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.
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.
Anational election called by the unconstitutional, Australian-supported government in Papua New Guinea has become a shambles, forcing an unscheduled third week of polling in seven provinces. Voting in the
Eastern Highlands province will now end on July 17—11 days after the
original July 6 national deadline.
Logistical breakdowns,
combined with allegations of violence, corruption, vote-buying, ballot
box-stuffing and the exclusion of enrolled citizens from voting, have
thrown the elections into disarray. An extension of time was granted by
Governor-General Sir Michael Ogio on the advice of Electoral
Commissioner Andrew Trawen.
The disruptions have cast doubt on
the hopes of de facto Prime Minister Peter O’Neill, and his backers in
Canberra and Washington, that the elections would end months of
political instability, and provide a veneer of legitimacy to his
administration.
Because of the mountainous terrain and lack of
infrastructure across the country, the elections were intended to last a
fortnight, ending last Friday. The delay in balloting will push back
the counting of votes and then the negotiations between the various
parties to form a new government, which are not expected to be concluded
until next month.
Infighting within O’Neill’s shaky
parliamentary coalition has also worsened, with his deputy prime
minister, Belden Namah, accusing O’Neill of orchestrating a “disaster”
by reversing the government’s earlier decision to postpone the elections
by six months. In April, O’Neill had pushed legislation through
parliament to authorise a delay, but did an about-face when threatened
with sanctions by Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Protests led by
university students against an election postponement also placed the de
facto prime minister under pressure.
On June 28 Namah issued a
press release denouncing O’Neill for bowing to the advice of Australian
“advisers” to go ahead with the poll, despite the electoral rolls not
being ready. Namah claimed that thousands of people had been deprived of
voting rights. He issued a populist appeal to the public resentment
against interference by Australia, the former colonial power that ruled
Papua New Guinea (PNG) until 1975. “We must be patriotic and
nationalistic in our approach towards decision making for the future of
our country,” he declared.
Supporters of Michael Somare, whom
O’Neill ousted as prime minister last August, have questioned the
legitimacy of the elections. Somare’s son Arthur, a sitting member of
parliament, said the delayed voting would be influenced by the results
declared in the 11 provinces where balloting had finished. Michael
Somare fuelled political tensions by telling Australia’s SBS media
network that he would win the election and ensure that O’Neill “will go
to jail”.
The country’s small political establishment is
splintered into 46 so-called parties—many based on local businessmen who
have benefited as a result of huge mining operations. In the largest
project, US transnational Exxon-Mobil, along with its Australian-based
partners, has committed $16 billion to develop natural gas fields in the
southern Highlands, with production due to commence in 2014.
A
record 3,435 candidates are vying for 89 local and 22 provincial seats.
The election has been dominated by “money politics”—the purchasing of
votes by wealthy power brokers, or by disbursements from
parliamentarians’ electoral allowances. According to media reports, it
is not uncommon for businessmen in the western and southern highlands to
fork out 1 million kina ($US480,000) on campaigns—subsidising sporting
teams and other groups, buying pigs for feasts and financing campaign
teams.
The conflicts over the election threaten to deepen a
political crisis that began with O’Neill’s removal of Somare, which the
country’s Supreme Court declared unconstitutional last December. The
court reaffirmed that ruling in May, ordering O’Neill to step down.
Instead, O’Neill unlawfully reconvened parliament, purporting to nullify
the ruling, even though the assembly had already been prorogued for the
national elections.
The turmoil is a striking example of the
tensions being generated throughout the Asia-Pacific region by the
aggressive drive of the Obama administration to combat China’s growing
influence. Washington and Canberra welcomed Somare’s ouster because the
longstanding prime minister had developed closer relations with Beijing,
and encouraged Chinese investment in major mining ventures.
The
US plainly expects Australia to ensure that Chinese influence is pushed
back in PNG. The United States was “in a competition with China” in
PNG, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated publicly in March 2011.
She referred specifically to the importance of the US investment in the
Exxon-Mobil project.
Canberra has devoted considerable resources
to staging an election that can lend credibility to O’Neill. About 250
military personnel from Australia and New Zealand, together with 22
members of the newly created Australian Civilian Corps, have been
deployed. Among other tasks, they have transported more than 1,000 PNG
soldiers and police officers to the highlands on the pretext of
providing security for the voting.
The Australian High
Commissioner to PNG, Ian Kemish, told the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation that it was an unprecedented amount of assistance. After the
“pretty turbulent political period over the course of the last year,”
he said, it was “very important” for PNG to “move on into new political
territory where there’s more clarity and more stability.”
Last week, Australian Financial Review
defence columnist Geoffrey Barker, a visiting fellow at the Australian
National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote that
Australia had to arrest PNG’s “plunging trajectory towards state
failure”. He advocated providing Australian civilian and military
officials to “assist in running struggling departments,” and expanding
project aid “to match efforts being made by China to gain a toehold in
PNG.”
Barker also suggested that it may be necessary to launch
an army and police intervention along the lines of the Australian-led
RAMSI occupation of Solomon Islands in 2003. That was a colonial-style
takeover of the key levers of power in the small South Pacific state,
designed to reinforce Australian hegemony in the region. Barker said
such an operation would be criticised by some PNG leaders as
“imperialist and neo-colonial”, but “Australia is entitled to protect
its citizens, its security and commercial interests in PNG.”
This
blatant assertion of Australian interests is another sign of
preparations for intense conflicts, military and civil, in the
Asia-Pacific region. Last month, the Australian reported that
military strategists had drawn up detailed plans for the invasion of
PNG, as well as Fiji, as part of the Labor government’s 2009 Defence
White Paper.
After the Australian report appeared, the
Lowy Institute lamented the fact that the article had “further damaged
Australia’s legitimacy to influence PNG political elites and eroded
public support among locals for greater Australian intervention.”
Nevertheless, the institute insisted that indications of “the most
violent and corrupt elections in the nation’s 37-year post-independence
history” made clear that “Australia and other friends of PNG” needed to
act.
A RAMSI-style intervention in PNG, a far larger country
than Solomon Islands, with a population nearing seven million, would
require substantial US support, even more than was the case during the
1999 Australian-led military occupation of East Timor. The Obama
administration’s rotation of 2,500 US Marines per year through Darwin by
2017 and associated aerial and logistical support could assist such an
operation.
Whatever the eventual outcome of the PNG elections,
plans are clearly being discussed in Canberra and Washington to assert
their geo-strategic interests, notably against China, regardless of the
wishes of PNG’s people.
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 andanalyses 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.
The sight of Fiji’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Peter Thomson, chairing the General Assembly is yet another reminder
that although Fiji is a relatively small country, it punches way above
its weight. This week, Peter has been Acting President of the General
Assembly, conducting the everyday business of the UN from the famous
podium that has produced some of history’s most memorable images – from
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat waving his pistol to Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe. Along with hundreds of speeches from everyone from Che Guevara to Nelson Mandela, from the Queen to Frank Bainimarama.
Thirsty work: Peter Thomson (l) with his Fiji Water within reach (Photo:UN)
It was especially apt that with Ambassador Thomson in the chair, the
General Assembly considered reports about the financing of UN
peacekeeping operations. This is what really makes Fiji an indispensable
member of the club of nations – its ability and willingness to provide
troops to wear the UN blue beret in some of the world’s toughest places.
All Fijians owe a great debt to the men and women of the military
who’ve given their unstinting service – and sometimes their lives – to
improving the lives of ordinary people in the Middle East and elsewhere
by protecting them from conflict. And for sending the money they earn
home to help support their communities in Fiji.
Fijian UN peacekeepers ( photo: UN)
It’s made heroes in the most unlikely places of tough but softly
spoken people from island villages on the far side of the world. And
it’s given a country of which many would otherwise never have heard
gratitude and respect. Yes, Fiji gets an important source of revenue
from its peacekeeping operations. But it remains one of the few nations
able and willing to put its troops in the firing line to defend the UN
ideal of collective responsibility for all the world’s people.
Ambassador Semesa Sikivou (r) with UN Secretary General U Thant in 1970 ( Photo: UN)
Graham Davis
"
Peter has worked tirelessly for the country’s interests, shifting the axis of its global relationships from its traditional western allies to a policy of being “a friend to all”. He has spearheaded the Bainimarama government’s Look North Policy, launched formal diplomatic relations with more than three dozen countries and organised its membership of the Non Aligned Movement[...]
Fiji gain the benefit of lining up with some of the biggest players of the Asia Pacific region, the global powerhouse of the 21st century. And it has moved these countries out from under the skirts of their “big brothers” Australia and New Zealand, which belong to an entirely separate UN bloc – the Western European and Others Group.
"
Peter Thomson is the latest in a long line of Fijians who’ve
represented the country in New York, starting with the late Semesa
Sikivou at the time of independence in 1970. He has had a remarkable
personal and professional history. The son of Sir Ian Thomson– one of
the most respected administrators of the colonial era who stayed on to
head the sugar industry and Air Pacific – Peter began his career as a
district officer in Fiji and was then a diplomat in Tokyo and Sydney. He
was Permanent Secretary for Information when – with a pistol on the
table – Sitiveni Rabuka forced him to write the formal announcement of
the first coup of 1987. Then, after he became permanent secretary to the
then governor-general, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, Peter became a target
of ethno-nationalist extremists in the second coup of the same year. He
was tracked down and thrown into a prison cell for several days before
being forced to leave the country altogether.
Peter effectively spent more than 20 years in exile, first in New
Zealand and then Australia, where he became a successful writer and
authored Kava inthe Blood, a compelling account of
his life in Fiji. Then out of the blue three years ago came a call from
Frank Bainimarama’s office. Would he agree to represent Fiji at the UN?
Ambassador Peter Thomson with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon ( Photo:UN)
Would he ever. Grubsheet – an old friend – recalls the immense
satisfaction for Peter in being recalled to represent his country of
birth. It was as if his life had come full circle, the lifting of a
two-decade long punctuation mark in his career of service to Fiji.
In New York, Peter has worked tirelessly for the country’s interests,
shifting the axis of its global relationships from its traditional
western allies to a policy of being “a friend to all”. He has
spearheaded the Bainimarama government’s Look North Policy, launched
formal diplomatic relations with more than three dozen countries and
organised its membership of the Non Aligned Movement. He has vigorously
pursued Fiji’s interests in such areas as tackling global warming and
rising sea levels, preserving the maritime environment and, of course,
the peacekeeping operations that are so important to the country’s
economy and prestige. And he has played a vital role in batting off
attempts by Australia and New Zealand to have Fiji excluded from those
operations as punishment for the 2006 coup.
Frank Bainimarama addresses the UN (Photo:UN)
Even more importantly, perhaps, Peter has taken steps to
fundamentally lift Fiji’s status in the global community. He was a prime
mover in the formation of the UN voting bloc known as the Pacific Small
Island Developing States (PSIDS), which gives Pacific nations a far
bigger voice in global affairs by acting in concert. PSIDS has succeeded
in joining the Asian Group at the UN, which is now officially known as
the Asian and Pacific Small Island Developing States Group. This means
countries like Fiji gain the benefit of lining up with some of the
biggest players of the Asia Pacific region, the global powerhouse of the
21st century. And it has moved these countries out from
under the skirts of their “big brothers” Australia and New Zealand,
which belong to an entirely separate UN bloc – the Western European and
Others Group.
The strategic importance of such a re-alignment cannot be overstated.
It certainly underlines a fundamental truth about life in the global
village for small nations like Fiji. They may not have the ability to
project the same power and influence as their bigger neighbours. But in
the UN system, it’s numbers, not brawn, that really counts, except for
the five permanent members of the Security Council, who enjoy powers of
veto. Every other nation gets just one vote. And that is certainly
exercising the minds of the Australians right now as they mount a global
campaign to get a temporary Security Council seat. Given Canberra’s
present hostility towards Fiji, it certainly cannot expect to get Fiji’s
support.
An effective foreign minister: Ratu Inoke Kubuabola ( Photo:UN)
Peter Thomson, of course, is a cog in the wheel of Fiji’s
international relationships, albeit a big one. His ultimate boss, Ratu
Inoke Kubuabola has been a successful foreign minister and the two
enjoy a close relationship as they work with other ambassadors and
diplomatic staff to further Fiji’s international ties. And they, in
turn, have the confidence of the Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama,
who’s become an effective advocate himself both for Fiji and the region
in global forums – most recently at the environment summit in Brazil.
However much the regime’s critics might decry Commodore Bainimarama’s
penchant for globe-trotting, a small country’s loudest voice will always
come from its leader and lower-level representation rarely has the same
impact. It’s simply a fact of life that for Fiji to be heard, the Prime
Minister needs to travel widely to properly put its case.
His Excellency in his previous incarnation as an author (Photo: Peter Thomson)
It was Bainimarama who hand picked Peter Thomson for the UN job.
Their fathers had known each other in the 1960s when Thomson Senior was
Commissioner Western and Bainimarama Senior was the region’s Supervisor
of Prisons. Almost half a century on, Grubsheet is pleased to have
played a minor part in re-establishing the connection when – after an
interview with the Prime Minister- we talked about the old days in the
West and I mentioned that Peter and I got together regularly in Sydney
to talanoa about Fiji. Bainimarama’s eyes lit up and while he
didn’t say so at the time, he evidently began mulling over the
possibility of using Peter in some senior role.
Soon afterwards, Peter
began a private mission – financed by veteran Fiji businessmen Mark
Johnson and Dick Smith – to try to bridge the gap between Fiji and its
Australian and NZ critics. He went to Port Moresby to enlist the support
of the PNG leader, Sir Michael Somare, and the initiative produced the
first meeting of the respective parties for some time.
That was in 2009. Three years on and Ambassador Thomson is chairing
the United Nations General Assembly. It’s a triumphant personal story,
the Kai Valagi (European) civil servant removed at gunpoint and
forced to leave Fiji now sitting as moderator and adjudicator at the
pinnacle of global affairs. But it’s also one of the triumphs of
Bainimarama’s determination to use the best people- irrespective of race
– to present Fiji’s face to the world. To see my old mate sitting there
on the UN podium – Fiji Water bottle by his side – fills me with pride,
as it surely must others who hope that Fiji’s best days as a united,
prosperous, multiracial nation lie ahead.
FOREIGN POLICY AND STRATEGIC (SECURITY/MILITARY) policy usually play an important role in election campaigns.
However, these policies feature much less in Papua New Guinea’s political parities and candidates’ political manifestos. Foreign policy and
strategic policy of states are two of the most important elements that
define or determine a state’s coexistence and sustainability in the
international system. Both feature predominantly in almost all political
parties or candidates’ campaigns around the world.
Foreign policy is an
explicit policy defining how a state should interact with others (state
and non-state actors) in the international system to pursue its national
interest. This interaction could be undertaken at bilateral or
multilateral level where economic and security assume dominant roles. The strategic policy
explicitly defines the national security of the state. Security and
survival of state are fundamental. A state without a defensive system
expressed in terms of military power is more vulnerable to external and
internal threats.The defence/military power
projection of state ensures protection of sovereignty and people from
foreign invasion or other threats securitized as potential or real.
Both foreign policy and
strategic policy are not the same but are closely interrelated. Foreign
policy defines how a state should strategically interact to ensure peace
and stability regionally or globally. For instance, PNG’s recent
UN peacekeeping contribution to Sudan demonstrates the strategic
dimension of foreign policy - how our foreign policy is achieved through
defence force.
The question one should be
asking now is how effective is PNG’s foreign policy and strategic
policy in addressing national development? What is PNG’s role in an
increasingly complex web of interdependent and globalized world? How can
PNG rationally position itself in the region and globally given its
growing economic power consistent with Vision 2050? These are some of the
basic but fundamental questions political parties and candidates should
be highly considering or addressing during campaigns. Since independence less or
if not almost all parties and candidates calculate foreign policy and
strategic policy as low key issues.
Interestingly, one would
find that political manifestos are mostly centred on economic, political
and social dimensions, especially on leadership, good governance,
corruption, law and order, economic governance and management, and
social welfare; however less is featured on how they should manage
foreign relations and national security.
This behaviour strongly
suggests that their political advisers or strategists may have lacked
understanding on these areas or are simply too ignorant. On some extreme cases, one
would find that even in Parliament session, there is hardly any
critical discussion or debate on certain foreign and strategic policy
issues. The moot of discussions feature political attack and point
scoring, and economic and social issues of interest.
This is the missing link
in electoral politics discourse. The central argument that can be
posited is that domestic politics is a reflection of external politics.
What it simply means is that global politics affects the organizing
principle of domestic politics either directly or indirectly.
For instance, in the
regional or global economy, international politics shapes economics or
vice versa in ways that can affect national economy. PNG is now an
emerging economic power in the region driven by energy resources and
economization of these resources will depend on how it rationally plays
her economic diplomacy in world economy. Moreover, the capitalist
mode of international economy suggests that developing countries are
structurally organized in an exploitative principle where they will
continue to be an extractive source of great powers’ interest. This syndrome is most
common in developing countries where it is politically engineered by
capitalism - developing countries are entrapped in a complex web where
they cannot easily escape.
In addition, global
economic problem of resource scarcity, especially with geo-economic and
geo-strategic resources such as minerals, and oil and gas also suggests
that competition between great powers and emerging powers will increase
exponentially as demand increases. Intrinsically, it would be
more rational should parties or candidates consider constructing
equilibrium between economic and strategic imperatives in its strategic
calculus (policy model). What it implies is that parties or candidates
should try to balance national interest between national/domestic policy
and foreign policy in a cascading logic.
A coherent policy
framework delineating their plausible and trajectories to manage the
nation is necessary – a map that shows how they can manage national
economy while playing diplomacy with regional and global economic and
political powers. Parties and candidates should be concerned about how
they should rationally manoeuvre or navigate PNG through uncertain
environment.
On strategic front, PNG’s
defence force is currently in a weak state that requires boosting
through modernization to guarantee security and survival. We are living
in world of anarchy where there is no one world government with laws
(international law may not necessarily guarantee security) to regulate
(rogue) state behaviours therefore states will constantly compete to
survive.
Conflict, fear and
mistrust are permanent features of world politics. The downsizing of
PNGDF with the advice from Australia is an unwise strategic choice.
Continuous border incursion from Indonesia, maritime security such as
transnational crimes and energy security suggest military modernization
and power projection.
As far is national
security is concerned, Australia’s important traditional tie with PNG
may not necessarily guarantee our national security at some point.
Simple economic logic suggests that there will come a peak point in
future when Australia’s geo-economic interest and geo-strategic
capability to sustain its partnership with PNG will diminish.
The recent minor decrease
in Australia’s foreign aid to PNG may perhaps suggest this scenario.
Although this may not be likely at this stage given PNG’s geo-strategic
significance, it would be more rational for PNG to be prepared to stand
on its own feet and should be more assertive in assuming regional
leadership.
Should parties or
candidates are concerned about future of PNG to become a “Harmonious,
Prosperous and Healthy Society by 2050” investing in strategic dimension
is one of the important pillars of development.
The world is increasingly
and constantly changing and therefore if parties or candidates do not
understand dynamics of global politics and national security, they may
also find it quite difficult to manage politics in global and domestic
environments.
This argument does not
necessarily isolate important policies such as social welfare,
education, health, law and order, and others. What is suggested is that
foreign policy and strategic policy should be part of the overarching
policy framework for parties and candidates.
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.
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
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
The illegal Australian-backed government in Papua New Guinea has engaged in further desperate manoeuvres and authoritarian measures to remain in office. (Read more)
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.
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.