Asia - Pacific region is attracting the increasing attention of Western politicians against the backdrop of Chinese growing military and economic might. For instance the US influence had been indisputable until recently but today China’s intensifying efforts to raise its profile in the geostrategic area is something seen with the naked eye. US analysts sound the alarm saying the Chinese simply “pick up” the countries the US administration failed to build relationships with.
No doubt the Washington’s many years old human rights rhetoric, grown to become a foreign policy dogma, failed it. By ostracizing the ruling regimes in the Asia – Pacific for their incompatibility with “democratic values” in the US perception, it has involuntarily pushed them into China’s embrace. That’s the way it happened in case of Myanmar (Burma).
Till the USA criticized the Myanmar leadership for lack of freedom the Chinese promoted their interests there while cooperating with the powers that be of this poorest country at all levels. The Myanmar’s economy and infrastructure received from China dozens of billion of US dollars, about the same amount was rendered as military aid. Myanmar President U Thein Sein’s visit to China in 2011 became an evident prove of the growing bilateral cooperation. Then the China’s leadership said very important things about Beijing and Rangoon sharing strategic vision of international problems, the fact that couldn’t go unnoticed by the White House and not put it on guard.
The Myanmar’s geographic position has an important military strategic advantage – common border with India, China. Thailand and Laos. Myanmar is a good platform to exert pressure on China and exercise control over the strait of Malacca, passed by about 50 thousand ships yearly (one fifth or one fourth of the world commodity turnover). 11 millions barrels of oil are shipped through the strait daily. One of the oil consumers is China. Moreover Myanmar is rich in resources: oil, tin, tungsten, zinc, lead, copper, coal, precious stones, gas. It allows to easily win influential neighbors favor. Under the given circumstances Washington’s calls for the country’s international isolation will hardly produce any results. Myanmar will always find someone instead of the US.
Vladislav Gulevich: "The United States and Australia have an agreement on US military presence on Australian soil. No new bases are envisioned but the US servicemen have a right of permanent access to the Australia’s military infrastructure and the US naval presence in adjacent seas is to grow. Having military facilities in South Korea and Japan the United States is able to boost its influence in Western and Southern Asia-Pacific, including the South China Sea considered to be sovereign territory by the Chinese. The Sea control presupposes obvious geopolitical advantages once this waterway is the shortest and the most safe one for shipping from China, Japan and Russia to the Singapore strait and back.
New Zealand watches the Chinese Asia-Pacific diplomatic expansion closely, especially after China became close to the island nation of Fiji, situated in Southern Pacific, 1170 km from it. There is an apprehension that the very pace of Chinese – Fiji cooperation development may lead to one of the Fiji island becoming a place of China’s permanent naval presence. Here – the Chinese in Fiji, there – the Chinese in Timor. "
The same story takes place in case of a small island nation called Timor-Leste. The island enjoys an advantageous geographic position. It’s situated at arm’s length from neighboring Australia and Indonesia, the bottom of the Timor Sea is rich in oil and gas. For instance, the Bayu - Undan’s oil reserves are estimated to be $ 3 billion. The vicinity of the strait of Vetar is important too. It’s a deep water strait and is ideal for submarines passage from the Pacific into the Indian ocean. In contingency submarines effective activities will require control over it, that, in its turn, requires control over Timor-Leste.
In 2002 this former Portuguese colony eyed by Indonesia became independent. Since then the Washington and Beijing have been vying for influence there, the last one doing much better. The Chinese have already received a $ 378 million contract for two power plants construction. Light arms, uniform and other military equipment are bought in China. There is a 4000 Chinese diaspora on the island. A $ 3 billion credit from China was agreed on in January 2011. Before the career open Timorese used to get education in Australia or the USA to be promoted to high positions in politics or economy. Now it’s not the case anymore, they prefer to go to China for the purpose.
As the situation dictates, Washington strengthens its military strategic ties with Australia and New Zealand. An Australian military delegation headed by Stephen Smith, minister of defense, visited the US in July 2011 on the occasion of the 60 anniversary of the bilateral alliance. Afghanistan and growing might of India and China were among the issues topping the agenda. Australia confirmed its resolve to go on being the US “south anchor” in South-East Asia (1). US State Secretary Hillary Clinton made public the Washington’s intent to make the XXI century a century of the US Pacific policy (2). Australia is the major US ally in this part of the globe, its army strength is 51 thousand and it has over 19000 reservists. The country’s mobilization reserve is 4,9 million men. Canberra’s military expenditure is 2% of its GDP.
There are 16 US military facilities on its territory, including a missile test site and a navy communication station for nuclear submarines. Timor-Leste, Indonesia and Papua – New Guinea are situated to the North. The distance between Papua – New Guinea and continental Australia is only 145 km, narrowing down to just 5 km in case of the Australian Boigu and Papua – New Guinea. Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands lie to the North- East of the Australian continent. New Zealand is situated to the South-East. Among the countries listed here only New Zealand is a staunch and unambiguous ally of Australia, be it economy or policy. The others are attentively (and not without results) viewed by Beijing.
The United States and Australia have an agreement on US military presence on Australian soil. No new bases are envisioned but the US servicemen have a right of permanent access to the Australia’s military infrastructure and the US naval presence in adjacent seas is to grow. Having military facilities in South Korea and Japan the United States is able to boost its influence in Western and Southern Asia-Pacific, including the South China Sea considered to be sovereign territory by the Chinese. The Sea control presupposes obvious geopolitical advantages once this waterway is the shortest and the most safe one for shipping from China, Japan and Russia to the Singapore strait and back.
New Zealand watches the Chinese Asia-Pacific diplomatic expansion closely, especially after China became close to the island nation of Fiji, situated in Southern Pacific, 1170 km from it. There is an apprehension that the very pace of Chinese – Fiji cooperation development may lead to one of the Fiji island becoming a place of China’s permanent naval presence. Here – the Chinese in Fiji, there – the Chinese in Timor.
Moreover, there is a chance the Chinese would have a foothold in the Seychelles. China’s Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said so in September 2011 in response to the Seychelles president James Michael’s proposal to host a China’s naval base on his country’s soil. Situated between Asia and Africa to the North of Madagascar in the Western part of the Indian ocean, the Seychelles is a country of great strategic importance. Control over a significant part of the Indian ocean, as well as the waters adjacent to the shore of East Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, Somalia) becomes possible once an adequate naval force is based there.
The Seychelles signed a military cooperation agreement with China in 2004 that includes 50 Seychellois servicemen getting training in China (3). Besides the Chinese rendered significant aid to the Seychellois navy. In turn the Seychelles openly declared adherence to the principle of “One China” that is refused to recognize Taiwan. The Chinese navy ships already patrol narrow waters of the Indian ocean where the pirates threat is high. They need logistics resupply and maintenance facilities. May be that’s what the Seychelles may provide them with. Once the Chinese economy depends on external trade to great extent, Beijing has vital interest in eliminating piracy in this waters. Washington fears then there will be no way to push the Chinese navy out (2). In 2004 Booz Allen Hamilton, US government consulting firm, reported the substance of the Chinese tactics is to acquire a “necklace” of naval basing facilities in the Indian ocean (3). The Chinese interest towards the Seychelles evokes apprehension on the part of Washington keeping in mind there is a US unmanned aerial vehicles facility on the islands destined to tackle mysterious Somali pirates and exercise control over the territory of Somalia.
Still there are weak points of China’s position in the Asia-Pacific. Some experts say Beijing has no clear blue water strategy at the state’s level. Defense and promotion of economic interests is one thing, but a full-blown doctrine of strengthening its presence in the whole Pacific is something else.
A blue water strategy is something of a larger scale than just strategy and tactics adopted by a navy. It should comprise coordinated multifunctional activities of special state institutions – from major staffs and military experts to oceanographic institutes and economists. That’s why China will avoid sea conflicts as long as it can to upgrade its naval potential and implement its strategy towards Pacific countries including those in the immediate vicinity of the two major US allies – New Zealand and Australia. Beijing needs time. China relies on diplomacy (inexpensive means of taking care of its interests) and economy.
In case of economy China’s advancement into Africa is a good example: in 2003 the bilateral trade turnover was $10 billion, it was already $20 billion in 2004. China signed agreements on cooperation in the field of natural resources extraction with Angola, Nigeria, Zambia, Congo, Zimbabwe etc. Asia-Pacific is still only third China’s aid recipient – after Australia and the USA but it strives to get a foothold in as many strategically areas as possible, so that at the moment the US becomes critically weak it could start a dialogue with it not from the position of weakness but rather the position of strength.
1.Edi Walsh «America’s Southern Anchor?» (The Diplomat August 25, 2011)
2.“Clinton says 21st century will be US`s Pacific century” (Xinhua/Wang Fengfeng, 12.11.2011)
3.Jody Ray Bennett «Seychelles: An Open Invitation for China» (ISN Insights, 27. 12.2011)
L
owy's Institute blog "The Interpreter" featured a post titled"Fiji: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back", authored by Jenny Hayward Jones, who remarked about the amendment (PDF) to the Public Order Act of 1969:
It is too early to know the impact of this new decree or indeed the real impact of the Media Industry Development Decree, both of which appear to be aimed at enshrining in law most of the temporary powers available to the Fiji Government under the Public Emergency Regulations.
Jones continued later in the same post, arguing that the new found accolades for the recent removal of the Public Emergency Regulations (PER) in Fiji, were incompatible with the new amendments to the Public Order Act:
However, the fact that [Bainimarama] felt he could shun the plaudits he won from lifting the Public Emergency Regulations through(sic) the new restrictions on freedoms promised by the Public Order Decree suggests he continues to have little regard for the opinion of the international community.
While, it has been widely accepted that Fiji is still trudging in its own pace, on the road towards democracy; it would be rather naive at best for observers to assume that Fiji had arrived in its moment in the sun and claimed the status as described in former US President Reagan's historic speech of "city on a hill".
SiFM
"On one hand, Fiji is not a democracy; yet the shortfalls in media freedom is to be expected. On the other hand; the United States has been fully fledged member of the democracy club; yet the lack of media coverage of such mega erosion of civil liberties; does point to some degree of censorship in their newsrooms.
Is it the same international community that welcomed Fiji's removal of PER; have hypocritically acquiesced to the erosion of civil liberties in America?"
Comparatively, when considering the fore-mentioned amendment to the Public Order Act in Fiji (an infant in terms of democracy) and contrast that with America (hundreds years of being a democratic republic); the news of the recent passage of the NDAA bill, now signed into law by US President Obama only highlights such a dichotomy in democratic ideals and those who profess them incessantly.
The Guardian newspaper article underscores such hypocrisy:
President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.
In the same "City on a hill" speech in 1974, Ronald Reagan highlighted the uniqueness of the US Constitution:
The culmination of men's dreams for 6,000 years were formalized with the Constitution, probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man. I know there have been other constitutions, new ones are being drawn today by newly emerging nations. Most of them, even the one of the Soviet Union, contain many of the same guarantees as our own Constitution, and still there is a difference. The difference is so subtle that we often overlook it, but it is so great that it tells the whole story. Those other constitutions say, "Government grants you these rights," and ours says, "You are born with these rights, they are yours by the grace of God, and no government on earth can take them from you."
The world certainly knows fully well now, how things have changed in America.
The Guardian article further illustrates the scale and magnitude of how such civil liberties have been eroded and also points fingers at the mainstream media for not highlighting such major assaults on the U.S Constitution:
The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush administration. Even today, reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.
On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the constitution.
It was even suggested in Jones' latest blog post in "The Interpreter", which ironically has the image of Ronald Reagan on its website, that the International Community were willing to look past the sins of Fiji:
Nevertheless, there are still opportunities for the international community to look past the sins of Fiji's Prime Minister and help the people of Fiji achieve their aspirations for democracy.
Regardless of Jones' authority to speak on behalf of the International Community, it is highly questionable if the same international community Jones speaks of, routinely outlined the important role of the media in society and welcomed the PER removal in Fiji.
Jones also did point out the fact in a previous post that, during Fiji's PER had censors in the newsrooms:
Although Government censors may no longer patrol news rooms in Fiji after next week, it would be a brave editor who published overt criticism of the Government, given the strict punishments outlined in the Media Decree. Importantly, the Fiji Government now feels secure enough to commence discussions on a new constitution.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy which was highlighted earlier, does seem to widen and become much more embarrassingly apparent, in the context of Fiji and the U.S.
On one hand, Fiji is not a democracy; yet the shortfalls in media freedom is to be expected. On the other hand; the United States has been fully fledged member of the democracy club; yet the lack of media coverage of such mega erosion of civil liberties; does point to some degree of censorship in their newsrooms.
Is it the same international community that welcomed Fiji's removal of PER; have hypocritically acquiesced to the erosion of civil liberties in America?
In fact, other commentators have pointed other misuses of the fourth estate in the U.S.
Posted below is a video of such manipulations in the media, that the ubiquitous international community, mainstream media outlets and think tanks like Lowy Institute have silently tolerated. While Fiji is understandably moving one step forward and two steps back, as pointed out by Jones; it is not moving in circles and preaching that democracy is the be all and end all to everything.
Huffington Post Article from Ann Lenzer raised some interesting and pertinent questions about trust and the dissemination and the consumption of the media (mainstream or otherwise) in Fiji, be that intersects with a recent On The Media show discussing Payola in the news.
Australian High Court blocks frame-up charges against Moti
By Patrick O’Connor
8 December 2011
The Australian government suffered a significant blow yesterday, with a High Court ruling in favour of former Solomon Islands’ Attorney General Julian Moti. In a 6-to-1 majority decision, the court permanently barred any criminal prosecution of Moti on trumped-up statutory rape charges. It found that further prosecution of the charges would amount to an abuse of judicial process, because the Australian government had consciously colluded in Moti’s illegal removal from the Solomons in December 2007.
The judgement marks the collapse of Canberra’s protracted legal vendetta against Moti. Successive Liberal and Labor governments—working with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian diplomatic corps in the South Pacific—attempted to destroy Moti’s professional standing and political influence in the region and have him imprisoned for years because he was regarded as an impediment to the interests of Australian imperialism. From a Melanesian nationalist standpoint, Moti, an expert in international and constitutional law, had worked to uphold the national sovereignty and international legal rights of the small South Pacific states. This came into conflict with Canberra’s aggressive drive, backed by the US, to maintain its regional hegemony amid China’s rising influence.
Patrick O'Connor On Julian Moti Case
"The judgement marks the collapse of Canberra’s protracted legal vendetta against Moti. Successive Liberal and Labor governments—working with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian diplomatic corps in the South Pacific—attempted to destroy Moti’s professional standing and political influence in the region and have him imprisoned for years because he was regarded as an impediment to the interests of Australian imperialism [...]
The Australian government feared that Moti would use his legal experience and expertise to mount a challenge in the Solomons’ and international courts to RAMSI, exposing its highly dubious legal underpinnings."
In 2004, Australian authorities dredged up fabricated sexual assault allegations against Moti that had already been dismissed by Vanuatu courts. The Australian government’s interest in the charges was politically motivated from the very beginning. Internal memos, diplomatic cables, and emails—only made public because of Moti’s subsequent fight in the Australian courts—revealed that the then Australian High Commissioner to Solomon Islands, Patrick Cole, demanded an Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation to assist his efforts to prevent Moti’s appointment as the Solomons’ attorney general. Cole was desperate to prevent any challenge to Australia’s neo-colonial intervention force, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI).
The initial allegations were levelled against Moti in 1997 in Vanuatu. Charges were quickly thrown out of court in the pre-trial stage, due to the contradictory and demonstrably false evidence presented by the alleged victim and her family. Last March, the father of the alleged victim confessed, just three days before he died of a heart attack, that the allegations were false and maliciously motivated. He accused the AFP of intimidating his family and offering financial inducements. These allegations have never been investigated. The Australian media has maintained a blackout on the confession—with the exception of SBS Radio, not a single outlet has referred to the father’s statement.
The AFP’s investigation into Moti, named “Operation Rouge”, became the vehicle for his removal from the Solomon Islands in December 2007, after Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare was finally removed from office following a protracted destabilisation campaign mounted by the Australian government. Moti has always maintained that his extraction from the Solomons was illegal—amounting to a kidnapping or rendition—and that the Australian judicial system was therefore bound, in accordance with established precepts of international and common law, to refuse to permit the further prosecution of the charges.
The High Court has now agreed. It noted that the so-called deportation was executed in violation of Moti’s right to appeal the order within seven days of its issuance and also in defiance of a specific order issued by a Solomons’ magistrate prohibiting Moti’s detention and removal from the country. Australian authorities knew this, but nevertheless issued Moti with the necessary travel documentation, without his knowledge or permission.
The High Court explained: “First, Australian officials (both in Honiara and in Canberra) knew that the senior representative of Australia in Honiara at the time (the Acting High Commissioner) was of opinion that the appellant’s [Moti’s] deportation was not lawful. Second, the Acting High Commissioner’s opinion was obviously right. Third, despite the expression of this opinion, and its obviously being right, Australian officials facilitated the unlawful deportation of the appellant by supplying a travel document relating to him (and travel documents for those who would accompany him) at a time when it was known that the documents would be used to effect the unlawful deportation.”
On this basis, the court concluded that the maintenance of proceedings against Moti would constitute an “abuse of process of the court” and therefore had to be permanently quashed.
Justice Dyson Heydon issued a minority opinion, arguing against the established legal principle that courts ought to refuse to prosecute someone who has been kidnapped or illegally removed from a foreign jurisdiction by government authorities. Heydon insisted that prosecutions ought to be permitted regardless of how the defendant is brought before the court. The chilling opinion effectively sought to sanction rendition. It pointed to the deeply anti-democratic conceptions that are widely held in the legal and political elite and promoted under the banner of the so-called war on terror.
The majority High Court decision overturned the previous judgements of the lower courts that adjudicated on the Moti case.
In December 2009, the Queensland Supreme Court issued a permanent bar on the attempted prosecution, on the basis of the extraordinary AFP payments to the alleged victim and her family. Between February 2008 and November 2009 about $150,000 was paid—a sum far in excess of regular subsistence witness payments. Payments were repeatedly escalated as the alleged victim threatened to withdraw from the case and go to the media to expose how she was being used to advance the Australian government’s political interests. The Queensland Supreme Court said these payments had brought “the administration of justice into disrepute”—but at the same time insisted that it could not adjudicate on the legality of Moti’s removal from the Solomons’ because this was a foreign jurisdiction.
In July 2010, the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal reinstated the charges against Moti, dismissing concerns over both the AFP payments and the legality of the lawyer’s removal from the Solomons.
The High Court has now insisted that the so-called witness payments were not illegal and had not been used to procure evidence from prosecution witnesses. It added that any improprieties could be raised in the course of a trial to challenge the credibility of witness testimony, but did not warrant a stay of proceedings. This finding appears to establish a dangerous precedent. Permitting a trial even when enormous sums of money are provided by the AFP to procure testimony, if not evidence, creates a potential incentive for individuals to fabricate allegations against Australian citizens visiting or living in the region, especially those identified as opponents of the government.
The High Court ruling on the illegality of the Australian government’s actions in December 2007 is nevertheless very significant. Canberra’s unlawful targeting of the Solomons’ attorney general points to the fraudulent basis for the entire RAMSI intervention. In 2003, the Australian government deployed soldiers, police, and government and legal officials as part of an indefinite takeover of the Solomons’ state apparatus. This was promoted as a “humanitarian” mission, centrally aimed at re-establishing the rule of law in the country, following years of low-level communal conflict. Yet the Australian government has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the law in the Solomon Islands and across the South Pacific.
The High Court made no attempt to answer the obvious question raised by its assessment of what happened in December 2007: Why did the Australian government so blatantly break the law in order to get Moti out of the Solomons?
The illegal extraction was the culmination of a 20-month campaign waged by Canberra against the Sogavare government and its attorney general, Julian Moti. By December 2007, the Australian government was desperate to get Moti out of the Solomons, using whatever means at its disposal. After becoming prime minister in May 2006, Sogavare attempted to lessen RAMSI’s control over the country’s public finances, and he also called on the intervention force to outline its “exit strategy” from the country. Both moves were furiously denounced by the then Howard government, and the destabilisation campaign began.
Moti’s close relations with Sogavare were another factor in Canberra’s drive to force “regime change” in Honiara. The Australian government feared that Moti would use his legal experience and expertise to mount a challenge in the Solomons’ and international courts to RAMSI, exposing its highly dubious legal underpinnings. Moti was also an important participant in the Solomons government’s efforts to convene an official Commission of Inquiry into rioting that destroyed much of Honiara in April 2006, just before Sogavare became prime minister. There is substantial evidence indicating that the violence was instigated by RAMSI forces, which were then deliberately stood down in order to allow the destruction to unfold. Canberra denounced the proposed investigation and witch hunted everyone involved in it. Former Australian Federal Court Justice Marcus Einfeld had been appointed chairman of the Commission of Inquiry—but was forced to resign after becoming subject to a well-timed government and media vilification campaign over a perjury incident related to an unpaid speeding fine.
Unsurprisingly, none of these issues was canvassed in the High Court’s judgement. Even in its focus on the illegal facilitation of Moti’s extraction from the Solomons in December 2007, the court dealt only with the issuing of travel documents. The High Court insisted that it was “not necessary” to examine the activities of AFP agent Peter Bond. The police officer played an extraordinary role in Honiara immediately prior to Moti’s expulsion to Australia. Bond, according to the evidence presented by Moti’s counsel, participated in high level Solomons’ government meetings convened to organise the so-called deportation, personally fast tracked visas and travel documents for everyone involved in the Moti flight, assured the Solomons’ police commissioner that the lawyer’s removal was legal, directed a Solomons’ immigration officer to “do it quickly because the plane would be waiting”, and finally made sure that AFP officers would be waiting to arrest Moti in Australia the moment his plane landed.
In a statement to the World Socialist Web Site after the High Court judgement, Moti said: “The rule of law has finally prevailed over Australian executive lawlessness. The sole objective of the Australian government and its prosecuting authorities was to discredit, demonise and humiliate me. It was in Australia’s ‘national interest’ that I be removed from my official post—and continuing influence in the Pacific region—at any cost. ‘Operation Rouge’ was the codename devised for the Australian government’s mission to criminally accuse, capture, kidnap, remove, eliminate and silence a dissident Australian who dared to challenge Australian imperialism in the South Seas.”
The High Court ruling is an important vindication of Moti’s determined struggle against the Australian government’s vendetta. Enormous pressure has been brought to bear on him and his family. For the last four years he has been unable to work or claim any form of income support. He has lived without a passport or driver’s licence, and been forced to comply with unnecessary and onerous bail conditions, including regularly reporting to the local police station. He has nevertheless waged an expensive and protracted legal battle to expose the unlawful acts committed by the Australian government against him. In doing so, he has brought to light important documentation exposing the filthy operations of RAMSI and the Australian government in the Solomons that would otherwise never have been made public.
Moti is now reportedly considering his options in pressing for compensation from the Australian and Solomon Islands’ governments. He is also, according to barrister Roger de Robillard, considering calling for an official inquiry similar to those into the illegal deportation of Australian national Vivian Alvarez Solon to the Philippines in 2003 and the unlawful detention of Cornelia Rau in a refugee detention centre in 2004-05.
Archive video interview of Julian Moti by Sarah Ferguson from Channel 9.
The folly of Australian policy towards Fiji is at the centre of a damning new landmark report that suggests the United States has lost confidence in Canberra’s ability to influence events in the Pacific and counter rising Chinese influence in the region. It calls for the immediate and unconditional lifting of regional sanctions against Fiji and for Australia to “repair its relationship at the highest level” by re-engaging with the Bainimarama regime through the Pacific Islands Forum. “It is well past the time to treat this festering regional wound”, it declares.
The report details in stark terms the extent to which Australia has been isolated in the region and is losing its ability to influence “collective decision making in the South Pacific”. It cites as evidence the fact that eleven Pacific Island members of the United Nations have formed a voting bloc that excludes Australia and that the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) – which also excludes Australia – has backed fellow member Fiji against Australian sanctions.
Grubsheet On ASPI report "
Fiji’s membership of the Non Aligned Movement ” underscores Suva’s more aggressive pursuit of South-South dialogue, specifically to reduce reliance on its traditional friends, including Australia. Whether intended or not, China has been a significant beneficiary of this development as a leading state in the NAM
[...]The importance of Fiji for the new geopolitics of the region is that it’s actively challenging Australia’s privileged position in the regional system.
There are many reasons why Australia should repair relations with Fiji, but the deleterious effects of the current contretemps on the Pacific Islands Forum are the key because they cascade through the regional system
[...]ASPI report says that while “the US is reluctant to openly express criticism of Australia’s handling of regional relations, it’s clear there are genuine doubts about Australia’s capacity to lead islands’ opinion on relations with China"
It calls on Australia to “regather the threads of regional leadership” with a comprehensive range of measures that include repairing its relationship with Fiji, a country it describes as being at “the heart of the Pacific Islands regional system” as the principal transportation, communications and diplomatic hub. “The region cannot survive without its heart” – the report says – describing Fiji’s suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum as having “seriously changed regional dynamics”.
ASPI warns of the consequences of Fiji seeking new international relationships because of its breach with Australia and New Zealand over Frank Bainimarama’s 2006 coup. It says Fiji’s membership of the Non Aligned Movement ” underscores Suva’s more aggressive pursuit of South-South dialogue, specifically to reduce reliance on its traditional friends, including Australia. Whether intended or not, China has been a significant beneficiary of this development as a leading state in the NAM”, the report concludes.
The authors suggest that Fiji has outwitted Australia to the detriment of its national interests in the Pacific and the strength and cohesion of regional organisations such as the Pacific Forum . “The importance of Fiji for the new geopolitics of the region is that it’s actively challenging Australia’s privileged position in the regional system. There are many reasons why Australia should repair relations with Fiji, but the deleterious effects of the current contretemps on the Pacific Islands Forum are the key because they cascade through the regional system”. The report cites “the impossibility” of concluding the current PACER Plus trade negotiations and “the rift between the Pacific Islands Forum and the Melanesian Spearhead Group”, which have taken opposing views on Fiji.
It goes on to say that “Forum-related sanctions (against Fiji) are being subverted by other organisations, including the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), the Forum Fisheries Agency and even RAMSI, the billion dollar Australian intervention in Solomon Islands. It describes those sanctions as “impractical” and says “they have proved dysfunctional for Australia and for its image in the region”. It also says the delay in repairing the relationship has been costly, partly because attitudes in Fiji about the need for Australian assistance appear to have hardened”.
As well as the lifting of sanctions, the report calls on Australia to follow New Zealand’s lead in re-establishing ministerial contact. More controversially, it also calls for the re-establishment of Australia’s ties with the Fiji military to deal with maritime security, border protection and transnational crime.
ASPI goes on to examine the divergence in approach between the United States and Australia towards Fiji, exemplified last week when Washington’s new ambassador in Suva, Frankie Reed, visited Frank Bainimarama in the prime minister’s office. No Australian or New Zealand head of mission has had any direct contact with the Fijian leader since his coup five years ago. The report quotes Ms Reed as having described Fiji’s position in the Pacific as “unique” and said it was “a key focal point in America’s larger regional engagement with the South Pacific”.
In stark contrast with the Australian position, the ambassador said the United States sought a “more direct engagement with Fiji’s government to encourage the restoration of democracy” within the regime’s stated timetable of September 2014.
The ASPI report says that while “the US is reluctant to openly express criticism of Australia’s handling of regional relations, it’s clear there are genuine doubts about Australia’s capacity to lead islands’ opinion on relations with China”.
It concludes that “the US is taking on a more direct role in protecting its own interests in the region, just as it did in the mid to late 1980s when it felt that managing Cold War challenges in the Pacific Islands was beyond the capacity of Australia and New Zealand”.
EDS NOTE: Please excuse the lack of photographs due to a glitch with my WordPress account.
The regional leadership in the Pacific has a new entity, called the Polynesian Leadership Group (PLG) made up of island states from Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Niue, American Samoa, Tokelau, French Polynesia and Tuvalu.
Representatives of eight Polynesian countries
A Talamua article suggests that the Polynesian union was a 35 year dream, realized. According to the Samoa Observer Editorial, this new regional sub-group bloc is the culmination of five years of planning. Even though it was implicitly denied by the nascent Chair but categorically implied that, the trajectory of this new sub-group is projected to be used as a geopolitical leverage against the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).
Such manifestations by the new sub-group will be destined for negative divisions says Pacific academic Steven Ratuva in a Radio NZ web article.
Although, the invitation was extended to Fiji to join; it is certainly no secret that the Samoan Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi had been quite a parochial critic of Frank Bainiamarama, and constantly interjecting himself into the domestic affairs of Fiji. Nevertheless this hubris is seen as simply more grandstanding by the Samoan Prime Minister.
AUCKLAND, NZ (SCOOPNZ) --- New Zealand may be invited to join Pacific Island countries in a ginger group promoting Polynesia’s interests.John Andrews in Auckland for Pacific Insights
For years the idea of a Polynesian-oriented grouping has been debated by Polynesian leaders at their annual Pacific Islands Forum summit. Now a few of them have decided to do something about it.
At the behest of Samoa’s Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, one of the prime movers pushing for the formation of the group, five leaders met privately in the City Life Hotel on the eve of the forum summit in Auckland a fortnight ago.
The participants representing Cook Islands, Niue, Tuvalu, Tonga and Samoa, decided to instruct their respective senior officials to recommend wording for a charter and work out likely costs.
The Polynesian leaders agreed to meet again early in November in Samoa’s capital Apia to discuss their new group’s aims and organisational requirements.
There are indications they will select Tuilaepa as their first chairman, with a small secretariat set up initially in Apia.
Other non-forum member countries which may find themselves invited to send representatives to the meeting are American Samoa, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna and Easter Island.
Even Hawaii and New Zealand could get invitations because of their Polynesian affiliations.
Both Tuilaepa and Toke Talagi, Premier of Niue were adamant the proposed Polynesian Group would not present a political counter weight to influence purported to have been exerted in the region by the Melanesian Spearhead Group and their Micronesian Group neighbours.
Tuilaepa said the Micronesian member countries regarded their organisation as being very necessary for cohesion, just as the Melanesians did. Polynesian countries had learned a very useful lesson, albeit belatedly, as a result.
He did not expect any adverse reaction to the group’s formation, saying: “They suggested it themselves when I raised the issue in Fiji and in Tonga.”
Asked if New Zealand would be invited to become a member of the Polynesian Group, he said: “We haven’t made that decision yet. There are some complications.
“The proper thing is to go by the general guideline of the so called Polynesian Triangle which stretches from Hawaii to New Zealand to the east as far as Easter Island.”
To explain his views on sub-regionalism in the Pacific, Tuilaepa pointed to the speech he gave in July this year to mark the forum’s 40th anniversary.
He contended then that rather than being portrayed as a challenge to the region by building alternative coalitions, sub-regionalism should be viewed as “countries with a common history, related cultural traditions and a commitment to dialogue working together on issues of mutual interest”.
As well as preserving language, culture and traditions, sub-regionalism might provide better platforms for effective and efficient delivery programmes that benefitted the entire region.
The exposure of Polynesian people and countries to modern development and communications had heightened risks to the long term survival of their cultures and languages. To remain complacent would be a mistake.
Tuilaepa and Talagi said the Polynesian Group would remain on the periphery of the forum but indicated that, for financial reasons, it made sense for leaders to meet around the time of the annual forum summits.
Denying the new group was being formed to counter MSG influence, Niue Premier Talagi said: “It’s away from and nothing to do with the forum but at the same time we are talking about a similar sort of grouping for the Polynesian countries that are interested in establishing themselves as such.
“I think we have got to determine who the membership is but we consider New Zealand and Hawaii, for example, as being part of the Polynesian Triangle so they could very well be part of the members of this Polynesian Group. But it is not a breakaway from the forum.
“There are indications New Zealand may be interested to be part of it, as part of the Polynesian Triangle.
“There has always been an informal Polynesian group but it has never been formalised.”
Asked if the MSG people had been informed of the Polynesian Group plan, Talagi said: “Why would we? They never told us anything about their group, nor the Micronesians for that matter.”
Another event horizon - the Pacific common currency, is a seemingly brokered policy from Samoa, which had been actively researched and recommended by an Australia Senate Committee, according to a published Feasibility Study by two University of South Pacific (USP) academics.
This timing of such a launch of a sub-grouping is quite interesting and comes in the wake of the recent APEC summit in Hawaii announcing the Trans-Pacific-Partnership (TPP) and the garrison of US troops in Darwin.
Dr. K R Bolton
"
When Kevin Rudd became Australian Prime Minister in 2008, he floated ideas for a Pacific regional bloc that are close to what is transpiring with the TPP[...]
In the speech he went beyond the usual call for a closer regional agreement between Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific island nations and advocated its broadening to include the USA and China. That is to say, the Pacific community idea which in many ways is desirable; especially if it could minimize the influence of China and the USA in the region, has been broadened to being exactly what was always intended: a step toward globalization at the behest of US-based plutocracy. What Rudd said a few years ago is instructive in providing background for the present TPP, which focuses on the USA and is broadened to Pacific Rim South American states
[...]
What Kevin Rudd proposed in 2008 was the agenda of the Trilateral Commission, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission was established as a think tank of globalist political and business leaders incorporating the USA, Europe and Japan. "
In fact, the extended series of regional policy dictates, namely the new Polynesia sub-regional bloc, the PACER -Plus Trade Agreement and the common Pacific currency respectively, are starting points to a proverbial slippery slope that also contain some sinister strategic implications, when placed in context with the observations of Dr. John Bolton, that was recently published in Foreign Policy Journal.
The excerpt of the Bolton's article:
Regional Globalization: The Trans-Pacific Partnership
by Dr. K R Bolton
November 19, 2011
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an important part of the globalization process that has been decades in the making. The process was formalized on November 12, 2011. While a “Pacific community” similar to the “European Community,” has often been mooted by New Zealand and Australian politicians,[1] TPP creates the foundation for full-fledged regional governance. Presently the states that comprise this TPP are: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States.[2]
The current format of this regional pact was announced by Ambassador Ron Kirk to the US Congress on December 14, 2009. As a free trade regional agreement, this means that each state will be obliged to open itself up to imports and a regional economic rationalization process that will Darwinistically eliminate those national industries that cannot compete. It means that once in, like other free trade agreements, extricating oneself becomes impossible. The much lauded prospects of increased employment and economic opportunities, by which such agreements are sold, such as that entered into by New Zealand with China does not – obviously – eventuate. “Partnership” and “competitiveness”[3] are used simultaneously, yet free trade intrinsically does not include “partnership”; it means driving the “weaker” to the wall on the pretext that the best survive and thereby the general economy is strengthened. It takes no account of national requirements, strategic needs, and ties each state to the rise or fall of the major players in a gamble with entire nations.
When Kevin Rudd became Australian Prime Minister in 2008, he floated ideas for a Pacific regional bloc that are close to what is transpiring with the TPP. What is significant, in identifying the globalist interests that are promoting this agenda, is that Rudd presented the idea to his countrymen via a speech to the Australian branch of the Asia Society, which will be considered below. In the speech he went beyond the usual call for a closer regional agreement between Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific island nations and advocated its broadening to include the USA and China. That is to say, the Pacific community idea which in many ways is desirable; especially if it could minimize the influence of China and the USA in the region, has been broadened to being exactly what was always intended: a step toward globalization at the behest of US-based plutocracy. What Rudd said a few years ago is instructive in providing background for the present TPP, which focuses on the USA and is broadened to Pacific Rim South American states.
Nonsense about each state doing what one can do best has been used for several decades now to sell the idea of economic rationalization. Any state that embarks on such a course of reanimated 19th Century economics is left with a ravaged economy that has no chance of being self-supporting. Economic rationalization in the name of “efficiency” creates a permanent pool of the unemployable because the champions of free market economics believe, as economic reductionists, that humans are interchangeable economic units that are infinitely malleable and can fit into whatever new environment is contrived. When the theory does not accord with reality, the victims, the new pool of unemployed, are further victimized as “welfare bludgers.” Free Trade, and its method of economic rationalization, is a failed dogma. New Zealand began the process of rationalization decades ago by the start of a long process of opening up to imports, on the assumption that “inefficient” businesses would fall, and leave only the best and most suitable to fit into a regional and ultimately a world economy (the “New International Economic Order” as it was then called).
The result was the destruction of New Zealand manufacturing, which has resulted in a large pool of unemployables, because the politicians cannot or will not understand that not everyone of working age is capable of being an IT worker. New Zealand’s labor intensive economy was wrecked for the sake of a globalist agenda and we today see the consequences.
The great achievement that has been negotiated is therefore to extend failed economic dogma beyond national levels and to the regional, in order that a very small element of business can expand without national impediments.
Globalist interests in the USA have not been pushing this “economic integration” as a humanitarian gesture. It is an important exercise in international power-politics. The other member states will be prostrate before US plutocracy as their resources come under the domination of free trade investment clauses in the TPP agreement. TPP will be sold in the other states as a great opportunity to sell exports to a big market. Nonsense. We have seen how the FTA between China and New Zealand operates. The big dominants and, where necessary, eliminates the little under Free Trade. The US administration is selling TPP with national rather than globalist rhetoric: “Increasing American Exports, Supporting American Jobs.”[4] Under Free Trade, there are winners and losers, and even recourse to war when the losers are no longer sustainable and fight rather than roll over and die, or when one export power conflicts with the interests of another, as in the case of World War II resulting from the success of German trade expansion in Europe and its extension into South American markets.
Free Trade has been imposed upon the world as the economic foundation for a US-dominated order since Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”. The policy was reiterated by Roosevelt in the “Atlantic Charter.” The rhetoric has not changed for decades. When Roosevelt was laying down the terms for the post-war world to Churchill he stated:
Of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade. No artificial barriers. As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.[5]
…Will anyone suggest that Germany’s attempt to dominate trade in central Europe was not a major contributing factor to war?[6]
International trade brings war, not peace, as it is a façade for domination by hegemonic interests. The terms of TPP are intended to benefit the USA, which means US-based globalist plutocrats, the Office of the US Trade Representative stating:
Cross-cutting issues not previously in trade agreements, such as making the regulatory systems of TPP countries more compatible so U.S. companies can operate more seamlessly in TPP markets, and helping innovative, job-creating small-and medium-sized enterprises participate more actively in international trade.[7]
Economic structures are therefore to be rationalized regionally to permit free entry for US encroachments. Reference to the benefits for small-and medium-sized enterprises is nonsense, as rationalization drives such enterprises to the wall. No state will be able to subsidize such enterprises, as it will be regarded as interfering in the free market and as unfair competition. State owned enterprises are also to be subjected to competition from the globalist corporations. As it is, many of the states involved, and in particular New Zealand, have been selling their state assets and enterprises, generally to make interest payments on debts to international finance.
What is left of state assets will be taken over by the major corporations, and national governments, such as they remain, will not be able to interfere because of regional regulations imposed by TPP and enforced by TPP laws and bureaucracies. Note that the above passage from the TPP principles states that regulations of each state will be altered to make national economies compatible with US corporate interests. TPP terms will ensure, “state-owned enterprises compete fairly with private companies and do not distort competition in ways that put U.S. companies and workers at a disadvantage.”[8] This means pitting the state against private business in the free market, although state assets should be regarded as being of a strategic and not strictly an economic character. However, under Free Trade there is no such concept as a “strategic national interest.”
The nine founding states of TPP are intended as the beginning of a wider process, “and will begin bilateral processes with these interested countries to discuss their readiness and ambition to meet the standards and objectives of the TPP.”[9]
The ramifications of TPP will be known only as they take effect as – apart from the final declaration – the documents of the agreement are secret for four years from ratification.[10]
Globalists’ Pacific Agenda
What Kevin Rudd proposed in 2008 was the agenda of the Trilateral Commission, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller. The Trilateral Commission was established as a think tank of globalist political and business leaders incorporating the USA, Europe and Japan. The newly appointed Italian Prime Minster, Mario Monti, is the TC European chairman,[11] who also served with Goldman Sachs.
What is notable in the context of the TPP is that the Trilateral Commission (TC) a few years ago extended its agenda to include Mexico, and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group.” Japan has stated its interest in joining the TPP.[12] Although Mexico is not one of the founding member states of TPP, the extension of Trilateralism, which originally focused on North America, Europe and Japan, was extended to Latin America and to Asia as a whole. TC stated of this:
Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfill their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU.[13]
Of the TC Pacific Asian Group, members are drawn from the following countries to reflect this aim of a Pacific-wide union.
In 2000, the Japanese group of 85 members expanded to become a Pacific Asian group of 96 members, and includes 57 members from Japan, 15 members from Korea, 8 from Australia and New Zealand, 16 from the original five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand). The new Pacific Asian group also includes participants from the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.[14]
The Commission also implies that these regional groupings are the prelude to a “new world order”:
The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” The need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) remain the primary anchors of the wider international system, has not diminished but, if anything, intensified. At the same time, their leadership must change to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. As relations with other countries become more mature—and power more diffuse—the leadership tasks of the original Trilateral countries need to be carried out with others to an increasing extent.[15]
This process of “interdependence” growing into “globalization” and a “dramatic transformation of the international system” has been deliberately pushed by the Trilateral Commission, and similar bodies such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, all of which have significant interlocking memberships. It is not part of some organic historical process; it is a contrivance.
The Trilateralist statement above alludes to the broadening of the Trilateralist countries to “others”; again in this instance not just Japan, but the entirety of Asia and the Pacific. Although Trilateralists have dominated the Japanese business and political Establishments, they were hitherto restrained from entering into globalist agreements by the strength of the farming sector that feared American agricultural imports. The globalists have already stated that TPP means little until Japan is incorporated into it:
But if the TPP were to remain as it is presently constituted — without Japan’s inclusion — the agreement would not be the economic boon many hoped it would…. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns said in Tokyo in October that the United States would “welcome Japan’s interest in the TPP, recognizing of course that Japan’s decision to pursue joining will be made based on its own careful considerations of its priorities and interests.” For its part, Tokyo seems ready to join the talks. Japanese entry has been on the table since October 2010, when then Prime Minister Naoto Kan and his foreign minister, Seiji Maehara, both endorsed it.[16]
However, as with other such regionalist groupings, such as the European Union, the catalyst is recognition of an outer threat; in this case, China, which has recently acted in typically belligerent and overbearing manner towards Japan over disputed territorial claims.[17] It was a similar threat supposedly posed by the USSR that drove Europe into a “union” under American auspices and on US terms. Just what type of protection from Chinese intransigence would be accorded TPP under US Big Brother is indicated by the close relationship that has long existed between China and the same globalists who have been promoting the Pacific union concept. China is represented on the boards of bodies such as TC and the Pacific Basin Economic Council, another long-running lobby that aims for “economic integration.” New Zealand’s FTA with China is pivotal to the village idiot vision of New Zealand’s economy, and any involvement with TPP is going to have to recognize China as a regional power in partnership with the USA, as not as a rival power in the region. The specter of China merely serves as a temporary scare tactic for the imposition of TPP.
Rudd’s 2008 Statement
What has transpired this month places the statements made by the then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (presently Foreign Minister) in context, especially in regard to his having delivered the speech before the Asia Society, a long-running Rockefeller think tank that predates the Trilateral Commission. Media reports at the time stated:
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has called on Asian and Pacific nations to form a regional alliance similar to the European Union. Mr. Rudd says a strong multilateral body is needed to help the region maintain security, foster trade and respond to natural disasters and terrorism. He said Asia needs to react quickly to cope with changes brought about by rapid economic growth in the region.
“The European Union does not represent an identikit model of what we would seek to develop in the Asia-Pacific, but what we can learn from Europe is this – it is necessary to take the first step,” he said. But he concedes getting Asian nations together will be much tougher than the task faced by the architects of the European Union last century.
“Our special challenge is that we face a region with a greater diversity in political systems and economic structures, levels of development, religious beliefs, languages and cultures than our counterparts in Europe,” he said. “But that should not stop us from thinking big.” The Government will appoint experienced diplomat Richard Woolcott as an envoy to discuss Mr. Rudd’s idea with other countries.
Mr. Rudd says the institution should span the entire Asian-Pacific region including the United States, Japan, China, India and Indonesia.” The danger in not acting is that we run the risk of succumbing to the perception that future conflict in our region may somehow be inevitable,” he said. Mr. Rudd will use his visit to Japan and Indonesia next week to lobby Asian nations on the proposal.[18]
Asia Society
Rudd’s speech was delivered to the Asia Society’s Australian branch, called Austral Asia Center, in Melbourne. Note that Australia is referred to as “Austral Asia” by the Society; a play on words of the term that is normally used to describe Australia and New Zealand. This reflects how the global plutocrats see the nations of Australia and New Zealand, and politicians such as New Zealand’s former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, have long been referring to New Zealand as “an Asian country.” The “Austral Asian” branch was founded by veteran diplomat Richard Woolcott who was chosen by Rudd to initiate the “Asia Pacific community” with high-level meetings throughout Asia, as noted in the news media reports. Hence, the groundwork was further laid for TPP in 2008.
The head office of the Asia Center in New York states that the Society was founded in 1956 by John D. Rockefeller III.[19] Trustees include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. The 50th anniversary of the Asia Society in 2006 was a tribute to the “whole Rockefeller family” and its vision for Asia. The “keynote addresses” were given by Henry Kissinger, the omnipotent perennial government adviser; David Rockefeller,[20] head of the globalist dynasty; John D Rockefeller IV, Charles Percy Rockefeller; and Arthur Ross, a scholar and diplomat of varied experience, who sat on the Rockefeller University Council. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.” The “shared future” is that of unrestrained plutocracy, sold with sweeteners, maintained with debt, and enforced with bombs.
Notes
[1] For example former New Zealand Labour Minister Mike Moore is a long time enthusiast for a “Pacific community” and was rewarded for his conversion from “socialism” to free trade by being made head of the World Trade Organization. He is currently New Zealand Ambassador to the USA. His globalist credentials include membership of the Trilateral Commission.
[2] “Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Office of the US Trade Representative, http://www.ustr.gov/tpp
[3] “Outlines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” ibid.
[4] “The United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/united-states-trans-pacific-partnership
[5] E Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946), p. 35.
[6] E Roosevelt, ibid.
[7] “The United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” op. cit.
[12] K Kim, “Obama: Outlines of TransPacific Partnership Reached,” Global Post, November 14, 2011, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111114/obama-outlines-transpacific-partnership-trade-de
[13] The Trilateral Commission, “About the Organization,” http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid..
[16] B K Gordon, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Rise of China: What Japan Joining the TPP Means for the Region,” Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, November 7, 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136647/bernard-k-gordon/the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-the-rise-of-china
[17] Ibid.
[18] Rudd speaking to the Asia Society Austral Asia Centre, June 6, 2008; reported in The Australian, June 7, 08, et al. See the report on Rudd at the Asia Society Australasia Centre’s website: http://www.asiasociety.org.au/speeches/speeches_current/r155_PM_Rudd_AD2008.html
[19] Asia Society, “About,” http://www.asiasociety.org/about/mission.html
[20] In the course of his address David Rockefeller referred to Kissinger as his “dear friend” and Asia Society Chairman Richard Holbrooke as his “old friend”.
K R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, and an assistant editor of the peer reviewed journal Ab Aeterno. Recent publications include 'Trotskyism and the Anti-Family Agenda,' CKR website, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University (October 2009); 'Rivalry over water resources as a potential cause of conflict in Asia,' Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, and Russia and China: an approaching conflict?, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010; Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009. Read more articles by Dr. K R Bolton.
Joan Veon: One World Government (video posted below).
A recent Bloomberg article covered the efforts of Russia, Georgia and Abkhazia's respective diplomatic outreach to sovereign South Pacific island nations, a source of chagrin to Australia's Pacific Parliamentary Secretary, Richard Marles, who exclaimed "What this boils down to is Russia taking advantage of very small, pretty vulnerable countries to pursue agendas which have very little to do with the Pacific".
One could much ask Richard Marles the same question, with regards to the reports of US marines that have been sanctioned for garrison in the Northern Territory of Australia, much to the displeasure of many Australians.
China is not a threat but US policy may well be
November 12, 2011
LETTERS
US Marines, perform a formal raising and lowering of the flag.
Lest more die ...US marines at the US embassy in Canberra. Photo: Marina Neil
Is it time to rethink the terms of our insurance policy with the US (''US Marine base for Darwin'', November 11)? Participating in US invasions of a number of countries in the past 50 years has not increased our security or won us friends. Allowing the setting up of an American base in Darwin aimed at China is putting at risk our future prosperity and friendship with that country. In the long term China is far more important to us economically than the US, a country which is now suffering the dire effects of its continuous commitments to overseas wars.
Increasing the number of American bases on Australian soil on the basis of a possible Chinese invasion seems to be driven by a totally wrong-headed fear.
In its entire history, China, unlike the US, has never launched attacks on far-away countries. They have rarely gone to war. Rather they have been carved up and suffered incursions by foreign powers. No wonder they feel they need a stronger army. China has more sense than to waste its national wealth on military excursions. Blind Freddy can see what war does to an economy.
Ironically China is inadvertently supporting the US war effort by propping up the ailing US economy with loans. China has no need to go to war as they have no problem extending their ownership of foreign resources by simply buying them in the market place.
Do we continue to participate in US wars, or do we concentrate on becoming a successful independent country, a country which has the capacity to develop a peace-loving culture based on higher values.
Curtis Levy Birchgrove
Troops in Darwin bad for stability
Not satisfied with Australian troops fighting and dying in US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and before that Vietnam, and having US spy bases on our shores making Australia a target for America's enemies, the US now wants to permanently base its troops in Darwin.
It may have escaped the notice of some in Washington that Australia is not yet a US state. This is a proposition that can only make our region less stable by heightening tensions with China, our major trading partner. For whose benefit? Not Australia's.
Paul Pearce Bronte
Hey, Mr Obama and Ms Gillard, please let us finish the present wars if we can, before we start the next one.
Richard Manuell Frenchs Forest
If Peter Garrett was the defence minister would US forces be given the nod?
Allan Gibson Cherrybrook
Remembrance Day was tarnished by the announcement that US marines are to be based in Darwin.
The government continues to slavishly support the US, by sending troops to the unwinnable war in Afghanistan, opposing Palestine becoming a member of the UN and UNESCO, and now sending a very unfriendly message to our Asia-Pacific neighbours by supporting this increased US military presence.
Michael Fox Pacific Palms
What an announcement on Armistice Day. Will it stop the boats?
Barry Hartshorn Wahroonga
We are in Afghanistan for one reason only and that is the American alliance. This is also why we went into Vietnam and Iraq, and has nothing to do with Afghanistan. If we want the US to help us in our hour of need, we must maintain a profile as a loyal ally deserving of protection. Both the government and the opposition support this approach.
Whether or not you agree with this policy, it is a serious one which should be argued on its merits instead of being obfuscated by pious rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan.
As with any other insurance policy, premiums must be paid regularly so we will follow the Americans into future ventures when they ask us to join them.
Cavan Hogue Umina Beach
Ask the people of Okinawa and other parts of Japan, and of any other Pacific country forced to put up with US troops, about their experience before we agree to accept any marines onto our soil (especially without a similar Aussie base being established on US mainland soil).
They will tell you about the arrogance, then about the prostitution and sleaze, and about the rape of civilian women and girls, and more.
Militarily, we do not need the US anywhere near our country. It attracts danger to us, rather than deter it.
Have some sense, please and allow us our national integrity.
Go home, US military.
Jim Kable Caves Beach
Will American marines based in Australia be subject to Australian laws or will they demand immunity from prosecution for all crimes, including rape and murder, as they have in other countries that they occupy?
The hardworking folk at the 'foggy bottom' are extensively building on these existing color coordinated themes- as if perfecting a tricky and death defying dance maneuver with multiple diplomatic partners; the aims of re-calibrating, re-hashing and re-iterating the talking points of the "Pacific century", "pivots" in foreign policy which the U.S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had broadly outlined in her essay published in Novembers issue of Foreign Policy and subsequently expanded on her Nov. 10th 2011 speech at East-West center, the eve of the Asia Pacific Cooperation (APEC) summit, held in Honolulu, Hawaii.
It remains to be seen whether this episode of 'dancing with the stars' actually heralds in any concrete and promising results.
(Video of East-West speech posted below)
A columnist in Strategic Culture online journal portrayed the current and unfolding APEC summit as 'power play'.
The 19th Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the Hawaiian island of Oahu will certainly throw up new challenges as well as opportunities.
Aurobinda Mahapatra: Strategic Culture Columnist
"The contours of the emerging power play in Asia Pacific will be mainly threefold: trade, strategic alliances and clashes over the values governing nation states… Among the three, the urgent attention will be given to trade [...]
With the shifting of power centre from west to east, the coming years will also witness shifting of strategies and alliances. In this emerging matrix, besides the US, the other global players like Russia, India and China have to play greater roles towards maintaining the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. "
The global theatre of power play will shift to the region stretching from the land linking Indian subcontinent to the Pacific rim countries including the Americas with diverse economic potentials, political set ups and strategic ambitions. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech at East-West Center in Hawaii, on 10 November 2011, on the eve of the APEC summit serves a prelude to the forthcoming US strategies in the region, which will most likely be received with caution by other countries like India, Russia and China, as there are prospects of clash of interests among the members of the grouping and among other players in the region.
Hilary Clinton defined in very clear terms delineated the rising US interests in the Asia-Pacific region. She called the Asia-Pacific as the ‘pivot point’ and “the world’s strategic and economic centre of gravity will be the Asia-Pacific.” She pointed out, “One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in this region.” She further argued, the US has mostly come out of the burdens imposed on its exchequer by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The international security assistance force is scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan within a few years. This leaves, as Clinton reasoned, the US enough leeway and resources to divert from these areas towards Asia-Pacific, which has not been drastically affected by ongoing global churning, caused by financial crises as clearly visible in Europe. The US will be interested to forge new partnership in this region towards strengthening its economy.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership with having few members of the region such as Chile, New Zealand, Brunei and Singapore will likely be further strengthened by the joining of the US, Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Peru. During a visit to Tokyo last year in November, President Obama clearly delineated the US approach towards this power hub, and emphasized that his role as ‘the US’ first Pacific President’ will be multi-vectored in coming months. He declared, “The fortunes of America and the Asia-Pacific have become more closely linked than ever.” The last year has witnessed whirlwind tour of the US diplomats and leaders to this region, with the visits of President Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta. This time as well Clinton’s visit will cover a wide array of countries with vast and diverse political set ups in the region such as Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia, the last one hosting East Asian summit later this month.
The contours of the emerging power play in Asia Pacific will be mainly threefold: trade, strategic alliances and clashes over the values governing nation states… Among the three, the urgent attention will be given to trade. As the global scenario witnessing scattering of old economic and power centres, with the shifting of economic base towards Asia Pacific, increasing attention will be given to this emerging region, which accounts for world’s 44 per cent of world trade, 40 per cent of global population and about 54 per cent of global Gross Domestic Product. The economic growth of the countries in the region has accounted for 70 per cent of global growth in the past decade. While the Euro zone and also the US are grappling with the financial crises, the Asia Pacific region has witnessed steady growth in all these years. Starting from China down to the countries of Australia, New Zealand, or other countries of southeast Asia like Singapore, and even the countries of South America such as Peru, and other countries of this region as well have not suffered as other parts of the globe particularly in Europe or the US. Hence, in the field of trade, the US objective will be to brace up its relations with the regional countries.
This summit will likely witness the strengthening of Trans-Pacific Partnership, with the US in the lead. The US trade objectives may clash with that of China, which has recently raised its tirade against the trade policies of the US. The Chinese official daily Xinhua of 11 November 2001 while analyzing the positives and negatives of the APEC summit urged the US to withdraw its protectionist policies. It quoted Assistant Commerce Minister Yu Jianhua who said, “China hopes the meeting will further promote the liberalization and facilitation of trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region, push forward economic and technology cooperation, oppose trade protectionism.” The US on the other hand has harped on the point that China must appreciate its currency Yuan in order to have fair trade. The emerging trade matrix will likely see increasing tussle between the US and China in the region.
Another important component of this emerging power play is forging or shaping of alliances. The region is full of diversities, with different powers having different strategic objectives. There are numerous fault lines among the players in the region. China has differences with India on issues of border as well as sea dealings. Few months back China sent an official protest to India in order to not to enter into negotiations with Vietnam to explore energy resources in South China Sea. Similarly, China has differences with other South China Sea littoral countries. India has also evinced a keen interest to play a significant role in the region. This month, Asia Young Leaders Summit is being held in New Delhi, where members from 30 countries of Asia-Pacific region will congregate. While India enjoys good relations with Russia, which in turn has good relations with China, it will be interesting to see how the emerging aspirations of the US will influence these alliances.
The regional alliances like Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Ganga-Mekong Cooperation Project (GMC), Bangladesh India Myanmar Sri Lanka Thailand Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) will unlikely remain untouched by the emerging power engagements in this region. Hence, when Clinton during her speech talked about the US interests in the region that spans from ‘the Indian subcontinent to western shores of the Americas,’ it is rather the assertion of emerging US approach in the region. The US has currently about 50,000 troops stationed in Japan and South Korea. There are various contentious issues in the region, ranging from South China Sea to North Korea and many others. China’s insistence on its ‘pacific rise,’ and its policy of ‘harmony and reconciliation,’ will have to go through increasing contestation and rising or breaking or moulding of alliances in the region.
However, the sore point in the emerging matrix will be interrogation of values practiced by nation states. Clinton during her speech said, “We have made very clear our serious concerns about China’s record on human rights.” The whole Asia Pacific region has sheltered different kinds of regimes, with having different kinds of political set ups, which will come under increasing questioning by the US and its allies in coming days. The countries like China, the second largest economy in the world, which has expressed its policy of ‘peaceful rise’ will likely take these statements and policies as unnecessary interference in their internal affairs, while the US will likely use this as a point for drumming support to strengthen and fulfill its objectives in the region. The point that needs emphasis is that the region that is so vast, so diverse, there will be bound to be subtleties in policies and diplomatic maneuvers to reshape the emerging contours of power balance in the region.
With the shifting of power centre from west to east, the coming years will also witness shifting of strategies and alliances. In this emerging matrix, besides the US, the other global players like Russia, India and China have to play greater roles towards maintaining the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region.
Croz Walsh's blog post, covered the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recent review of Commerce Commission of Fiji.Another component to the IMF consultations in Fiji was with other financial institutions, as outlined in a Fiji Village article.
Fiji TV news segment, highlighted the IMF team leader's (Mr. Koshy Mathai) perspective of the current and future projections of Fiji's economy. (Video posted below)
The IMF team released a statement at the conclusion of their bi-lateral consultations, which is based on article 4 of the IMF articles of agreement.
