South America: Pacific Orientation or Destabililzation?

 LaRouchePAC video analysis of the Pacific geopolitics orientation and South America, currently unfolding . Posted date: July 6th 2012.

Video (posted below)content description:

A clear line has been drawn between the Transatlantic nations that seek to hold on to their bankrupt system, and the pro-development Pacific oriented nations that seek genuine progress. Russia and China have recently begun allying with kindred interests in South America to seek new development agreements.

Original Source: http://larouchepac.com/node/23303



Club Em Designs

X-Post: Islands Business- China’s Clever Game In The Pacific

"China has played its game in the Pacific cleverly. It has employed what is termed as ‘soft power’ 
to win influence. It has extended the hand of unconditional friendship and one cannot say there has 
been coercion or threatens of any sort. That is one of the reasons why its influence has grown so rapidly 
over such sweeping swathes of the Pacific under the radar as it were."

That the Pacific islands region will be the theater of action in the next big global race for geopolitical hegemony is not a question of if as much as it is of when. And that when may be soon. Once it breaks out, the race could stay a cold war for a long time with all sorts of posturing from all parties, or it could escalate into a full blown battle. No matter how it finally turns out, the next big theatre for the big powers’ global machinations will be the Pacific and its epicenter could well be Fiji’s capital, Suva. 

At the turn of the millennium, this twenty first century was touted as the Century of Asia/Pacific. The promise was great: the Pacific Rim countries’ confidence brimmed, powered by their blitzing growth rates; the Asian tigers were on a roll; and the Pacific islands were redrawing the extent of their sovereign oceanic territories as new mineral discoveries were being made on land and the seabed. 

The first decade of this century saw sustained forays by the Asian giants into the Pacific islands region, establishing new outposts in tiny islands nations, helping build infrastructure and doling out loans and grants with a firm eye on the vast natural resources that the islands are thought to possess. All this happened as the Pacific islands’ traditional western world partners were progressively downsizing their long-held commitments to the islands.

Throughout the first decade of this century, China had a fairly open run of the Pacific Oceanic region. It upped its financial assistance and infrastructure building programmes around the region in schemes and arrangements that were different from the ones Pacific islands governments were used to when such assistance came from Western friends.

Pacific islands leaders spoke approvingly of China’s ‘no strings attached’ approach to aid, in marked contrast to the West’s more structured and highly conditions-based manner of dealing with assistance programmes. This was enticement enough for most Pacific islands countries to happily get into bed with China for several ‘development’ initiatives in return for poorly documented (at least in the media) concessions in tapping natural resources and fisheries.

Islands Business

" China has played its game in the Pacific cleverly. It has employed what is commonly termed as ‘soft power’ to win influence. It has extended the hand of unconditional friendship and one cannot say there has been coercion or threats of any sort. That is one of the reasons why its influence has grown so rapidly over such sweeping swathes of the Pacific—under the radar as it were. Meanwhile, the United States was busy with its endless war mongering in the Middle East for the better part of the past two decades[...]

China rebuilt its embassy into a bigger facility in Fiji, the US decided to follow suit almost immediately. Both countries realise the strategic, geopolitical importance of Fiji, just as colonial powers in bygone eras had. "

Simultaneously, political developments like those in Fiji forced the leadership to evolve strategies like Fiji’s ‘Look North’ policy where almost every new realm of economic and developmental activity became closely aligned to China, Korea and several other countries of the Pacific Rim, gaining precedence over traditional ties to Australia and New Zealand.

China has played its game in the Pacific cleverly. It has employed what is commonly termed as ‘soft power’ to win influence. It has extended the hand of unconditional friendship and one cannot say there has been coercion or threats of any sort. That is one of the reasons why its influence has grown so rapidly over such sweeping swathes of the Pacific—under the radar as it were.

Meanwhile, the United States was busy with its endless war mongering in the Middle East for the better part of the past two decades and all but ignored China’s growing influence in the Pacific islands region. As if awoken suddenly from a deep slumber, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a knee jerk statement during one of her Pacific whistle stop tours a few years ago that the US would not “cede” territory to anybody—obviously implying it wouldn’t take China’s machinations in the region lying down.

As the world now progresses towards the middle of this century’s second decade, it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is the Century of the Asia/Pacific for many more reasons than those that were touted at the turn of the millennium. And some of these reasons are undoubtedly a cause for worry—not just for the region but also for the world.

China has already begun protesting against the US planned joint exercises in the Pacific this year that involves some 22 nations including several of the Pacific Rim, including Australia and New Zealand and even distant powers like Russia. China has pointedly been excluded from these exercises that will include a range of nuclear submarines besides other sophisticated naval hardware and armaments.

China is also dealing with a number of more regional geopolitical and territorial problems— particularly the one involving the Philippines in the South China Sea. The Philippines has a strong US connection for historical reasons. This is one instance of how these local problems have the potential to polarise the region across the two superpowers vying for the region’s favours.

The joint naval exercises are obviously a bold and firm statement directed at China that the US wants to make—that it is well and truly means business in the region. In including the 22 nations in its exercises including South Korea and Japan, it has thumbed its nose at the Asian superpower. In fact, the US started this sort of posturing when it rebuilt its embassy in Fiji’s capital, Suva.

In ages gone by, kings and emperors announced their hegemony by building towers and monuments on the territories they conquered. In modern times, countries can’t conquer and can’t build towers and monuments. Instead, they build embassies in the countries they want to win favour from to help them expand their influence. So when China rebuilt its embassy into a bigger facility in Fiji, the US decided to follow suit almost immediately.

Both countries realise the strategic, geopolitical importance of Fiji, just as colonial powers in bygone eras had. In any aggression that takes place in the Pacific Ocean in the near future, Fiji will undoubtedly be catapulted into the centre stage because of this. 

What has begun as benign posturing could quite easily escalate into a cold war but could a cold war result in a full-blown conflict? Consider this: the arms industry is the engine of the US economy. With action in the Middle East all but over, there are few places left for war mongering.

The Pacific Ocean is an extremely suitable candidate to kick-start the arms industry and pull the country out of the recession. The development of a whole new suite of weapons suited for vast stretches of ocean would be a challenge worth pursuing and investing in. And thanks to the sparseness of the population, collateral damage would be negligible.  

Fanciful though this may sound, the possibility can scarcely be discounted. Unfortunately for the Pacific islands and their citizens, they have already been reduced to pawns. Geopolitics may well grow to be a more pressing worry than the ravages of climate change.

Club Em Designs

Scratch a Lover, Find A Foe- The Current Geopolitics of Decolonization in the Pacific.

In the 1957 published book “The Colonizer and the Colonized”, Albert Memmi wrote:”The calcified colonized society is therefore the consequences of two processes having opposite symptoms: encystment originating internally and a corset imposed from the outside.”

The UN decolonization process was succinctly reported in a Seattle Times article, authored by Associated Press correspondent, Anita Snow, who examined a controversial subject that may not make its way to the UN Security Council, any time soon. However, the exotic locations being adjudicated in the UN decolonization process; could invariably be a petri dish for future crisis.

The Caribbean region and the Pacific share some similarities. Apart from both being geographical classified as islands; they both share a remarkable sameness in their colonization story and some of their colonial masters.

Wayne Madsen's recent opinion article: Rumblings from the Caribbean addressed the Caribbean context for decolonization:

“The Caribbean states, witnessing the economic prowess of Brazil and the nationalistic fervor of Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, see a chance to break free from decades of domination by the United States and European colonial powers intent on keeping their toeholds in the Caribbean region”. 

Ostensibly, the Pacific region has a similar situation, with regards to the colonial powers maintaining their vice-lock grip on the political economy; as well as controlling defense related aspects and the rights to the vast maritime natural resources within these same territories.

Left to Right:  Visit to the Fiji Mission in New York by the Ulu-o-Tokelau.  Joe Suveinakama, General Manager Tokelau National Public Service, Ambassador Peter Thomson of the Fiji Mission, Ulu-o-Tokelau Aliki Kalolo, Ambassador Bernadette Cavanagh of the New Zealand Mission. (Image: MoI)

Recently in the UN Special Committee on Decolonization , draft resolutions were introduced by Fiji's UN representative Peter Thompson, with regards to New Caledonia and Tuvalu, currently being administered by France and New Zealand respectively. Also Fiji had supported Argentina's resolution to address the aspect of Falkland/Malvinas in the UN committee of 24,  administering the issues of decolonization.

The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), dominated by the Trans-Tasman cousins could be running the same operating system to that of, the Organization of American States (OAS). Madsen alluded to the Modus Operandi in the Caribbean with respect to the decolonization process:

 The European colonial powers are attempting to ensure the continuation of their colonial holdings in the Caribbean by resorting to either increasing their domination over “self-governing” territories or formulating new colonial arrangements between the mother countries and various island dependencies in the Caribbean.

There have been similar styled grumblings in the Pacific region, on the obnoxious manner in which Australia and New Zealand have unilaterally controlled the policies of PIF. Former PIF Director of Financial Governance, Dr. Roman Grynberg , highlighted the stacked deck in the PIF, in a opinion article “Who owns the Forum”: 

Who sets the Forum agenda? In the Forum as in all international bodies, a draft agenda for every meeting is sent out to all members and they must all agree. In reality in most cases only Australia and New Zealand have the capacity to review these documents and make substantive comments and hence they very largely set the Forum's agenda. 

Grynberg's remarks could well be viewed as an insider's assessment of the machinations within the PIF. Other external points of view from PIF member states are equally scathing. One such perspective:

PNG’s foreign affairs and trade minister Sam Abal alleges that the development of an AfT (Aid for Trade) mechanism has been deliberately stalled by PIFS because it goes against the beliefs of PIFS’ biggest donors—Australia and New Zealand. “In 2009, the PACPS discussed at length the development of a suitable mechanism to fund and manage trade-related aid flows into the region. However, PIFS has actively stalled and discouraged any progress in this area in many cases,” he states. “It is Papua New Guinea’s view that the Aid for Trade negotiations in the EPA have stalled because it is inconsistent with Australia and New Zealand’s (ANZ) position in the PACER Plus negotiations,” Abal alleges. 

Grynberg asserts a poor outlook for the future of PIF:

 “Things will only change with the circumstances. In the last generation it was France which silenced the islands. The present culture of silence in the Forum stems from the nature of the relationship with Australia and New Zealand. It is perverse and will never lead to a healthy relationship. There may yet come a generation of Pacific island leaders who have a genuine vision and intestinal fortitude to lead their countries and the region.” 

Other background chatter in the Pacific region, also revolve around the contentious issue of colonization.

 The metaphor of Corset in the context of colonization, as outlined by the Author, Albert Memmi, is manifested by the present slogan of 'America's Pacific Century'. The US secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta was requested by the Governor of the Commonwealth of North Mariana Islands (CNMI)  to renegotiate some of the land lease agreements, that were issued to the US Department of Defense.

In light of the new pivot cum re-balancing of the U.S naval forces to Asia-Pacific region, the areas of concerns raised by the CNMI Governor, may just receive some attention it justly deserves. Or will the CNMI Governor's concerns be relegated to the non priority bin for another 35 years?

Perhaps the larger question, in CNMI would revolve around the issue of seeking their independence from being an appendage to Pax Americana, like other Anglophone nations in the South Pacific.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom: it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. 
William Pitt 1759-1806 

In October 9th 2008, New Caledonia's FLNK party leader, Roch Wamytan's statement to the UN's Fourth committee of the 63rd General Assembly session, reflected similar themes:

France does not want Independence for our country and is doing its utmost to prevent our country from achieving sovereignty. Both right and left-leaning political regimes, with a few minor differences, agree on one thing: everything must be done to keep New Caledonia within the French and European fold in the name of their higher interests.

After the MSG summit in Fiji, held in April, Wamytam-now President of the New Caledonia Congress also extended an invitation to the MSG to host a summit in New Caledonia. In a Radio Australia web article, New Zealand academic, Bill Hodge derided that decision:

Well there's two big issues, first of all you have a party or a political grouping behaving as if it's a sovereign” [...]So the thing itself is an illustration of a party acting up as if it's the sovereign, as if it's the government, which it is not. Secondly, I think that's an objection on the grounds of principle and Paris may well have an objection. 

Unsurprisingly, a French Senator and former Defense Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement, recently was quoted in a PINA web article and emphasized the need for France to “consolidate its position in the Pacific” and shore up its partnership with Australia, as a hedge against the sphere influence of China. Fiji appears to be the lone maverick voice in the region, actively undermining the neo-colonialistic agendas in the Pacific region.

Fiji Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama as current chair of the Melanesia Spearhead Group (MSG) was due to travel to New Caledonia, to assess and monitor the progress of the 1998 Noumea accords.  However, due to a myriad of issues from the non availability of visas (that have to processed in France) and internal politics in New Caledonia, the trip has been deferred.

It is without a doubt, that the Colonial Powers in the Pacific and the Trans-Tasman cousins are increasingly wary of Fiji’s regional influence and close ties with China, as well as Fiji's expanding diplomatic relations in its 'Look North' initiative.

Fiji had established diplomatic relations with Kazakhstan, hosted Russia's Foreign Minister, a delegation from North Korea, joined the Association of South East Asian Nations group (ASEAN)  and most recently hosted a high level delegation from Iran bearing an invitation from Iran's President, to the Non-Alignment-Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran, in August.

However, Fiji's new friends have caused some angst because of their incontrovertible success in being a non-conformist, opponent to the war addiction and unbridled crony capitalism, largely endorsed and supported by Anglo-American and European political elites.

An opinion article published in The Diplomat online magazine, illustrates such insular rhetoric and reductionist hubris existing in many Western bloc Capitals; which practically objects, opposes and despises any rising counter-balance to the Western bloc.

A significant counter point to The Diplomat opinion article, was presented in a Global Research TV video, which interviews Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World and analyses a wide variety of issues including the emerging BRICS nations, the crisis in Syria, and the implications of Washington's policy shift to the Asia-Pacific region . (Video posted below).



Since Fiji' joined the NAM, its rolodex of friends is expanding considerably and rapidly, far beyond the strait jacket induced list of the Commonwealth group. It is also undeniable, that the trajectory of the ' Look North' Foreign Policy adapted by Fiji, succeeded in raising many eyebrows in the Western capitals.

A plausible narrative is emerging- Bainimarama's intestinal fortitude is a refreshing difference both domestically and internationally; a stark contrast from the 'go-along-to get-along' malleable lapdog politicians in island states, who have been co-opted as convenient vassals for the old Colonial order and by extension the Western bloc.

Club Em Designs

Pacific Institute of Public Policy Debates On Geopolitics (Edited)

 

The audio of the Radio Australia interview (posted below):





Radio Australia Pacific Beat news article titled: "Call For Pacific Neutrality In Naval Build up" included an interview with former Fiji Foreign Affairs Minister, Kaliopate Tavola, whose comments in the interview were framed as, the current consensus. That perception artificially generated by Radio Australia, is simply erroneous.

This article, did not point out that, the comments by Tavola, was actually a position advocated in a debate organized by the Pacific Insitute of Public Policy (PiPP), located in Vanuatu. Nor was it addressed in the interview that, Tavola was not speaking on behalf of any Pacific Government and that Tavola's opinion was his own and will not, should not reflect the official position/pending position of any Government.

The debate in its entirety has not been made public by PiPP (as yet) and it would be one dimensional, to cast an opinion, on what direction the discussion took place.

The PiPP Pacific Debate webpage, featured the participants of the debate and their biodata:

• Senator Peter Christian (Federated States of Micronesia)
• Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (American Samoa)
• Major General (ret’d) Jerry Singirok (Papua New Guinea)
• Kaliopate Tavola (Fiji)

Also, the Radio Australia article did not identify that, Tavola (nor did he say)was affiliated with PiPP as a Director. The biodata, also did not mention, that Tavola was a member of the SDL administration headed by Laisenia Qarase; who was reported to have, requested Australia troops to intervene in Fiji, prior to November 5th 2006 change of Government.

 

Further and most importantly, there was no attempt by Tavola to point out that AusAID is the majority funder of  the Institution, coloring PiPP"s ability and the public's perception, that PiPP is an independent 'think tank' in the Pacific region.

Recent financial statements of PiPP (PDF)

In addition, it can not be glossed over or outright dismissed, that the discourse of public policy in the Pacific, pursued by PiPP, (more so when advocating a geopolitical policy stance) is overly contaminated with an Australian agenda.

This same, top-down agenda that gave the Pacific region the concept of a Pacific union and lost traction due to maverick and independent minded political leaders from Melanesia, following Fiji's lead.

Pacific Union was to become a spin off from the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), in-lieu of a regional Government subsequent to a adaption of regional wide currency and accompanying Free Trade blocs.

It also has been documented that, Australia Government had revoked aid from an East-Timor Non-Government Organization (NGO) that called for the Australian Government to abide by International Law, with regards to the negotiations to the natural resources within its maritime boundaries.

It's not beyond reason, to view the similar standard operating procedures in the context of PiPP, capitulating to the talking points, generated from Canberra and widely distributed by the same Australian media.

The excerpt of NGO article:

Australia Aid should support Timor-Leste,
not Australia's political interests

Bahasa Indonesia

Chronology of events and links to documents

For immediate release	Contact: Santina Soares or Alex Grainger
6 October 2005	Tel. +670 3325013,  email: info@laohamutuk.org

La’o Hamutuk condemned the recent decision by the Australian government to revoke an AusAID commitment to a Timor-Leste non-governmental organization (NGO), because the NGO, Forum Tau Matan (FTM), expressed political views Australia disagrees with.

“This arbitrary, punitive action belies AusAID’s mission to support Timor-Leste’s economic and legal development and contradicts the right to free speech, protected in both Australia and Timor-Leste,” said Santina Soares of La’o Hamutuk, a Timor-Leste NGO.

“La’o Hamutuk calls on Australian citizens and government officials to demand that their government administer their aid program without political interference,” said Soares. “Grants should be awarded according to need and merit, not based on the public statements of the project’s manager. We urge AusAID to publicly assure current and potential grant recipients in Timor-Leste that they can exercise freedom of speech without being punished.”

“AusAID states that major aim of its aid to Timor-Leste is to build a legal and judicial system which supports law and order. Australia’s refusal to follow international legal principles in the Timor Sea negotiations is a mockery of law and order,” said Santina Soares. “Their theft of Timor-Leste’s rightful maritime petroleum resources, including more than one billion U.S. dollars from the Laminaria-Corallina oil field, makes it impossible for Timor-Leste to deliver basic services to its people and is far larger than the US$300 million AusAID has contributed since 1999.”

AusAID's website says another goal of their support is to bolster the government’s ability to budget for and deliver basic services. AusAID also claims to support a police service with full respect for human rights and to build capacity of oversight institutions in the justice sector. Forum Tau Matan shares these goals.

Background (link to Chronology of relevant events and documents)

Last December, AusAID promised an A$65,000 human rights grant to a prison monitoring and legal rights project administered by Forum Tau Matan (FTM), an East Timorese NGO. The award was delayed due to logistical problems within the Australian bureaucracy. In the interim, Canberra learned that FTM had joined eight other NGOs the previous September to ask Australia to respect Timor-Leste’s sovereignty and negotiate a fair and legal maritime boundary.

On 7 June 2005, AusAID informed FTM director Joao Pequino that the money would not be forthcoming because “we have been reviewing the ways in which we engage with NGOs in different sectors.” At the end of July, AusAID’s Counsellor (Development Cooperation) informed FTM that the real reason the grant was cancelled was that FTM had signed the press release “East Timor Civil Society demands a Fair Resolution of Maritime Boundaries.” AusAID has since paid FTM about 10% of the grant amount in compensation for AusAID deciding to break its commitment.

In the past, FTM has received support from  the United Nations (UNMISET Human Rights Unit), Ireland Aid, and Caritas Australia.

AusAID is currently soliciting applicants for this year’s Human Rights Small Grants. The application deadline is 7 October 2005.

La’o Hamutuk, the East Timor Institute for Reconstruction Monitoring and Analysis, was founded in 2000 to research, educate and advocate regarding international institutions in East Timor, including foreign aid programs. To maintain its objectivity and ability to speak out, La’o Hamutuk does not accept funding from AusAID or the other institutions it monitors.

-

On 6 October 2005, La'o Hamutuk and FTM held a press conference at the NGO Forum in Dili to release the above information. L-R: Elias Barros (FTM Prison Monitoring Project), Santina Soares (La'o Hamutuk), Joao Pequino (FTM Executive Director)

Club Em Designs

The Hunger Games- NATO's Stealth Entry Into The Pacific Region & The Colluding States.

 

The South Pacific geopolitical sphere has entered an interesting phase, considering the recent developments in the region, which amounts to an extension of the Grand Chessboard unfolding in the Great Ocean.

US Defense Secretary announced at the recent International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue 2012, about the re-allocation of more naval resources to the Asia-Pacific area, to 60-40 split with the Atlantic region.

In a separate event, it was reported that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO )sealed an Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme (IPCP) with New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, cementing a security cooperation that encompasses cyber defense, disaster relief, crisis management, joint education and training. 

It is not beyond the imagination to consider the trajectory of the age old ANZUS treaty between the United States, Australia, New Zealand; project into a sub-chapter of NATO alliance.

Rick Rozoff of Stop NATO, noted in the blog post  : 

“The increasing use of the word global by the U.S.-dominated military alliance – New Zealand was recently announced to be a member of its newest partnership category, partners across the globe – leaves no room for doubt regarding the emergence of NATO as a self-designated international military force, history’s first, and its intention to assume so-called out-of-area missions much farther from the territory of its member states than previous military campaigns and operations in the Balkans, South Asia, North Africa and the Indian Ocean”.

It appears that NATO, Australia and New Zealand are on this accelerated glide path with increasing cooperation cum membership, that presents a unique albeit dangerous comity, that extends NATO's coverage to the Pacific region. Rasmussen remarked “We may be far away geographically, but we are linked by common values and commitment. NATO looks forward to building on this important partnership in the years to come.”

Rick Rozoff contrasted the remarks by the NATO chief:

“The common values alluded to comprise much more than the parliamentary system of government, which exists most everywhere in the world, and instead are a veiled reference to the fact that NATO is what it has always been: A military alliance of the former colonial powers in Europe and Britain’s past outposts in North America – the U.S. and Canada – now to be complemented by those in the South Pacific, New Zealand and Australia”.

It has been reported that , the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is being dominated by Australia and New Zealand and consequently, their ties to NATO, would profoundly mean that the PIF, a regional organization would obediently and unquestionably follow.
However, the regional sub-groupings like the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) which will soon eclipse the PIF, and will have acquired the co-optive power to seek a counterweight to this developing NATO/Trans-Tasman axis.

Fiji Ambassador to UN Peter Thomson and Kazakhstan Ambassador Byrganym Aitimova (Min of Info)

Most recently, Fiji had extended its diplomatic relations with Kazakhstan, which is also a member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). 

Fiji, to date has established diplomatic ties with 3 of the 6 members of SCO and further increased ties with the remaining SCO member nations are to be expected.

Corbett Report and Boiling Frogs Post video, educates the layperson about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Fiji also received a delegation from North Korea, seeking to explore mutual areas of interest and development cooperation.

As a fledgling member of Non-Aligned Movement, Fiji was continuing its 'Look North' policy and seeking more diplomatic relations away from the Trans-Tasman hegemony; in a nuanced manner, that propagates a countervailing initiative in the Pacific.

Club Em Designs

X-Post-Nautilus Institute-Complex: Uncertainties in the Australian Hinge of the Pacific Pivot

Nautilus Peace and Security Weekly Report—Contributor’s blog entry for Austral Peace and Security.

Go to the Weekly Report for 31 May 2012.

Washington’s Pacific pivot is essentially a matter of the Obama administration drawing a line under the distractions of the Bush-era disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, and re-focusing strategic planning on the rise of Chinese economic, political and military power. Rather than the crudities of the opening to India that Condoleeza Rice initiated as a geo-strategic “balance” against China in 2005, the Obama administration is pursuing a complex approach to China made up of both a search for dialogue on key issues such as climate change and the global economy, and at the same time regional military and political restructuring that strengthens old hub and spokes bilateral alliances with Japan, Korea and Australia, increases the military capacities of those allies, and seeks to draw in new regional strategic partners such as Indonesia and Singapore. Containment it may not yet be, but it here can be little doubt the objective is to hedge very strongly against expansion of Chinese influence, while continuing dialogue on the global rules of the road.

Yet the hinge of the pivot strategy is the domestic foundations of alliance amongst America’s three main allies in the Pacific, Japan, South Korea and Australia – all of which are characterised by a volatile disposition to anxiety. While Japan and Korea can point to serious security issues in their environment, the Australian case is characterised by an endemic propensity to alliance anxiety even in the virtually complete absence of serious relevant threat. To take what may appear to those outside Australia as a bizarre official example, while the Obama administration was working through the implications of the president’s Prague speech on the United States’ goal of a nuclear-free world, the 2009 Australian Defence White Paper, greatly expanded official discussion of Australian reliance on United States extended nuclear deterrence, citing the “remote possibilities” of nuclear threats to Australia from Iran and North Korea.

In the past, and again today, Australian alliance anxiety has manifested itself in seeking to demonstrate loyalty and strengthen US commitment not only by responding to US requests for participation in wars outside the region, but characteristically by offering support and military participation before being asked. The large scale expansion of US marine, air force and navy access to Australia facilities that has been underway for several years was accelerated on the occasion of President Obama’s Australian visit in November 2011 with announcements of deployments of US marines and USAF bombers and fighters to Darwin and other facilities. While some analysts concentrated on a theme of US arm-twisting of a reluctant Labor government, PACOM CinC Admiral Robert Willard let the cat out of the bag, saying the Australian side had offered access first:

“Australia made overtures to the United States to increase our engagement with the armed forces of Australia and our utility of the training facilities – ranges, and so forth – that are there.”

In reality, the United States has no firmer ally in the Pacific than Australia. So deeply is the ANZUS alliance (albeit absent nuclear-free New Zealand) embedded into Australian political culture that former Deputy Secretary of Defence Hugh White remarks that in debate about how to respond to the rise of China (Australia’s largest trading partner) very few people on either side of mainstream Australian politics or in the broader security practitioner community seem able to even conceptualise – let alone seriously consider – strategic options outside the current version of the ANZUS alliance. Australian identity appears to have become deeply fused with the US alliance, sixty years after it was established, and in a very different strategic and economic environment.

Nautilus Peace and Security Weekly Report

"[...]While challenging Australians to think more deeply outside the settled ways of blind acceptance of all aspects of the American alliance, and repudiating current incoherent Australian defence planning (such as converting the bulk of the army into a regionally and indeed globally deployable niche amphibious force), White’s own analysis favours a realist approach to regional uncertainties emphasizing considerable expansion of defence force capacities for the defence of Australia in a region to be rendered inevitably turbulent by the continued rise of China. "

Last week White’s case was substantiated by a headline in a leading national newspaper proclaiming “Defence cuts a ‘threat’ to US alliance.” In fact, the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments have been even more demonstrative in their support of the United States in Afghanistan and other security concerns than the former conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, dubbed “the Man of Steel” by George W. Bush.

While challenging Australians to think more deeply outside the settled ways of blind acceptance of all aspects of the American alliance, and repudiating current incoherent Australian defence planning (such as converting the bulk of the army into a regionally and indeed globally deployable niche amphibious force), White’s own analysis favours a realist approach to regional uncertainties emphasizing considerable expansion of defence force capacities for the defence of Australia in a region to be rendered inevitably turbulent by the continued rise of China. True to his own interpretation of the state of Australian security thinking, White’s admonitions are in turn under attack as an unthinkingly pessimistic interpretation of power-transition theory – but mainly by political figures now far from the centres of power in Australia, such as former hardline Liberal Party Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, now regarded by both sides of politics as a “mad leftie.”

In reality, Australians, living in a small country on the periphery of global power, face an extraordinarily complex set of cultural and intellectual tasks in addressing security threats, genuine and fantasized. The deep structure of Australian political culture involves essentially racialist cultural baggage of the country’s origins in genocide of its indigenous peoples as a settler colonial outpost of mother country Britain in “distant” Asia. This requires rebuilding on twin foundations of internal reconciliation with indigenous Australians and external integration with Asia and the South Pacific. Clearly both issues inflect the current question of “the rise of China” – with the United States having replaced Britain, and “the rise of China” implying much more than just a strategic re-arrangement. Hence the difficulties, silences, and contradictions of the current Australian debates.

The immediate, but clearly difficult first task is to complete the disengagement from the psycho-cultural detritus of the Cold War. In part this is a matter of placing the verities of the ANZUS alliance in a rational national interest perspective. But it is also a matter of unpicking the deep cultural structures of the nuclear aspects of the Cold War in a way that an even smaller but more courageous country New Zealand did in the 1980s. The Lange government of New Zealand did not want to leave the ANZUS alliance: it just did not want to be defended by US nuclear weapons. In the future, if the path to a nuclear-free world is to be more than a chimerical PR phrase, some if not all US allies will have to follow New Zealand on the road to a nuclear free alliance posture, escaping the trap for both sides of the alliance of adherence to extended nuclear deterrence in the absence of a serious nuclear threat that cannot be addressed with conventional responses.

The global transformation of its military forces that the US has embarked on with its Pacific pivot strategy inevitably articulates not only with a complex, contested and highly uncertain global and regional strategic environment, but also with complex and uncertain national domestic environments, which have their own urgent requirements for strategic renewal.

—Richard Tanter, NAPSNet Contributor

The Nautilus Peace and Security Weekly Report presents articles and full length reports each week in six categories: Austral security, nuclear deterrence, energy security, climate change adaptation, the DPRK, and governance and civil society. Our team of contributors carefully select items that highlight the links between these themes and the three regions in which our offices are found—North America, Northeast Asia, and the Austral-Asia region. Each week, one of our authors also provides a short blog that explores these inter-relationships. 

Further News:

China a better Pacific friend than US: Samoan PM

Times of India video U.S Will Deploy 60% of Navy Fleet To Asia- Pacific region.

U.S Defence Secretary Leon Panetta's entire policy speech at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue  (video posted below)

 

Club Em Designs

Stratfor Video Brief: Australia's Bending Foreign Policy

SiFM earlier post highlighted regional observers, who advocated such a shift.

Stratfor's video brief (posted below)on South Pacific geopolitics and describes Australia's shift in foreign policy towards Fiji.

Club Em Designs

X-Post-Island Business: New Players In The Region

The New Players in the Region

Pacific diplomacy boosts links with new friends Nic Maclellan Pacific nations are largely reliant on aid, trade and investment from traditional partners like Australia, New Zealand, United States, France and Japan. But in recent years, there has been increasing interest in finding new sources of development assistance, economic and political support. Pacific governments have been diversifying their political and economic links beyond the old regional groupings—led by France, United States and Australia/New Zealand—that dominated islands politics throughout the Cold War years.  In the mid-1980s, PNG’s then Prime Minister Paias Wingti talked of a ‘Look North’ policy for his country, to extend relations beyond the old colonial ties with Australia.  Today, Pacific Islands Forum countries are looking north-west, north-east and to other points of the compass. There is a growing interest in South–South cooperation and new countries are seeking the status of Post-Forum dialogue partner with the Pacific Islands Forum. This trend is driven by a more co-ordinated and assertive diplomacy on the international stage by island ambassadors at the United Nations such as PNG’s Robert Guba Aisi, Fiji’s Peter Thomson, Solomon Islands’ Colin Beck and former Vanuatu Prime Minister Donald Kalpokas. Currently, Nauru’s UN Ambassador Marlene Moses is the chair of the Alliance of Small Islands States (AOSIS) while Samoa’s ambassador Ali’ioaiga Feturi Elisaia represented Small Islands Developing States on the Transitional Committee for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The post-coup rift between Canberra, Wellington and Suva has accelerated these existing trends in regional policy. Under the Bainimarama administration, Fiji is broadening its international links by opening embassies in Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia. Addressing the UN General Assembly in September 2010, Commodore Bainimarama stated that “this significant shift in foreign policy direction heralds the globalisation and maturity of Fiji. It demonstrates Fiji’s intention to become a good and engaged global citizen. Accordingly, over the past year, Fiji has formalised diplomatic relations with many countries with which no ties previously existed. In addition, Fiji has sought membership of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)”. Fiji was formally admitted to NAM in April 2011, becoming the second islands member alongside Vanuatu. Fiji’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, told Radio Australia last year that joining NAM would help refocus Fiji’s relationships away from its traditional partners Australia and New Zealand and allow Suva to pursue its ‘Look North’ policy, through direct engagement with ASEAN countries and strengthen ties to Beijing.   China’s increasing interest in the region is provoking a re-engagement by the United States, highlighted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2010 visit to the region and new military deployments in Guam and Australia announced last year by President Obama. Beijing is active on a range of fronts: investment in the Ramu nickel project in PNG’s Madang province; the provision of aid and soft loans worth US$206 million in 2010; increased fisheries and construction programmes around the region and support for agencies such as the South Pacific Tourism Organisation. But increasing islands ties with China are just part of the picture. Around the region, there are a range of new players that are complicating life for the ANZUS allies—from Cuba, Russia, Timor-Leste and Indonesia to unexpected actors like the United Arab Emirates, Israel and Luxembourg. From Havana to Honiara   Cold War paranoia about the Russian threat in the Pacific lost force after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Once scorned as a Soviet proxy in the islands, Cuba has improved relations with the Forum islands nations over the last decade.   Solomon Islands and Cuba established diplomatic relations in December 2002 and Havana opened a resident mission in Kiribati in 2006. Honiara then signed a development co-operation agreement with Cuba on March 6, 2007. Other countries expanded ties after a September 2008 Cuba-Pacific summit in Havana, attended by Kiribati President Anote Tong; then Tuvalu Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia; and other Pacific foreign ministers and officials.  In early 2009, Cuba established formal diplomatic relations with Fiji, Tonga and Samoa. Since then, there has been increased diplomatic contact with Cuba on issues like development, decolonisation and climate change, through common membership of AOSIS and the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation.   This South-South link has focused on the health sector. Cuba currently supplies medical staff to Kiribati, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea, while students from these countries study medicine and primary healthcare in Havana. In Solomon Islands, for example, Cuba has agreed to send 40 doctors and offered scholarships for Solomon Islands students to study medicine in Cuba. Solomon Islands announced in March 2011 that it would establish an embassy in Havana—partly in reaction to complaints by Solomons’ medical students that they were not getting the financial and pastoral support they had been promised. From Russia with love   Russia continues to have small but influential ties in the region, with proposals for investment in PNG’s Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) industry and recent provision of ‘humanitarian’ aid to Nauru. Last year, on the fringes of the UN General Assembly in New York, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with a range of Pacific leaders and foreign ministers.   Then Lavrov visited the region earlier this year, with stops in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji. After courtesy calls on Prime Minister Bainimarama and Foreign Minister Kubuabola, Lavrov joined regional delegates at the Sofitel Fiji Resort in Nadi on February 1 for the ‘Russian Federation and Pacific Islands Countries meeting’.   The Russian minister gained Suva’s agreement to develop a treaty for visa free travel between Russia and Fiji, and Lavrov expressed his government’s interest in co-operating with Pacific states on investment, minerals, energy, tourism, education and medicine. One unspoken element in the dialogue is Moscow’s concern about Beijing’s small but growing influence in the region.   Another of Russia’s interests is winning recognition for two breakaway regions of Georgia—the states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  In 2009, Nauru was one of only four UN member states to grant this recognition, later joined by Vanuatu and Tuvalu who recognised the Russian-backed regions.   Relations with Russia have not gone smoothly. As everyone should remember—when you’re out and about and tempted to dance with a new partner, think about the reaction of those you’ve left at home. In February, Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Peter Shanel Agovaka and Permanent Secretary Robert Sisilo met bilaterally with the Russian Foreign Minister to discuss the formalisation of Solomons’ diplomatic relations with Russia next October.  However, on his return to Honiara, Shanel was sacked by Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo who stated: “As a developing country, Solomon Islands should continue to strengthen our ties with traditional partners before pursuing new diplomatic groupings.”  Shanel’s foreign secretary was also reshuffled and is now the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Police, National Security and Correctional Services. Support for Russia’s policy has also been contested in Port Vila, with attempts to reverse the initial decision on Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  Vanuatu’s media have raised concern about the role of Mrs Thi Tam Goiset, the country’s first Roving Ambassador to Russian and the Eastern Countries. Luxembourg and the United Nations   According to the Vanuatu Daily Post, the Ambassador’s contract includes a 15% entitlement to any money secured in the name of the Republic of Vanuatu. For many years, islands governments often paralleled ANZUS policies on many international issues, except where there are clear issues that affected the region. Small Islands States governments like Tuvalu and Kiribati have fought hard against the US, Australian and Canadian coal lobby in international climate negotiations, while Tonga, Samoa and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) nations have consistently voted for nuclear disarmament initiatives at the United Nations, in sharp opposition to Canberra and Washington. Although constrained by the high cost of attending international meetings and maintaining overseas embassies, Pacific governments have been willing to use their vote as a diplomatic bargaining tool. A solid (and potentially growing) bloc of islands votes is a major resource when it comes to decisions in UN agencies or the regular votes for rotating seats on the UN Security Council (UNSC).   Alongside the UNSC permanent members (USA, UK, France, China and Russia), there are 10 non-permanent seats which rotate among the regional blocs that group UN member states—and people are eager to woo islands votes. Last September, the Asia Group within the United Nations formally changed its name to the ‘Group of Asia and the Pacific Small Islands Developing States’, a reflection of the Pacific’s new diplomatic vibrancy and growing links between Forum Islands Countries and Asian powers. One of the legacies of colonialism is that Australia and New Zealand are members of the ‘Western European and Others Group’ (WEOG), rather than the Asia-Pacific group.   For the 2013-14 UNSC term, Australia is competing with Finland and Luxembourg for the two seats as part of the WEOG group at the high table. This competition explains the entry of the latest player into Pacific politics—the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Luxembourg has a population the size of Solomon Islands, but it’s one of the richest European states, home to tax havens and extensive private banking. Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn has been actively lobbying for the rotating UNSC seat, travelling to the 2011 NAM meeting in Bali and wooing Fiji and Vanuatu. Prime Minister Bainimarama invited a representative from Luxembourg to attend the March 2011 MSG summit as a ‘special guest’, and both Luxembourg and Finland sent delegations to the 2011 Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland to lobby on the sidelines. So far, this diplomacy hasn’t borne results. In Auckland, Forum leaders (minus Fiji) reaffirmed their “strong and unanimous support” for Australia’s bid for the UNSC seat in 2013-2014 and New Zealand’s bid for 2015-2016 (Stay tuned for October to see if Fiji can woo any islands state to switch their vote from Australia at the last minute!) Beyond support for the two largest Forum members, the 2011 leaders’ communique also noted “the importance of Pacific representation on the UN Security Council (UNSC) in ensuring the UNSC remained informed on international issues of concern to the region.” This suggests that the island bids for representation on the UNSC may be in the wind in the coming years. Fiji considered a bid for one of the Asia-Pacific group’s rotating seats in 2012, but agreed to defer its candidacy in favour of Pakistan, which went on to win the seat. Suva may expect the favour returned for 2015-2016, if national elections go ahead as scheduled in 2014 and Fiji is welcomed back into the arms of the ‘international community’. Nic Maclellan "The post-coup rift between Canberra, Wellington and Suva has accelerated these existing trends in regional policy [...] NAM would help refocus Fiji’s relationships away from its traditional partners Australia and New Zealand and allow Suva to pursue its ‘Look North’ policy, through direct engagement with ASEAN countries and strengthen ties to Beijing [...] Around the region, there are a range of new players that are complicating life for the ANZUS allies—from Cuba, Russia, Timor-Leste and Indonesia to unexpected actors like the United Arab Emirates, Israel and Luxembourg." United Arab Emirates (UAE)   In the 1980s, the Kingdom of Tonga was one of the brokers of Libya’s engagement with the islands region. Today, Nuku’alofa has opened the door for another Middle East power—the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As part of its shift towards renewable energy, Tonga has been a key Pacific player in the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), which was officially established in January 2009 to “promote the widespread and increased adoption and sustainable use of all forms or renewable energy”. After ratifying the IRENA Statute in November 2009, Tonga became one of the first countries in the world to be a full member of the new agency. Tonga has been elected to the IRENA Council, which administers decisions of the agency’s global assembly.Through IRENA, successive Tongan governments have built links with the UAE. The then Prime Minister Feleti Sevele led a Tongan delegation to the UAE in January 2010 for the Third IRENA Preparatory Commission meeting.   On January 18, in Abu Dhabi, the MASDAR renewable energy company signed an MOU with the Government of Tonga to build a 500- kilowatt solar photovoltaic power plant in Vava’u, funded by a grant from the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development, an agency controlled by the UAE government. The following month, UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan toured the Pacific in a private Boeing 737 800, leading a delegation for courtesy visits to Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, and Palau (UAE is now supporting Palau’s dugong protection programme).   In Nuku’alofa, Tonga’s Crown Prince Tupouto’a-Lavaka signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UAE Foreign Minister on February 9, 2010 and His Royal Highness has been named as the Ambassador Designate to UAE. The UAE has now launched a US$50 million “UAE and Pacific Islands Partnership Programme” to be overseen by the UAE Foreign Ministry and managed by the government-owned Abu Dhabi Fund for Development.   Seeking AOSIS goodwill as one of the world’s highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, UAE was also looking for support for their 2010 bid for a seat on the UN Security Council rather than Canada (Canada lost). Canada and the UAE had a long-running dispute over access for Emirates airline to Canadian airports, and the issue of airline access resonates in the Pacific.  At a time Qantas is looking at its major shareholding in Air Pacific, improved ties to the Emirates airline could be important for Fiji, which has hundreds of nationals serving in Middle East peacekeeping operations. These links with the UAE opened the way for a June 2010 meeting between Pacific countries and the Arab League, hosted by the UAE Foreign Minister in Abu Dhabi. The ‘Prospects of Cooperation between Arab countries and the Pacific Islands conference’ started discussions on aid and political co-operation and even proposed opening an Arab League office in the islands. At the meeting, “the Pacific Small Islands Developing States noted the concern of Arab states regarding the conflict in the Middle East, in particular in Palestine. The Pacific Small Islands Developing States undertook to give appropriate consideration to the Arab Peace Initiative, recognising that the views of the Arab States were crucial to a just, comprehensive and permanent peace in the Middle East.” The meeting communique agreed to support international efforts to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East (with an international conference on weapons of mass destruction in the region scheduled for late 2012). In the coming months, Pacific governments will be lobbied extensively on Iran’s nuclear programme and Israel’s arsenal, estimated at 80-200 nuclear weapons. Middle East politics   As with the China-Taiwan dispute, the Arab-Israeli conflict will force Pacific islands to juggle allegiances. The 2010 meeting with the Arab League sparked concern amongst the ANZUS allies and Israel, as some participants started to draw away from US-Israeli positions on Palestine. The United States and Israel are lobbying Pacific states against support for Palestinian statehood and, as always, existing aid and trade relations come into play. In December last year, Vanuatu was one of only 15 countries that opposed Palestine’s application to join the United Nations Economic Scientific and Cultural Organisation(UNESCO).  As the only Pacific country receiving US funds through its Millennium Challenge, Vanuatu’s Education Minister Marcellino Pipite told Vanuatu’s Daily Post that “prior to the UNESCO conference, I met USA officials and presented a request for the second Millennium Challenge Funds and did not want to jeopardise this with voting against Israel.”   Under their Compacts of Free Association, FSM, Marshall Islands and Palau have regularly voted with the United States and Israel against the international consensus on Palestinian rights. But solidarity with the United States comes at a cost. After the Marshall Islands opposed statehood for the Palestinians by abstaining in a 2011 UN General Assembly vote, Marshalls’ Foreign Minister Phillip Muller complained: “We were then told in a diplomatic note from the UAE that we were no longer eligible to participate in the renewable energy fund.We’ve been penalised for being friends with certain countries and no one is stepping up to fill the void.” Other countries with strong ties to Australia, like Solomon Islands, have also developed new ties with non-traditional partners in recent years. Honiara has been building diplomatic links with Iran and has joined Vanuatu to call for an end to the US embargo of Cuba.   In 2008, Solomon Islands’ then Foreign Minister William Haomae met his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki in New York to discuss formalising diplomatic relations. Haomae then led a Solomon’s delegation to Tehran and the two countries signed a Cooperative Memorandum to explore development cooperation agreements. At the time, the Solomon Islands government rejected criticism from Israel over alleged Iranian influence, with an official stating: “We have no enemies, and therefore, we will be friends to all the nations, including both Israel and Iran.”   Israeli officials travelled to Honiara in 2009 to lobby the Sikua government over perceived policy shifts on Middle East affairs. In November 2009, Solomon Islands was the only Pacific islands nation to vote in the UN General Assembly in support of a resolution calling for independent investigation of allegations of war crimes documented in the Goldstone report (a study by a leading South African jurist which criticised human rights violations by Israel and Hamas during the Israeli invasion of Gaza in early 2009). Australia, Nauru and the US Compact states all voted to reject the report, with other Forum members abstaining.   In response to this increasing Pacific dialogue with the Arab world, Israel is increasing its regional lobbying. In January 2010, FSM President Emanuel Mori and Nauru’s then President Marcus Stephen travelled to Israel, meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman and President Shimon Peres. In April 2011, the speaker of Israel’s Knesset, Reuven Rivlin, visited Tonga to improve relations between the two countries, while last August Israel’s President Shimon Peres offered Nauru support for desalination projects.   Tel Aviv has approved new aid programmes through MASHAV (Israel’s International Development Cooperation Agency). TAG International Development will implement development assistance programmes in Solomon Islands, with visiting delegations investigating agricultural projects in Malaita. Israeli experts are also looking at a hydroelectricity project in the Southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea. Timor-Leste and Indonesia   Closer to home, independent Timor-Leste gained Special Observer Status at the Pacific Islands Forum in 2002. Even though Timor-Leste is still primarily looking west to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Dili is co-operating with the Melanesian Spearhead Group on trade, climate change and other issues.   In early 2011, MSG member states agreed to allow Indonesia and Timor-Leste to attend the March 2011 MSG leaders’ summit as observers. In September 2011, Timorese Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão visited the MSG Secretariat in Port Vila (the first visit by an overseas head of government since the secretariat was opened in 2008) and Timorese officials announced a US$500,000 grant for salaries and projects.   For many years, Indonesian diplomats have lobbied the islands region from embassies in Canberra, Wellington, Beijing and Tokyo but now Jakarta is seeking more links on the ground. Indonesia’s observer status at the March 2011 MSG summit was followed the next month by the opening of its new embassy in Suva. The Kilman government in Vanuatu too is moving closer to Indonesia, with the December 2011 signing in Jakarta of a Vanuatu-Indonesia Development Co-operation Agreement. These moves have dismayed the West Papua National Council for Liberation (WPNCL), which has an information office in Port Vila (especially as the new co-operation agreement stresses Indonesian territorial integrity, sovereignty over West Papua and prohibits Vanuatu from interfering in Indonesia’s “internal affairs”).   Indonesia’s MSG observer status was a sharp blow for the West Papuan nationalist movement, which has been lobbying for that status for many years. Indonesia is not alone as an active regional player from Asia. Malaysian corporation Naim is building roads across Fiji, Rimbunan Hijau dominates PNG’s forestry sector while Korea’s POSCO has struck a major nickel deal with the FLNKS-dominated northern province in New Caledonia. In 2011, Korea tripled its development aid to the islands region from US$300,000 to $US1 million as part of the Lee Myung-bak government’s “New Asia Diplomacy” initiative. Last June, Korean diplomats and representatives of 14 islands nations gathered in Seoul for the first ever Korea-Pacific summit (by coincidence, Korea is bidding for one of the rotating Asia-Pacific seats at the UN Security Council in 2013-14!). Canberra’s dilemma   Some Australian officials have expressed concern that the islands’ diversifying diplomatic links are simply a matter of chequebook diplomacy. But there are also some fundamental policy differences between Pacific states and Canberra, Washington and Paris. Some islands leaders increasingly attracted by economic models from Asia that involve capital controls, government intervention and reliance on state-run enterprises, rather than the Washington consensus of trade liberalisation and privatisation.  At a time when Canberra backs France’s ongoing colonial role in the South Pacific and maintains a paltry 5% target for greenhouse emissions cuts by 2020, it’s hardly surprising that Pacific nations are looking to new friends. The new role of the Pacific Small Islands Developing States (PSIDS) grouping within the United Nations is causing debate in Australia.  A 2011 report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) notes: “The importance of PSIDS for Australia’s regional position is that, to some extent, the group demonstrates our alienation from the FICs. The Pacific Islands Forum has had observer status in the General Assembly since 1994. The increased prominence of PSIDS derives from the FICs’ preference for a form of engagement that excludes Australia and New Zealand, which would be included in any discussions under the PIF banner. The PSIDS feel very satisfied with their inclusion in the UN’s Asia Group, especially under its new name.” With former NSW Premier Bob Carr taking over from Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister and initiating talks with New Zealand about new policies towards the Bainimarama administration, there are signs that Canberra is starting to respond to the new regional dynamic. Sept 2012: Russian s ready to land   By Davendra Sharma If Russians have yet to make a mark on the Pacific, just wait until September 2012 when Moscow hosts the region’s most powerful meet—the Asia Pacific Economic Community Summit. Already eyes of the regional superpowers like Australia and the United States are on Russia as it prepares to host the influential meeting of leaders from the two regions, Asia and Pacific. They will be keen to study how Moscow will enhance its regional profile and gain an opportunity to establish itself in the region.   Since the visit last January by Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov to Australia, Fiji and Kiribati as part of his five-nation tour, the European country has been accused of chequebook diplomacy. But economic deals are not only interests Moscow has in the Pacific, it also has military and political intentions as the former Soviet power embraces the Pacific region.   In a report, The phantom of the Pacific: Reconsidering Russia as a Pacific power prior to APEC–2012, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) argues that increased Russian diplomacy in key parts of Asia and Oceania is driven by “economic, political and military strategic considerations”. It said that the economic driver to Russia’s re-engagement in the Asia Pacific region is also to expand and find markets for its burgeoning energy industry. Russia has been able to woo support at the UN for recognition of its disputed territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia—the scene of Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia.   While the region’s biggest aid donor, Australia, accuses Russia of “exploiting” some of the world’s smallest economies like Kiribati, Tuvalu, Nauru, Vanuatu and Fiji, Russia is marching on and forging ties with whichever countries it can in the Pacific Islands Forum region. Russia is said to have poured tens of millions of development aid to these five countries in return for their acknowledgement of the Russian puppet states. The former phosphate-rich Nauru, which now relies on foreign remittances and assistance on living expenses, was reportedly given US$50 million.    The new ASPI report also questions Russia’s political intentions as Moscow increases its presence in Oceania which it says “provides the nation with both a challenge and an opportunity, because it allows Russia a platform to display its restored military power to potential allies and friends, including through military exercises and out-of-area deployments. Kiribati deal   Russia it seems is taking a leaf out of China’s policy book as it pursues economic deals and assistance in the Pacific islands. China also launched a campaign in the Oceania region in the early 1990s as it competed with Taiwan over recognition by Forum members like Kiribati, which has very limited natural resources and significant lag behind other Forum countries. But to Russia’s surprise, the governments in Tarawa over the last 20 years have had a long standing patterns of creating ties with new economic powers in the Pacific—be it Australia, China, Taiwan, the United States, United Kingdom, Germany or Cuba. Russia is just another new player.   For years it was China versus Taiwan. While China helped build the main infrastructure in Kiribati as well as supply specialist and skilled workers like doctors, Taiwan built a A$8 million stadium. And now it is Russia versus Georgia—both former members of the Soviet Union, which collapsed in 1991. As one regional Auckland-based commentator puts it, “It all depends on how much the latter and its Western backers would be willing to donate to this cause.”   And so as Australia’s parliamentary secretary for the Pacific islands affairs, Richard Marles argues that while competition benefits consumers the most, the resource-poor islands countries can only win here at the expense of the regional superpowers like Australia and New Zealand watching from the sidelines. While long-time major donors accuse Russia of pressuring the islands countries of trading their sovereignty, the deals actually end up benefitting the poor countries in Oceania. "This kind of cheque-book diplomacy undermines development assistance in the region," said Marles. Fiji   When Lavrov decided a stopover in Fiji to meet military strongman, Commodore Bainimarama, Australia and New Zealand were left wondering how much deeper could Russia penetrate into relations with Oceania. Like Kiribati, Suva under Bainimarama has stepped up ties with China and Russia. Shunned by New Zealand and Australia, Fiji has moved swiftly in 2012 to also reaffirm closer relationship with the United States and other Asian democracies like Japan. The Australian thinking however is that Russia has more military and strategic considerations than any other agenda as it pierces through the Oceania region. “More traditional geostrategic factors are also driving the Russians to give the Pacific greater prominence in the coming decade,” noted the ASPI report. Russia’s military potency second to none   It asserts that the Russians are concerned that on one hand Washington is talking up downsizing its military might, it is still pouring millions into its Pacific allies and territories like Guam, American Samoa, FSM and the Northern Marianas.   Russia is only second to the US in terms of being the world’s most potent military power and it also the world’s sixth largest economy. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, where Australia aspires to be in years to come.  Russian interests in the South Pacific could also extend to mining as that country has the world’s third largest gold reserves. Mining of gold is a major source of employment in PNG and Fiji, where Australian companies are predominantly engaged.   Russia also enjoys an average annual growth of over 4%, one of the highest in modern-day Europe, most of which is slowly recovering from the three-year recession. The report forewarns that renewed Russian interest in the Pacific region should not been taken lightly by existing economic powers. “Russia’s long-term economic agenda and its clear interest in cooperation rather than confrontation drive this comeback. Its intention to rebuild a credible military capability in the Pacific is driven not by threat perceptions alone, but by a pragmatic need to protect its national economic and political interests,” it said. Further reading: http://stuckinfijimud.blogspot.com/2012/03/x-post-from-island-business-new-era-of.html

Club Em Designs