite the fact that for nearly ten years General Musharraf never made good on his promise to resign his military commission and hold free, fair and transparent elections in Pakistan.
The U.S., like Australia and New Zealand, cooperated with Pakistan’s regime – even providing billions in aid – because we understood then like we should understand now that engagement is vital to our interests and necessary if our long-term objectives are peace, stability and democracy.
Do Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. consider Fiji vital to our interests? If not, I believe we should given China and Iran’s growing presence in the region. If so, we need a new way forward.The U.S. can no longer rely on landlubber diplomacy which seeks to force democracy by isolation. Every tautai (navigator) knows – democracy can’t be forced. Force is contrary to the order of democracy and contrary to our innate desire to choose.
To succeed in Fiji, we must start from the beginning. The legacy of Fiji’s colonial past has never been fully resolved since Fiji gained its independence in 1970. To date, Indians control many of the small businesses. Australia and New Zealand control major banking and commercial enterprises, and indigenous Fijians control much of the communal land and military establishment, with serious divisions existing between traditional leaders and lower-ranking Fijians.
So far, no resolutions have been established to provide balance and fairness to both Fijians and ethnic Indians. In the past 20 some years, Fiji has had four coups and three constitutions. In the two coups of 1987 and the political crisis of 2000, ethnic tensions played major roles.
Until we understand this beginning and begin to converse about it, democracy will not get underway. Having had several discussions with interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and dozens of others during my visits to Fiji, I believe U.S. leadership can help strengthen bilateral ties and improve regional conditions.
By employing smart diplomacy in Fiji – which has been the hallmark of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy initiative even in Myanmar – I have every hope that we can achieve equal suffrage and other political, economic and social reforms targeted under the “Strategic Framework for Change,” just as the interim Prime Minister seeks.
Asia - Pacific region is attracting the increasing attention of Western politicians against the backdrop of Chinese growing military and economic might. For instance the US influence had been indisputable until recently but today China’s intensifying efforts to raise its profile in the geostrategic area is something seen with the naked eye. US analysts sound the alarm saying the Chinese simply “pick up” the countries the US administration failed to build relationships with.
No doubt the Washington’s many years old human rights rhetoric, grown to become a foreign policy dogma, failed it. By ostracizing the ruling regimes in the Asia – Pacific for their incompatibility with “democratic values” in the US perception, it has involuntarily pushed them into China’s embrace. That’s the way it happened in case of Myanmar (Burma).
Till the USA criticized the Myanmar leadership for lack of freedom the Chinese promoted their interests there while cooperating with the powers that be of this poorest country at all levels. The Myanmar’s economy and infrastructure received from China dozens of billion of US dollars, about the same amount was rendered as military aid. Myanmar President U Thein Sein’s visit to China in 2011 became an evident prove of the growing bilateral cooperation. Then the China’s leadership said very important things about Beijing and Rangoon sharing strategic vision of international problems, the fact that couldn’t go unnoticed by the White House and not put it on guard.
The Myanmar’s geographic position has an important military strategic advantage – common border with India, China. Thailand and Laos. Myanmar is a good platform to exert pressure on China and exercise control over the strait of Malacca, passed by about 50 thousand ships yearly (one fifth or one fourth of the world commodity turnover). 11 millions barrels of oil are shipped through the strait daily. One of the oil consumers is China. Moreover Myanmar is rich in resources: oil, tin, tungsten, zinc, lead, copper, coal, precious stones, gas. It allows to easily win influential neighbors favor. Under the given circumstances Washington’s calls for the country’s international isolation will hardly produce any results. Myanmar will always find someone instead of the US.
Vladislav Gulevich: "The United States and Australia have an agreement on US military presence on Australian soil. No new bases are envisioned but the US servicemen have a right of permanent access to the Australia’s military infrastructure and the US naval presence in adjacent seas is to grow. Having military facilities in South Korea and Japan the United States is able to boost its influence in Western and Southern Asia-Pacific, including the South China Sea considered to be sovereign territory by the Chinese. The Sea control presupposes obvious geopolitical advantages once this waterway is the shortest and the most safe one for shipping from China, Japan and Russia to the Singapore strait and back.
New Zealand watches the Chinese Asia-Pacific diplomatic expansion closely, especially after China became close to the island nation of Fiji, situated in Southern Pacific, 1170 km from it. There is an apprehension that the very pace of Chinese – Fiji cooperation development may lead to one of the Fiji island becoming a place of China’s permanent naval presence. Here – the Chinese in Fiji, there – the Chinese in Timor. "
The same story takes place in case of a small island nation called Timor-Leste. The island enjoys an advantageous geographic position. It’s situated at arm’s length from neighboring Australia and Indonesia, the bottom of the Timor Sea is rich in oil and gas. For instance, the Bayu - Undan’s oil reserves are estimated to be $ 3 billion. The vicinity of the strait of Vetar is important too. It’s a deep water strait and is ideal for submarines passage from the Pacific into the Indian ocean. In contingency submarines effective activities will require control over it, that, in its turn, requires control over Timor-Leste.
In 2002 this former Portuguese colony eyed by Indonesia became independent. Since then the Washington and Beijing have been vying for influence there, the last one doing much better. The Chinese have already received a $ 378 million contract for two power plants construction. Light arms, uniform and other military equipment are bought in China. There is a 4000 Chinese diaspora on the island. A $ 3 billion credit from China was agreed on in January 2011. Before the career open Timorese used to get education in Australia or the USA to be promoted to high positions in politics or economy. Now it’s not the case anymore, they prefer to go to China for the purpose.
As the situation dictates, Washington strengthens its military strategic ties with Australia and New Zealand. An Australian military delegation headed by Stephen Smith, minister of defense, visited the US in July 2011 on the occasion of the 60 anniversary of the bilateral alliance. Afghanistan and growing might of India and China were among the issues topping the agenda. Australia confirmed its resolve to go on being the US “south anchor” in South-East Asia (1). US State Secretary Hillary Clinton made public the Washington’s intent to make the XXI century a century of the US Pacific policy (2). Australia is the major US ally in this part of the globe, its army strength is 51 thousand and it has over 19000 reservists. The country’s mobilization reserve is 4,9 million men. Canberra’s military expenditure is 2% of its GDP.
There are 16 US military facilities on its territory, including a missile test site and a navy communication station for nuclear submarines. Timor-Leste, Indonesia and Papua – New Guinea are situated to the North. The distance between Papua – New Guinea and continental Australia is only 145 km, narrowing down to just 5 km in case of the Australian Boigu and Papua – New Guinea. Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands lie to the North- East of the Australian continent. New Zealand is situated to the South-East. Among the countries listed here only New Zealand is a staunch and unambiguous ally of Australia, be it economy or policy. The others are attentively (and not without results) viewed by Beijing.
The United States and Australia have an agreement on US military presence on Australian soil. No new bases are envisioned but the US servicemen have a right of permanent access to the Australia’s military infrastructure and the US naval presence in adjacent seas is to grow. Having military facilities in South Korea and Japan the United States is able to boost its influence in Western and Southern Asia-Pacific, including the South China Sea considered to be sovereign territory by the Chinese. The Sea control presupposes obvious geopolitical advantages once this waterway is the shortest and the most safe one for shipping from China, Japan and Russia to the Singapore strait and back.
New Zealand watches the Chinese Asia-Pacific diplomatic expansion closely, especially after China became close to the island nation of Fiji, situated in Southern Pacific, 1170 km from it. There is an apprehension that the very pace of Chinese – Fiji cooperation development may lead to one of the Fiji island becoming a place of China’s permanent naval presence. Here – the Chinese in Fiji, there – the Chinese in Timor.
Moreover, there is a chance the Chinese would have a foothold in the Seychelles. China’s Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said so in September 2011 in response to the Seychelles president James Michael’s proposal to host a China’s naval base on his country’s soil. Situated between Asia and Africa to the North of Madagascar in the Western part of the Indian ocean, the Seychelles is a country of great strategic importance. Control over a significant part of the Indian ocean, as well as the waters adjacent to the shore of East Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, Somalia) becomes possible once an adequate naval force is based there.
The Seychelles signed a military cooperation agreement with China in 2004 that includes 50 Seychellois servicemen getting training in China (3). Besides the Chinese rendered significant aid to the Seychellois navy. In turn the Seychelles openly declared adherence to the principle of “One China” that is refused to recognize Taiwan. The Chinese navy ships already patrol narrow waters of the Indian ocean where the pirates threat is high. They need logistics resupply and maintenance facilities. May be that’s what the Seychelles may provide them with. Once the Chinese economy depends on external trade to great extent, Beijing has vital interest in eliminating piracy in this waters. Washington fears then there will be no way to push the Chinese navy out (2). In 2004 Booz Allen Hamilton, US government consulting firm, reported the substance of the Chinese tactics is to acquire a “necklace” of naval basing facilities in the Indian ocean (3). The Chinese interest towards the Seychelles evokes apprehension on the part of Washington keeping in mind there is a US unmanned aerial vehicles facility on the islands destined to tackle mysterious Somali pirates and exercise control over the territory of Somalia.
Still there are weak points of China’s position in the Asia-Pacific. Some experts say Beijing has no clear blue water strategy at the state’s level. Defense and promotion of economic interests is one thing, but a full-blown doctrine of strengthening its presence in the whole Pacific is something else.
A blue water strategy is something of a larger scale than just strategy and tactics adopted by a navy. It should comprise coordinated multifunctional activities of special state institutions – from major staffs and military experts to oceanographic institutes and economists. That’s why China will avoid sea conflicts as long as it can to upgrade its naval potential and implement its strategy towards Pacific countries including those in the immediate vicinity of the two major US allies – New Zealand and Australia. Beijing needs time. China relies on diplomacy (inexpensive means of taking care of its interests) and economy.
In case of economy China’s advancement into Africa is a good example: in 2003 the bilateral trade turnover was $10 billion, it was already $20 billion in 2004. China signed agreements on cooperation in the field of natural resources extraction with Angola, Nigeria, Zambia, Congo, Zimbabwe etc. Asia-Pacific is still only third China’s aid recipient – after Australia and the USA but it strives to get a foothold in as many strategically areas as possible, so that at the moment the US becomes critically weak it could start a dialogue with it not from the position of weakness but rather the position of strength.
1.Edi Walsh «America’s Southern Anchor?» (The Diplomat August 25, 2011)
2.“Clinton says 21st century will be US`s Pacific century” (Xinhua/Wang Fengfeng, 12.11.2011)
3.Jody Ray Bennett «Seychelles: An Open Invitation for China» (ISN Insights, 27. 12.2011)
The regional leadership in the Pacific has a new entity, called the Polynesian Leadership Group (PLG) made up of island states from Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Niue, American Samoa, Tokelau, French Polynesia and Tuvalu.
Representatives of eight Polynesian countries
A Talamua article suggests that the Polynesian union was a 35 year dream, realized. According to the Samoa Observer Editorial, this new regional sub-group bloc is the culmination of five years of planning. Even though it was implicitly denied by the nascent Chair but categorically implied that, the trajectory of this new sub-group is projected to be used as a geopolitical leverage against the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).
Such manifestations by the new sub-group will be destined for negative divisions says Pacific academic Steven Ratuva in a Radio NZ web article.
Although, the invitation was extended to Fiji to join; it is certainly no secret that the Samoan Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi had been quite a parochial critic of Frank Bainiamarama, and constantly interjecting himself into the domestic affairs of Fiji. Nevertheless this hubris is seen as simply more grandstanding by the Samoan Prime Minister.
AUCKLAND, NZ (SCOOPNZ) --- New Zealand may be invited to join Pacific Island countries in a ginger group promoting Polynesia’s interests.John Andrews in Auckland for Pacific Insights
For years the idea of a Polynesian-oriented grouping has been debated by Polynesian leaders at their annual Pacific Islands Forum summit. Now a few of them have decided to do something about it.
At the behest of Samoa’s Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, one of the prime movers pushing for the formation of the group, five leaders met privately in the City Life Hotel on the eve of the forum summit in Auckland a fortnight ago.
The participants representing Cook Islands, Niue, Tuvalu, Tonga and Samoa, decided to instruct their respective senior officials to recommend wording for a charter and work out likely costs.
The Polynesian leaders agreed to meet again early in November in Samoa’s capital Apia to discuss their new group’s aims and organisational requirements.
There are indications they will select Tuilaepa as their first chairman, with a small secretariat set up initially in Apia.
Other non-forum member countries which may find themselves invited to send representatives to the meeting are American Samoa, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Easter Island.
Even Hawaii and New Zealand could get invitations because of their Polynesian affiliations.
Both Tuilaepa and Toke Talagi, Premier of Niue were adamant the proposed Polynesian Group would not present a political counter weight to influence purported to have been exerted in the region by the Melanesian Spearhead Group and their Micronesian Group neighbours.
Tuilaepa said the Micronesian member countries regarded their organisation as being very necessary for cohesion, just as the Melanesians did. Polynesian countries had learned a very useful lesson, albeit belatedly, as a result.
He did not expect any adverse reaction to the group’s formation, saying: “They suggested it themselves when I raised the issue in Fiji and in Tonga.”
Asked if New Zealand would be invited to become a member of the Polynesian Group, he said: “We haven’t made that decision yet. There are some complications.
“The proper thing is to go by the general guideline of the so called Polynesian Triangle which stretches from Hawaii to New Zealand to the east as far as Easter Island.”
To explain his views on sub-regionalism in the Pacific, Tuilaepa pointed to the speech he gave in July this year to mark the forum’s 40th anniversary.
He contended then that rather than being portrayed as a challenge to the region by building alternative coalitions, sub-regionalism should be viewed as “countries with a common history, related cultural traditions and a commitment to dialogue working together on issues of mutual interest”.
As well as preserving language, culture and traditions, sub-regionalism might provide better platforms for effective and efficient delivery programmes that benefitted the entire region.
The exposure of Polynesian people and countries to modern development and communications had heightened risks to the long term survival of their cultures and languages. To remain complacent would be a mistake.
Tuilaepa and Talagi said the Polynesian Group would remain on the periphery of the forum but indicated that, for financial reasons, it made sense for leaders to meet around the time of the annual forum summits.
Denying the new group was being formed to counter MSG influence, Niue Premier Talagi said: “It’s away from and nothing to do with the forum but at the same time we are talking about a similar sort of grouping for the Polynesian countries that are interested in establishing themselves as such.
“I think we have got to determine who the membership is but we consider New Zealand and Hawaii, for example, as being part of the Polynesian Triangle so they could very well be part of the members of this Polynesian Group. But it is not a breakaway from the forum.
“There are indications New Zealand may be interested to be part of it, as part of the Polynesian Triangle.
“There has always been an informal Polynesian group but it has never been formalised.”
Asked if the MSG people had been informed of the Polynesian Group plan, Talagi said: “Why would we? They never told us anything about their group, nor the Micronesians for that matter.”
Another event horizon - the Pacific common currency, is a seemingly brokered policy from Samoa, which had been actively researched and recommended by an Australia Senate Committee, according to a published Feasibility Study by two University of South Pacific (USP) academics.
This timing of such a launch of a sub-grouping is quite interesting and comes in the wake of the recent APEC summit in Hawaii announcing the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) and the garrison of US troops in Darwin.
Dr. K R Bolton
"
When Kevin Rudd became Australian Prime Minister in 2008, he floated ideas for a Pacific regional bloc that are close to what is transpiring with the TPP[...]
In the speech he went beyond the usual call for a closer regional agreement between Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific island nations and advocated its broadening to include the USA and China. That is to say, the Pacific community idea which in many ways is desirable; especially if it could minimize the influence of China and the USA in the region, has been broadened to being exactly what was always intended: a step toward globalization at the behest of US-based plutocracy. What Rudd said a few years ago is instructive in providing background for the present TPP, which focuses on the USA and is broadened to Pacific Rim South American states
[...]
What Kevin Rudd proposed in 2008 was the agenda of the Trilateral Commission, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission was established as a think tank of globalist political and business leaders incorporating the USA, Europe and Japan. "
In fact, the extended series of regional policy dictates, namely the new Polynesia sub-regional bloc, the PACER -Plus Trade Agreement and the common Pacific currency respectively, are starting points to a proverbial slippery slope that also contain some sinister strategic implications, when placed in context with the observations of Dr. John Bolton, that was recently published in Foreign Policy Journal.
The excerpt of the Bolton's article:
Regional Globalization: The Trans-Pacific Partnership
by Dr. K R Bolton
November 19, 2011
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an important part of the globalization process that has been decades in the making. The process was formalized on November 12, 2011. While a “Pacific community” similar to the “European Community,” has often been mooted by New Zealand and Australian politicians,[1] TPP creates the foundation for full-fledged regional governance. Presently the states that comprise this TPP are: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States.[2]
The current format of this regional pact was announced by Ambassador Ron Kirk to the US Congress on December 14, 2009. As a free trade regional agreement, this means that each state will be obliged to open itself up to imports and a regional economic rationalization process that will Darwinistically eliminate those national industries that cannot compete. It means that once in, like other free trade agreements, extricating oneself becomes impossible. The much lauded prospects of increased employment and economic opportunities, by which such agreements are sold, such as that entered into by New Zealand with China does not – obviously – eventuate. “Partnership” and “competitiveness”[3] are used simultaneously, yet free trade intrinsically does not include “partnership”; it means driving the “weaker” to the wall on the pretext that the best survive and thereby the general economy is strengthened. It takes no account of national requirements, strategic needs, and ties each state to the rise or fall of the major players in a gamble with entire nations.
When Kevin Rudd became Australian Prime Minister in 2008, he floated ideas for a Pacific regional bloc that are close to what is transpiring with the TPP. What is significant, in identifying the globalist interests that are promoting this agenda, is that Rudd presented the idea to his countrymen via a speech to the Australian branch of the Asia Society, which will be considered below. In the speech he went beyond the usual call for a closer regional agreement between Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific island nations and advocated its broadening to include the USA and China. That is to say, the Pacific community idea which in many ways is desirable; especially if it could minimize the influence of China and the USA in the region, has been broadened to being exactly what was always intended: a step toward globalization at the behest of US-based plutocracy. What Rudd said a few years ago is instructive in providing background for the present TPP, which focuses on the USA and is broadened to Pacific Rim South American states.
Nonsense about each state doing what one can do best has been used for several decades now to sell the idea of economic rationalization. Any state that embarks on such a course of reanimated 19th Century economics is left with a ravaged economy that has no chance of being self-supporting. Economic rationalization in the name of “efficiency” creates a permanent pool of the unemployable because the champions of free market economics believe, as economic reductionists, that humans are interchangeable economic units that are infinitely malleable and can fit into whatever new environment is contrived. When the theory does not accord with reality, the victims, the new pool of unemployed, are further victimized as “welfare bludgers.” Free Trade, and its method of economic rationalization, is a failed dogma. New Zealand began the process of rationalization decades ago by the start of a long process of opening up to imports, on the assumption that “inefficient” businesses would fall, and leave only the best and most suitable to fit into a regional and ultimately a world economy (the “New International Economic Order” as it was then called).
The result was the destruction of New Zealand manufacturing, which has resulted in a large pool of unemployables, because the politicians cannot or will not understand that not everyone of working age is capable of being an IT worker. New Zealand’s labor intensive economy was wrecked for the sake of a globalist agenda and we today see the consequences.
The great achievement that has been negotiated is therefore to extend failed economic dogma beyond national levels and to the regional, in order that a very small element of business can expand without national impediments.
Globalist interests in the USA have not been pushing this “economic integration” as a humanitarian gesture. It is an important exercise in international power-politics. The other member states will be prostrate before US plutocracy as their resources come under the domination of free trade investment clauses in the TPP agreement. TPP will be sold in the other states as a great opportunity to sell exports to a big market. Nonsense. We have seen how the FTA between China and New Zealand operates. The big dominants and, where necessary, eliminates the little under Free Trade. The US administration is selling TPP with national rather than globalist rhetoric: “Increasing American Exports, Supporting American Jobs.”[4] Under Free Trade, there are winners and losers, and even recourse to war when the losers are no longer sustainable and fight rather than roll over and die, or when one export power conflicts with the interests of another, as in the case of World War II resulting from the success of German trade expansion in Europe and its extension into South American markets.
Free Trade has been imposed upon the world as the economic foundation for a US-dominated order since Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”. The policy was reiterated by Roosevelt in the “Atlantic Charter.” The rhetoric has not changed for decades. When Roosevelt was laying down the terms for the post-war world to Churchill he stated:
Of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade. No artificial barriers. As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.[5]
…Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?[6]
International trade brings war, not peace, as it is a façade for domination by hegemonic interests. The terms of TPP are intended to benefit the USA, which means US-based globalist plutocrats, the Office of the US Trade Representative stating:
Cross-cutting issues not previously in trade agreements, such as making the regulatory systems of TPP countries more compatible so U.S. companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets, and helping innovative, job-creating small-and medium-sized enterprises participate more actively in international trade.[7]
Economic structures are therefore to be rationalized regionally to permit free entry for US encroachments. Reference to the benefits for small-and medium-sized enterprises is nonsense, as rationalization drives such enterprises to the wall. No state will be able to subsidize such enterprises, as it will be regarded as interfering in the free market and as unfair competition. State owned enterprises are also to be subjected to competition from the globalist corporations. As it is, many of the states involved, and in particular New Zealand, have been selling their state assets and enterprises, generally to make interest payments on debts to international finance.
What is left of state assets will be taken over by the major corporations, and national governments, such as they remain, will not be able to interfere because of regional regulations imposed by TPP and enforced by TPP laws and bureaucracies. Note that the above passage from the TPP principles states that regulations of each state will be altered to make national economies compatible with US corporate interests. TPP terms will ensure, “state-owned enterprises compete fairly with private companies and do not distort competition in ways that put U.S. companies and workers at a disadvantage.”[8] This means pitting the state against private business in the free market, although state assets should be regarded as being of a strategic and not strictly an economic character. However, under Free Trade there is no such concept as a “strategic national interest.”
The nine founding states of TPP are intended as the beginning of a wider process, “and will begin bilateral processes with these interested countries to discuss their readiness and ambition to meet the standards and objectives of the TPP.”[9]
The ramifications of TPP will be known only as they take effect as – apart from the final declaration – the documents of the agreement are secret for four years from ratification.[10]
Globalists’ Pacific Agenda
What Kevin Rudd proposed in 2008 was the agenda of the Trilateral Commission, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission was established as a think tank of globalist political and business leaders incorporating the USA, Europe and Japan. The newly appointed Italian Prime Minster, Mario Monti, is the TC European chairman,[11] who also served with Goldman Sachs.
What is notable in the context of the TPP is that the Trilateral Commission (TC) a few years ago extended its agenda to include Mexico, and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group.” Japan has stated its interest in joining the TPP.[12] Although Mexico is not one of the founding member states of TPP, the extension of Trilateralism, which originally focused on North America, Europe and Japan, was extended to Latin America and to Asia as a whole. TC stated of this:
Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfill their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU.[13]
Of the TC Pacific Asian Group, members are drawn from the following countries to reflect this aim of a Pacific-wide union.
In 2000, the Japanese group of 85 members expanded to become a Pacific Asian group of 96 members, and includes 57 members from Japan, 15 members from Korea, 8 from Australia and New Zealand, 16 from the original five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The new Pacific Asian group also includes participants from the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.[14]
The Commission also implies that these regional groupings are the prelude to a “new world order”:
The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” The need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) remain the primary anchors of the wider international system, has not diminished but, if anything, intensified. At the same time, their leadership must change to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. As relations with other countries become more mature—and power more diffuse—the leadership tasks of the original Trilateral countries need to be carried out with others to an increasing extent.[15]
This process of “interdependence” growing into “globalization” and a “dramatic transformation of the international system” has been deliberately pushed by the Trilateral Commission, and similar bodies such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, all of which have significant interlocking memberships. It is not part of some organic historical process; it is a contrivance.
The Trilateralist statement above alludes to the broadening of the Trilateralist countries to “others”; again in this instance not just Japan, but the entirety of Asia and the Pacific. Although Trilateralists have dominated the Japanese business and political Establishments, they were hitherto restrained from entering into globalist agreements by the strength of the farming sector that feared American agricultural imports. The globalists have already stated that TPP means little until Japan is incorporated into it:
But if the TPP were to remain as it is presently constituted — without Japan’s inclusion — the agreement would not be the economic boon many hoped it would…. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns said in Tokyo in October that the United States would “welcome Japan’s interest in the TPP, recognizing of course that Japan’s decision to pursue joining will be made based on its own careful considerations of its priorities and interests.” For its part, Tokyo seems ready to join the talks. Japanese entry has been on the table since October 2010, when then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his foreign minister, Seiji Maehara, both endorsed it.[16]
However, as with other such regionalist groupings, such as the European Union, the catalyst is recognition of an outer threat; in this case, China, which has recently acted in typically belligerent and overbearing manner towards Japan over disputed territorial claims.[17] It was a similar threat supposedly posed by the USSR that drove Europe into a “union” under American auspices and on US terms. Just what type of protection from Chinese intransigence would be accorded TPP under US Big Brother is indicated by the close relationship that has long existed between China and the same globalists who have been promoting the Pacific union concept. China is represented on the boards of bodies such as TC and the Pacific Basin Economic Council, another long-running lobby that aims for “economic integration.” New Zealand’s FTA with China is pivotal to the village idiot vision of New Zealand’s economy, and any involvement with TPP is going to have to recognize China as a regional power in partnership with the USA, as not as a rival power in the region. The specter of China merely serves as a temporary scare tactic for the imposition of TPP.
Rudd’s 2008 Statement
What has transpired this month places the statements made by the then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (presently Foreign Minister) in context, especially in regard to his having delivered the speech before the Asia Society, a long-running Rockefeller think tank that predates the Trilateral Commission. Media reports at the time stated:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called on Asian and Pacific nations to form a regional alliance similar to the European Union. Mr. Rudd says a strong multilateral body is needed to help the region maintain security, foster trade and respond to natural disasters and terrorism. He said Asia needs to react quickly to cope with changes brought about by rapid economic growth in the region.
“The European Union does not represent an identikit model of what we would seek to develop in the Asia-Pacific, but what we can learn from Europe is this – it is necessary to take the first step,” he said. But he concedes getting Asian nations together will be much tougher than the task faced by the architects of the European Union last century.
“Our special challenge is that we face a region with a greater diversity in political systems and economic structures, levels of development, religious beliefs, languages and cultures than our counterparts in Europe,” he said. “But that should not stop us from thinking big.” The Government will appoint experienced diplomat Richard Woolcott as an envoy to discuss Mr. Rudd’s idea with other countries.
Mr. Rudd says the institution should span the entire Asian-Pacific region including the United States, Japan, China, India and Indonesia.” The danger in not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict in our region may somehow be inevitable,” he said. Mr. Rudd will use his visit to Japan and Indonesia next week to lobby Asian nations on the proposal.[18]
Asia Society
Rudd’s speech was delivered to the Asia Society’s Australian branch, called Austral Asia Center, in Melbourne. Note that Australia is referred to as “Austral Asia” by the Society; a play on words of the term that is normally used to describe Australia and New Zealand. This reflects how the global plutocrats see the nations of Australia and New Zealand, and politicians such as New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, have long been referring to New Zealand as “an Asian country.” The “Austral Asian” branch was founded by veteran diplomat Richard Woolcott who was chosen by Rudd to initiate the “Asia Pacific community” with high-level meetings throughout Asia, as noted in the news media reports. Hence, the groundwork was further laid for TPP in 2008.
The head office of the Asia Center in New York states that the Society was founded in 1956 by John D. Rockefeller III.[19] Trustees include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. The 50th anniversary of the Asia Society in 2006 was a tribute to the “whole Rockefeller family” and its vision for Asia. The “keynote addresses” were given by Henry Kissinger, the omnipotent perennial government adviser; David Rockefeller,[20] head of the globalist dynasty; John D Rockefeller IV, Charles Percy Rockefeller; and Arthur Ross, a scholar and diplomat of varied experience, who sat on the Rockefeller University Council. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.” The “shared future” is that of unrestrained plutocracy, sold with sweeteners, maintained with debt, and enforced with bombs.
Notes
[1] For example former New Zealand Labour Minister Mike Moore is a long time enthusiast for a “Pacific community” and was rewarded for his conversion from “socialism” to free trade by being made head of the World Trade Organization. He is currently New Zealand Ambassador to the USA. His globalist credentials include membership of the Trilateral Commission.
[2] “Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Office of the US Trade Representative, http://www.ustr.gov/tpp
[3] “Outlines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” ibid.
[4] “The United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/united-states-trans-pacific-partnership
[5] E Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946), p. 35.
[6] E Roosevelt, ibid.
[7] “The United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” op. cit.
[12] K Kim, “Obama: Outlines of TransPacific Partnership Reached,” Global Post, November 14, 2011, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111114/obama-outlines-transpacific-partnership-trade-de
[13] The Trilateral Commission, “About the Organization,” http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid..
[16] B K Gordon, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Rise of China: What Japan Joining the TPP Means for the Region,” Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, November 7, 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136647/bernard-k-gordon/the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-the-rise-of-china
[17] Ibid.
[18] Rudd speaking to the Asia Society Austral Asia Centre, June 6, 2008; reported in The Australian, June 7, 08, et al. See the report on Rudd at the Asia Society Australasia Centre’s website: http://www.asiasociety.org.au/speeches/speeches_current/r155_PM_Rudd_AD2008.html
[19] Asia Society, “About,” http://www.asiasociety.org/about/mission.html
[20] In the course of his address David Rockefeller referred to Kissinger as his “dear friend” and Asia Society Chairman Richard Holbrooke as his “old friend”.
K R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, and an assistant editor of the peer reviewed journal Ab Aeterno. Recent publications include 'Trotskyism and the Anti-Family Agenda,' CKR website, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University (October 2009); 'Rivalry over water resources as a potential cause of conflict in Asia,' Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, and Russia and China: an approaching conflict?, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010; Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009. Read more articles by Dr. K R Bolton.
Joan Veon: One World Government (video posted below).
