Showing posts with label Australian Foreign Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Foreign Policy. Show all posts

Thursday, July 12, 2012

X-Post: WSWS- Voting period extended in Papua New Guinea election

By Mike Head
10 July 2012
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.

The author also recommends:
Australian military plans for invasion of Fiji and PNG[12 June 2012]
Further political turmoil in Papua New Guinea
[2 June 2012]



Club Em Designs

Thursday, January 26, 2012

X-Post: The Australian - Fijian Progress Muddied By The Media.

RATU INOKE KUBUABOLA

AUSTRALIA is not simply a neighbour of Fiji. It is a part of our family. 

As such, Fiji will always hold Aussies close, same with Kiwis. But as Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin wrote earlier this month: "Fiji is getting on with new relationships that are less and less connected with Australia's interests in the Pacific islands region."

The reasons are practical, as well as personal. Just this week, the World Bank has again warned developing countries such as ours to begin preparing for another global economic shock as a result of the debt crisis in Europe and weakening growth in other emerging economies.

This underscores Fiji's move to grow and diversify its economy and relationships, which is what the Bainimarama government has been doing despite - and in light of - sanctions and restrictions imposed by Australia and New Zealand.

Our economic and diplomatic ties are now greater than they have ever been, an example of which is the first high-level visit to Fiji by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, in the coming weeks.
So while many in Australia and New Zealand have become solely focused on personalities and the past, they have lost sight of the future and the bigger picture, and with what Fiji has been up to.

I. Kubuabola

"Australian or New Zealand media or policymakers view Fiji. To them, we are a land of coups, failed institutions and a military dictator. There exists a condescending and patronising tone to most every statement and media report that comes out of Australia and New Zealand - whether lack of acknowledgement about the divisive politics, ethnic and religious strife and corruption that Fiji faced over the years or the full dismissal of international context when viewing Fiji's laws and governance."



Standard & Poor's recently upgraded Fiji's sovereign debt rating. We have a net deficit position of 1.9 per cent (ahead of the IMF's recommended target of 2 per cent). We are aligning more closely with free-market principles, and for 2012 have cut or eliminated taxes for 99 per cent of taxpayers (putting about $53 million back in the pockets of Fijians) and have significantly cut taxes across the board for businesses.
As a result, this year our economy is projected to grow, supported by traditional sectors and now enhanced by telecommunications, ICT, audiovisual and mahogany, among others.

Enabling this growth has been our focus on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Fiji unreservedly ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption in 2007, for which we have volunteered and undergone peer reviews by countries such as the US and France. New transparency rules will soon be put in place to ensure that all government officials disclose their assets and investments.

Sound fiscal policies and anti-corruption practices have helped encourage new trade and investment, which we have seen from private sector enterprise in Australia and New Zealand, but also China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and the US, among other countries, and with new ones ahead.
In all of this we have sought to ensure that all levels of society are looked after: new roads, electricity, clean water and unrestricted internet access, most of which is being brought to places that never had them before; first-ever food voucher programs; subsidised bus fares; free textbooks; free public transport for the disabled; more legal protection for women and children; anti-discrimination laws; equal distribution of land lease monies; and more.

But none of this is representative of how the Australian or New Zealand media or policymakers view Fiji. To them, we are a land of coups, failed institutions and a military dictator. There exists a condescending and patronising tone to most every statement and media report that comes out of Australia and New Zealand - whether lack of acknowledgement about the divisive politics, ethnic and religious strife and corruption that Fiji faced over the years or the full dismissal of international context when viewing Fiji's laws and governance.
Fiji is under no misguided assumption that if oil or gas was found off Suva tomorrow our neighbours would be singing a different tune. But because Fiji's economy is based on tourism and sugar, the serious steps we are taking to realign our economy and re-establish our independence politically are not taken seriously by our historical allies.

The Bainimarama government has laid out a vision for what we seek to accomplish and a clear timeframe for getting it done. Our first priority, however, is to Fiji - ensuring Fijians have safe food and clean water, electricity, access to education and jobs, and the ability to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our unique country. And so far the Bainimarama government has been able to deliver these services more efficiently and effectively than any previous one.

As Fiji continues to move forward to consultations for the new constitution and our first truly democratic elections, we would welcome the encouragement and participation of Australia and New Zealand.
Fiji is engaged more fully with the global community, and we aim to uphold our place as a "vital element" of regional affairs.

Ratu Inoke Kubuabola is Fiji's Minister for Foreign Affairs


Club Em Designs

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Truth or Dare?

Fiji anti-IG blog posting raises some important questions about U.S selective policy regarding their own interests, on which there is no debate.
Intelligentsiya: Truth and Rhetoric: Why the US selectively backs F...: "When fellow bloggers from Real Fiji News posted up their expose on the US's tacit support (despite all the rich political rhetoric ) [...]"

Radio Fiji (R.F)article on the matter. Excerpt of R.F article below:
Cables confirm Qarase sought Australia military intervention
Friday, August 12, 2011


Leaked cables released by Wikileaks confirm that Fiji's former Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase sought the intervention of the Australian Military during the December 2006 takeover.

According to the cable - then Australian Prime Minister John Howard told the press on December 5, 2006 - that Qarase had telephoned him that morning to request for military intervention to prevent a coup.

Howard stated he had declined the request as it was 'not in Australia's national interest' to intervene - adding he could not countenance Australian and Fijian troops fighting each other on the streets of Suva.

In response to the takeover - Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer imposed bans on defense, travel and trade on Fiji.

Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) article outlines Australian Government efforts to side line Fiji from UN peacekeeping.

Excerpt of SMH article:
Push to block Fiji from UN peacekeeping
Jonathan Pearlman Foreign Affairs Correspondent
April 29, 2009

THE Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, says the United Nations should look at punishing Fiji's military rulers by further limiting the involvement of its soldiers in peacekeeping forces - a move that would seriously damage the country's economy.

Australia and New Zealand have been leading efforts to pressure Fiji's interim government over its recent abrogation of the constitution and crackdown on the media and the judiciary.


Covered ... Fiji's economy is reliant on peacekeeping payments.
Photo: AP

(Note by SiFM Image above was from 1996 Qana massacre, caused by Israeli shelling of a Fiji BATT UN refugee compound, where dead bodies were cropped out. It was covenient for SMH to omit the origin of the image, ironically, 15 year anniversary is in 2011.)

Original Caption: The bodies of Shiite Muslim refugees lay covered by blankets at the headquarters of the Fijian battalion attached to the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the village of Qana, Lebanon Thursday, April 18, 1996 after Israeli shelling killing at least 70 and wounding at least 100. (AP Photo)   
  

More images of 1996 Qana massacre. Journalist  Robert Fisk eye-witness account of Qana.  Video of incident. BBC article.
The country's military ruler, Frank Bainimarama, seized power in a bloodless coup in 2006 and has backed away from earlier plans to hold elections this year.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Mr Rudd discussed the crackdown at a meeting in Canberra yesterday with Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare. The two agreed to press ahead with efforts to suspend Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum. "Australia's position is hardline," Mr Rudd said. "You cannot sustain within a family of democracies [such as] the Pacific Island Forum or the Commonwealth a government like that of Fiji which simply treats with contempt the most fundamental democratic institutions and press freedoms.

"Through our interventions with the United Nations, supported by New Zealand and other countries, the UN now is not going to engage future Fijian troops for new operations. There is a question which now arises as to whether there should be a further tightening on top of that."

Fiji's economy is heavily reliant on UN payments for peacekeeping contributions and remittances from soldiers abroad. About 600 soldiers serve as peacekeepers in Lebanon, Iraq, East Timor and in the Sinai.

Fiji's interim government dismissed claims it would not be allowed to provide further peacekeepers, saying the UN had not taken action against other countries that have had coups.

"Precedents have been set, like Pakistan, Thailand, all these are very big troop contributing countries to the UN, so what are they talking about?" a government spokesman, Neumi Leweni, told the news website Fijilive.

Two commentators on Fiji from the Australian National University, Jon Fraenkel and Stewart Firth, have argued in a new book that UN peacekeeping operations helped build up the strength of Fiji's military and led to the coups in 1987 and 2006.

"Over the 30 years since 1978, around 25,000 Fiji soldiers have served on overseas peace-keeping missions, bringing home an estimated $US300 million [$428 million]," they write in The 2006 Military Takeover in Fiji: A Coup to End All Coups?, published by ANU E Press.

"In recent years the Iraq War has brought more income to Fiji … Tens of thousands of Fijians have served in foreign theatres in almost 30 years of peacekeeping … The overall effect has been to boost the morale of officers and troops … and to professionalise the [force] as a military institution."

Although, Australian Government efforts coupled with an online petition drive by the likes of overseas based Fijian political opportunists were ineffective and Fiji continued its commitment to peacekeeping missions unabated.

Fiji reiterates commitment to UN peacekeeping

05-10-2011 15:12 BJT
Text:A A A |Email
Share |

SUVA, May 10 (Xinhua) -- Fiji has reiterated its firm commitment to peacekeeping and peace-building around the world, saying it is a manifestation of the island nation's trust in the multilateralism of the United Nations.

Fiji's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Peter Thomson made the remarks in a speech during his recent visit to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) first Battalion at its Baghdad garrison, the Ministry of Information said in a press release Tuesday.

For all Fijians, "it can be said with great national pride, that from just a few years after Fiji's independence, UN peacekeeping has been central to Fiji's foreign policy," Thomson was quoted as saying.

This has been so because "Fiji is determined to play a positive role as a signatory to the United Nations Charter, and because small countries like ours depend on membership of the United Nations for our security, sovereignty and independence," he said.

According to the Fijian envoy, to date, Fiji's peacekeepers have served in Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Sinai, Solomon Islands, Somalia and Timor Leste.

In thanking the Fijian men and women peacekeeping soldiers in Baghdad, Thomson praised them for "doing a difficult job in a dangerous environment and holding Fiji's name high".

The RFMF first Battalion has since 2004 served as the UN Guard Unit (UNGU), made up of 223 Fijians led by Colonel Netani Rika. It is tasked with guarding the facilities and personnel of the United Nations as they undertake their work of assisting the Iraqi people rebuild their nation.

Thomson said he had heard nothing but praise from UN representatives in New York and Iraq for the battalion's conduct of duties, adding he was in Iraq to show them the respect they deserved and to thank them on behalf of the government and people of Fiji for their service.

Posted below are videos of Fiji soldiers in Iraq interacting with US personnel.










Thursday, August 12, 2010

The Greater The Sin, The Greater The Saint- A Waning Crescent Of Forum Influence In The Pacific?

Croz Walsh on the latest Australian election debate regarding the issue of foreign policy initiatives during the Lowy hosted debate; highlighting the litany of promises politicians bring to the discussion, during the season of elections.

The excerpt of Croz's post.
AUSSIE OPPOSITION WOULD open negotiations with Fiji's military ruler Frank Bainimarama for electoral reform as a way of breaking the current diplomatic standoff between Suva. If this means they will respond to Fiji's requests for legal, technical and financial assistance, great; but if they are still talking about dates, what's new?

Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith said there are three priorities when it comes to Fiji.

(1) "To continue to keep pressure on Fiji both bilaterally and through international institutions like the Commonwealth;"
(2)"We don't want to do things to hurt the people of Fiji, which is why we don't have trade sanctions and bans.
(3) "Thirdly, and most importantly, we do need to continue in conjunction with the international and regional community to find some way of opening up an effective dialogue with the Commodore to return Fiji to democracy." In other world they will continue to pursue the policy that has proved so successful over the past four years.

Meanwhile, Lowy Institute's Jenny Hayward-Jones thinks Australian-Fiji relations have deteriorated. “Other Pacific countries want to talk to Fiji, and Australia and New Zealand are the only ones maintaining this 'don't talk' policy,” she said.

Another Fiji specialist in Lowy, apart from Jones, comes from the "silly mid-wicket" quadrant of Lowy's "experts"- whose latest post reflects the same old "anglosphere" oversimplification, cultural ignorance and gubernatorial over reach.

The excerpt from Fergus Hanson's post:

Fiji and China: Besties?

by Fergus Hanson - 12 August 2010 2:38PM

In today's Age, Dan Flitton reports statements from Fiji's dictator Frank Bainimarama that he wants to ditch ties with Australia and New Zealand in favour of China.

While China tried to make a big splash in Fiji right after the coup, promising to deliver over $US160 million in grants and soft loans, the reality has been a little different.

After the 2006 coup, China came in strong to pre-empt Fiji making a switch to diplomatically recognising Taiwan. It handed Bainimarama US$5 million in cash, leading him to bring control over Chinese aid under his own immediate office.

But since then, China and Taiwan have agreed to an informal détente, ending their damaging diplomatic competition in the region for the time being. China also seems to have felt pressure not to be seen to be lavishing aid on a pariah government.

It has gone ahead with projects like the Nadarivatu hydro project, which had been previously scoped by the World Bank, but it has been slow to disperse the other aid promised.

The Fiji Government might claim this is because of disagreements over use of local labour or some such excuse, but surely it would have been in Bainimarama's interest to see infrastructure projects rolled out on a timely basis so he could at least demonstrate some benefits from his rule?

So is China the saviour that Fiji's strongman has been looking for?

The evidence suggests it isn't. China has been slow to unroll its aid to Fiji and there are reports it has knocked back proposals to do more. A review Mary Fifita and I are undertaking of China's aid pledges to the region in 2009 also suggests the flows to Fiji were minimal.

Frank's just huffing and bluffing.

Hanson's remarks seemed to have missed the large point of contention, which has been successfully underscored by Dev Nadkarni's opinion article. In comparison, the former was a more astute piece of observation as well as, authored from a person with more street cred than, Hanson and the usual suspects from Lowy.

Island Business columnist offers another view point.

The excerpt of Nadkarni article:

VIEWS FROM AUCKLAND

ENGAGING WITH FIJI: ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY LOST


Dev Nadkarni

Despite the unchanging rigidity of their isolationist approach towards Fiji, the political leaderships in Australia and New Zealand would now have all but realised that trying to keep Fiji out of the South Pacific regional equation was never going to be a tenable strategy.
This isolationist tack has come a complete cropper—it has achieved next to nothing. Suspension of bilateral ties, suspension from the Commonwealth, suspension from the Pacific Island Forum, travel bans, adverse travel advisories, besides all sorts of other measures have brought little change, if any, in Fiji.

Reams have been published on the lead up to the December 2006 military action, the regime and its style of functioning since then. And nearly all the ideas from politicians, academics and the media especially in New Zealand and Australia on dealing with the Fiji situation have centered on such isolationist strategies that have come up almost solely with punitive measures.
It is as though engagement can never be an option. That sort of rigidity is hard to explain. Especially so, when the writing was clearly on the wall that the strategy wasn’t working and the situation could not be remedied with that tack. No matter what the situation within Fiji, there ought to have been more efforts from the ANZAC nations to engage with it these past years.
Several windows of opportunity were lost, the latest one being last month.

With no recourse to any regional platform now that it has been suspended from the Pacific Island Forum, Fiji pushed hard for regional engagement through the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG)—the sub regional grouping of Melanesian countries that was to have been held in Fiji last month.
Fiji has alleged that the meet was scuttled by the ANZAC nations to predictable denials from both, as well as Vanuatu, which was supposed to have been prevailed upon not to attend the meet. The decidedly isolationist policy hitherto followed by Australia and New Zealand is what could well give credence to that allegation.

With the MSG meet not happening, Fiji thought up another ploy at engagement and invited regional leaders to the “Engaging with the Pacific” meeting just about a week later. Though several leaders, ministers and government representative attended, Australia, New Zealand – and Samoa – did not. And that was a huge opportunity missed by the Anzac nations.
Among other things, the Fiji regime presented its updated roadmap to the proposed 2014 election. The presence of political leaders from Australia and New Zealand or at least their representatives—no matter how junior—would have been extremely useful in that they would then have had an all new handle to hold the regime to account in the months ahead leading up to the 2014 election and the achievements of the stated milestones.

By not sending representatives and refusing to engage even tentatively at the most tenuous of levels, Australia and New Zealand have chosen to persist with their one pronged, unimaginative isolationist tack of trying to force Fiji into a tight corner with no room to manoeuvre.
Except that in this rapidly globalising world, there aren’t any corners anymore. If the traditional longstanding South has stonewalled it, a huge front from the rapidly growing, increasingly prosperous North has long opened up not only for Fiji but also for almost all other South Pacific nations.

Chinese and Korean investment in Fiji has grown tremendously in the past few years and with every passing month the country is further building up its ties with Asian countries. The ANZAC nations know it only too well that the region’s future—including their own—is tied up with Asia. New Zealand is the first western nation to have signed a Free Trade Agreement with China, which is now not only poised to become its largest trading partner but also wants to buy big into its dairy sector.

Australia and New Zealand’s rigid stand notwithstanding there is no denying that Fiji is the hub of the Pacific and is too significant geopolitically for their simplistic, almost childish, isolationist non-strategy. Their persistence in following this tack beggars belief and exposes their leaderships’ paralysis in trying to come up with more sensitive, open minded and communicative approaches.

The Melanesian brotherhood has realised this. And more than just the warm fraternal ‘wantok’ feeling, it is the hard and practical knowledge that they are sitting on a great deal of mineral wealth both inland and offshore that is at work here.

The potential of that offshore wealth is poised to grow with the redrawing of the continental shelf boundaries following changes to the United Nations Law of the Sea in the coming years.
The countries know that together they stand much to gain—and that explains why its leaders attended Fiji’s hurriedly called engagement gig with such alacrity. That message seems lost on the leadership of the ANZAC nations that has gone on record saying that there will be no change in their Fiji policy.

Fiji’s efforts to engage with the region despite being suspended from the Forum need to be actually seen as a positive step. The ANZAC nations need to set their hurt false pride aside and engage at whatever level—to begin with even informally, outside the ambit of recognised channels out of which Fiji has been excluded in any case.

Nothing can ever be achieved by non-engagement and isolationism especially in modern day geopolitics. Engagement and communication are key to diplomatic conflict resolution—particularly so when one of the parties sends all the right signals that it is game for it.
The flawed assumption that any engagement with the present Fijian dispensation would be illegitimate needs to change because inaction based on such assumption will go nowhere and negate any possibility and hope of addressing the situation.
The events that have taken place so far cannot be reversed and despite the ongoing controversial developments in Fiji, the regime has once again presented its plan for elections in 2014—which, according to media reports have been received positively by the leaders who attended the meet.

Attending that meet would have been a great opportunity to restart dialogue and work with Fiji to work towards an outcome that is best for its people and for the region as a whole.
Fiji should also realise that once it has made an undertaking or promise it must keep its end of the bargain. The writing on the wall is clear. Sticking to their isolationist strategy is not an option and staying rigid will undoubtedly have huge consequences for the geopolitics of the South Pacific region in the years to come.


Save Page As PDF
Zemanta Pixie
Social Bookmarking
Add to: Digg Add to: Del.icio.us Add to: Reddit Add to: StumbleUpon Add to: Furl Add to: Yahoo Add to: Spurl Add to: Google Add to: Technorati Add to: Newsvine

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Australia's Foreign/Domestic Policy-Made In Iron Bark?

Banjo Patterson's poem "The Man From Iron Bark" does present a supposition, that is more or less equivalent to Australia's dithering Foreign Policy.

Courtesy of Croz Walsh blog an ABC 'Counter Point' interview with Peter Thompson, a former Fiji diplomat, who labeled Australia's smart sanctions on Fiji, as disastrous.

The interview is posted below on MP3 player.






Not surprising that same cumbersome approach in Australian Foreign policy has chilled relations with China, according to Kuwait Times article.

Australia's own image of being a benevolent defender of Aboriginal rights, has since been reduced to mere rhetoric after the release of the UN Human Rights report by James Anaya, the Special Rapporteur. New Zealand Herald article, tags the Australian treatment of its native population as "abusive".

Excerpt of Reuter's article:

UN critical of Australian Aboriginal intervention

Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:08am EDT

Australia Aborigines ask U.N. for refugee status
Tuesday, 25 Aug 2009 11:39pm EDT

By James Grubel

CANBERRA (Reuters) - A senior United Nations official condemned on Thursday Australia's controversial intervention into remote Aboriginal communities, describing the measures as discriminatory and finding entrenched racism in Australia.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous People, James Anaya, made the findings after a 12-day visit to Australia, where he visited indigenous communities and held talks with the Australian government.

Australia's former conservative government sent police and troops to remote Aboriginal communities in June 2007, and made special bans on alcohol and pornography, to stamp out widespread child sex abuse fueled by chronic alcoholism.

"These measures overtly discriminate against aboriginal peoples, infringe their right of self-determination and stigmatize already stigmatized communities," Anaya told reporters in Canberra. Anaya, the first UN Rapporteur on Indigenous People to visit Aboriginal communities, congratulated Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for his 2008 parliamentary apology to Australia's Aborigines for historical injustices.

But he said it was clear the entrenched racism of the past remained, and the ongoing intervention into communities in the Northern Territory continued to discriminate against Aborigines.

LIFE EXPECTANCY GAP

Rudd has made indigenous affairs a priority of his government and promised to end the 17-year gap in life expectancy between Aborigines and other Australians.

Rudd has said he would continue the controversial intervention, which has widespread support across Australia but has been strongly criticized by some Aboriginal groups.

Anaya's comments will increase the pressure on Rudd to review parts of the intervention, particularly measures that quarantine welfare payments to make sure a proportion of the payments is spent on food, clothing and healthcare.

An independent review last year found the intervention affected 45,500 Aboriginal men, women and children in more than 500 Northern Territory communities, and progress on healthcare and security were undermined by a lack of full community support.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin said the government was determined to restore laws to outlaw racial discrimination in the Northern Territory and welcomed Anaya's visit.

"I think what's important is that we recognize we have a huge task in front of us to close the gap, to close the life expectancy gap, the employment gap, the gap in education," Macklin told reporters.

"We know how big the task is and we certainly intend to keep getting on with it."

Australia's 460,000 Aborigines make up about 2 percent of the population. They suffer higher rates of unemployment, substance abuse and domestic violence than other Australians.

(Editing by Alex Richardson)






Save Page As PDF






Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine




Friday, December 12, 2008

Australia P.M, Kevin Rudd- Stubs His Toe Over Tiny Fiji.

Lowy Institute blog "The Interpreter" latest posting reviews the recent Ministerial contact group meeting.

Fiji's Interim Prime Minister, generic response to the Contact Group meeting, as reported by Radio NZ article.

Fiji’s interim Prime Minister says interim government won’t be deterred

Posted at 22:04 on 12 December, 2008 UTC

Fiji’s interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama says the government won’t be deterred, no matter how cruel travel sanctions might be to the country’s poor, the young and the innocent.

Fiji Live reports Commodore Bainimarama said his Government would continue its agenda to bring peace, durable stability and progress to Fiji.

He says the sanctions have been harsh on Fiji, and have restricted the participation in Government from the pool of competent and non-political, and non-Military, people.

Commodore Bainimarama says as a result, the nation as a whole is suffering and his government’s efforts at service delivery and removal of corruption are being hindered.

New Zealand’s foreign minister Murray McCully and his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith said before this week’s meeting of the Forum Ministerial contact group, that the policies of their respective countries remain.


Undeniably, the pressure may seem to be focused on Fiji; however, the real centroid of pressure is on the shoulders of both Trans-Tasman countries, whose leaders fear being viewed by their foreign counterparts; as pathetic and incompetent for their inability to corral tiny Fiji, in to their watering hole.

Fueled by the stigma of the Peter Principle, Rudd's frustration with Fiji, was buttressed by the disappointing outcome of the much hyped South Pacific Forum, Ministerial Contact Group meeting in Suva.



Rudd tells Fiji - get democratic

SMH-December 12, 2008 - 1:59PM

Further action will be taken as needed to press Fiji to return to democracy, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.

Mr Rudd said Australia had taken a hard diplomatic line while Pacific Forum leaders made an unprecedented strong statement condemning Fiji at a meeting in Niue earlier this year.

He said their position had not changed.

"Subject to recent advice from the foreign minister you will see further action from Pacific Island forum countries on this matter in the period ahead," he told reporters.

"This government takes democracy in Pacific island countries seriously. It is not optional. It is what we do on in our part of the world."

Mr Rudd said Australia would not stand idly by.

"We have taken a hard diplomatic line on this. Further action as necessary will be taken," he said.

A delegation of Pacific dignitaries, including Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, on Thursday met Commodore Frank Bainimarama who has ruled Fiji since a bloodless coup in December 2006 that ousted then prime minister Laisenia Qarase.

Bainimarama last year promised to return his country to democratic rule by the end of March 2009.

© 2008 AAP


While Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was so eager to talk about democracy in Fiji, as if he or his Government was the sole judge of it in the region. One ageless quote from US President Teddy Roosevelt's 1901 speech comes to mind and the quote also used by 2008 Presidential candidate, John McCain:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick — you will go far.”

What Rudd had failed to comprehend, was that the diplomatic hard line against the Interim Government of Fiji, is analogous to; speaking loudly, whilst carrying a twig.

"This government takes democracy in Pacific island countries seriously. It is not optional. It is what we do on in our part of the world."

It is beyond a doubt, that Rudd has obfuscated the definition of democracy and the Australian Government has repeatedly demonstrated regional hegemony towards Fiji; it will be no surprise that Rudd will face the same disdain in the region like his predecessor, John Howard.

While Rudd, conveniently raised the issue of free media in Fiji, it is rather ironic to learn that Australia is proposing a national Internet filter. It is certainly appearing that, domestic resistance to the Rudd's Government Internet filtering proposal, is building exponentially; and if that trend continues unabated, the concern of Fiji's lethargic path to democracy, will be the very least of Rudd's problems.

Global Voices blogger, John Liebhardht's posting examines the heated reactions to the issue of filtering, in Australia's segment of the blogosphere.


It seems that in both the Internet filtering issue and Fiji's progress to democracy have a common thread, which is the double speak of the Australian PM.

Spiked-Online reviews the debate leading up to the proposal:
To oversimplify it somewhat, the Rudd government’s proposal is so broad that the only way in which it could be deployed would be along the lines of crude keyword/image filters used by countries such as China, Iran and Turkey.


Mandatory Internet Filtering explained on Channel 9 (posted below)









Social Bookmarking


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Timing Is Everything-The Pacific Seabed Claims & Regional Hegemony In Fiji Politics.

In a follow up to SiFM post "Electoral Reform in Fiji-Beta Democracy 3.0" , intersects prominent issues contained in an article published in July 30th issue of Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJ-A), titled "Trouble In Paradise".


The excerpt of WSJ-A article:

REVIEW & OUTLOOK


Trouble in Paradise
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
July 30, 2008

In their travels round the globe, U.S. Secretaries of State rarely make it as far as the South Pacific. Yet Condoleezza Rice found herself in Samoa over the weekend, the first Secretary of State to land there since George Shultz paid a visit in 1988. On her agenda: the political strife in the island nation of Fiji.

Fiji has had so many coups recently -- four in the past 20 years -- that's it is better known for its political instability than for its beautiful beaches. Now, the country's military ruler is reneging on his promise to hold elections. In her meeting with Pacific foreign ministers in Samoa Saturday, Ms. Rice called for a return to democracy. "I will try to lend my voice to a very strong regional effort," she said.

Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama took power in a bloodless military coup in 2006 on the pretext of ridding the island of "racism" and "corruption." If only. Since taking over, Mr. Bainimarama has made matters worse by installing military men in powerful government positions and cowing the media. His racial policies, which favor the country's 38% Indian minority, have caused more division than reconciliation.

Fiji's biggest trading partners -- New Zealand and Australia, the U.S. and the European Union -- have responded by withdrawing aid and issuing tourism warnings. Those actions, combined with a slowing global economy, have hit little Fiji hard. The Bureau of Statistics estimates the country's economy shrank by 6.6% in 2007, and 2008 will likely be just as dismal. Since 2006, tourism revenue has dropped more than 20% and sugar production, 30%.

Yet Mr. Bainimarama is still thumbing his nose at the 16-member Pacific Island Forum, which has called for elections since the 2006 coup. Last week, he pushed back elections to March 2010, from his previous promise of 2009. Mr. Bainimarama's military government has no place in an organization whose key pillars are "economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security."

Still, New Zealand and Australia have kept on talking -- as the locals would say, that's the "Pacific Way." Fiji's interim foreign minister was included in Saturday's huddle in Samoa. The Forum will sit down again with Fiji next month.

Fiji's disarray poses a special problem for Australia and New Zealand, which can't afford such instability on their doorsteps. If Mr. Bainimarama can get away with subverting democracy, then why can't Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu or the Solomon Islands, whose democracies are also shaky?

The longer Fiji drifts, too, the more open it will be to influence from China, which is working to expand its presence in the South Pacific. All the more reason to prod the island nation to make its way back to the league of liberal democracies.


SiFM has taken the liberty to respond to the above article, which is laden with generalizations and muddled with inaccuracies.

The largest inaccuracy of the WSJ Asia "Trouble in Paradise" article was the selective omission, of the details in Fiji's electoral system and the naive perception of the geo-political and geo-strategic dimensions.

It is true that the 2009 elections in Fiji was postponed; however, that very system was did not fit the definitions of a "liberal democracy". If Fiji's race based voting system, were applied in the 2008 US elections; it would mean, Caucasians applying for a Caucasian seat and African Americans voting only for African American candidate and so forth for other minorities.


If that is the ideal concept of true democracy, which Australia and New Zealand want from Fiji, then it is a gross fallacy, making a mockery of the very definition of democracy. Furthermore, Fiji's model, does not square up with their own electoral system (e.g US, Australia, UK), which are devoid of any racial element(s).

Fiji's interim Government had postponed the 2009 elections to 2010, so that electoral reforms can be implemented; reforms that effectively remove the racial component and communal seats, including a boundary change. All of which, are labor and time extensive exercises, which elevate Fiji's electoral system up to par with the real definition of 'liberal democracy'.

Why then are these reforms so distasteful to the interests of the US, Australia and New Zealand?

It seems that this Western 'prodding' to get Fiji to hold 2009 elections (in the first quarter)has much to do with the discomfort of these Trans-Tasman egalitarians and their neo-colonial agendas, plucked straight from George W Bush's imperialistic play book.

US Secretary of State, Condoleeza's Rice recent visit to the region, including a stop in small fry Samoa, underscored that urgency to get the ball rolling in establishing full spectrum dominance of the Pacific, by proxy; simply because the US itself has not ratified the Law of Seas.

The major underlying reason in Fiji's case, is literally that; meaning it has more to do with Pacific seabed claims and according to the U.N International Sea Bed Authority, several Pacific island nations have until May 2009 to claim a part of the sea bed, if proven to be an extension of their own continental shelf. All this jockeying was outlined in an earlier SiFM posting "The Rush To Mine The Pacific Seabed".

Australia and New Zealand want Fiji to have a claim submitted by a so called 'democratically elected' government (note the time constraints), regardless if the Fiji's electoral system used racial communal seats.

The Trans-Tasman plan, is to just get the Fiji elections out of the way, to feign legitimacy and roll out the demands for seabed negotiations that could cement no bid oil contracts with Trans-Tasman companies. These same companies have financial backing from Wall Street, whose venture capitalists are desperately trying to ring up a profit, after such devastating losses, due to the moral hazards of Mortgage-backed securities, creating the credit-crunch that sent the US banking system into a nose dive.

Fiji's maritime boundaries is extensive and many studies have indicated conclusively that it contains large volumes of oil, natural gas and exotic minerals. Case in point, Fiji Govt has recently issued exploration licenses to three companies (2 Australian, 1 US)for oil extraction in Bligh waters, covered in a Fiji Live article.
The excerpt of the FL article:


Oil companies to explore Fiji waters
23 JUL 2008
Three offshore oil companies have been given licenses to explore large oil reserves found in Fiji’s Bligh Waters, according to the Department of Mineral Resources.

Two of the companies are from Australia and one from the United States.

Department Director Venasio Nasara is confident there is a substantial amount of oil in Fiji‘s territory to allow for rigging. He is hoping that more companies show interest in Fiji’s oil reserves. However, he cautions that all the right steps should be taken to ensure the appropriate policies are in place.

According to Nasara, there have been other sites with oil reserves identified within Fiji waters but no exploration licenses for these sites have been issued yet. The Mineral Resources Department also confirmed that other undersea minerals have been found in Fiji.

“There has been no environmental impact assessment done yet because there has been no need for it. But we will carry one out before the Government decides on mining.” He adds: “We are hoping that if an oil industry is realised, it will not only provide relief to rising fuel prices, but also to employment and foreign reserves.”

Fijilive


It appears that Australia and New Zealand want a piece of that pie before China comes in and outbids their puny capital, especially considering its huge energy appetite. In addition, current world prices of oil has made this Pacific option, a considerably attractive proposal and the icing on the cake, is that the region is far removed from the calamities in the Middle East and East Africa.

Undoubtedly, all this banter about accelerated democracy on specified time horizons, critically hinges upon Fiji's unquestionable obedience to the orders of Australia and New Zealand, both nations acting on instructions issued from way up the chain of command and global pecking order.

An interesting article published in "The Daily Telegraph" sums up this global pecking order, with regards to the seabed claims.

The excerpt:



Oil crisis triggers fevered scramble for the world's seabed


Last Updated: 10:52pm BST 30/05/2008


Record prices drive secret underwater land-grab as old enemies capitalise on colonies. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports

A fevered scramble for control of the world's seabed is going on - mostly in secret - at a little known office of the United Nations in New York.



Bemused officials are watching with a mixture of awe and suspicion as Britain and France stake out legal claims to oil and mineral wealth as far as 350 nautical miles around each of their scattered islands across the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. It takes chutzpah. Not to be left out, Australia and New Zealand are carving up the Antarctic seas.



Turtles at Clarence Bay at sunrise on the north west side of the Ascension Island and the view from Green Mountain on the Acension Island (image above)


Dusting off the relics: Ascension Island, once known for its turtles, could be vital to the UK's future energy needs if a bid to claim the seabed surrounding it is successful

The latest bombshell to land on the desks of UN's Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is a stack of confidential documents from the British Government requesting an extension of UK territorial waters around Ascension Island, St Helena and Tristan da Cunha.

The three outposts between them draw big circles in the Mid and South Atlantic, covering unexplored zones that may one day offer deep reserves of crude oil and gas.

A similar request has already been made for eastward expansion from the Falklands and South Georgia - much to the fury of Argentina. "If the British do not change their approach, we shall have to interpret it as aggression," said President Nestor Kirchner, before he handed power to his wife Cristina.

Ascension Island - famed for its enormous green turtles - is a dusty cluster of 44 volcanoes, covered with cinder. It is barely big enough to host America's "Wideawake" airfield and a tracking station for Ariane 5 space rockets. First garrisoned by the British in 1815 to keep an eye on Napoleon, it now boasts 1,100 hardy souls. St Helena - the "Atlantic Alcatraz" - is yet more remote, if greener.



The forgotten relics of the Empire make Britain a player in the marine race. There are the waters off the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, already home to a clutch of oil exploration companies; the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific; Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean; and a string of outposts such as Montserrat, the Caymans, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, and Bermuda.

The French "Outre-Mer" is a bigger network - from the Isles Crozet to Saint-Paul and Kerguelen in the southern seas, to Clipperton off western Mexico. They too have been busy at the UN, requesting an extension of their zone off French Guiana and New Caledonia.

All the maritime powers are nibbling gingerly at the edges of Antarctica, though the Antarctic Treaty bans fresh claims on the world's last pristine landmass.

The two-page summary of Britain's submission to the UN gives little away. It merely notes that the UK is providing information on the limits of shelf "beyond 200 nautical miles", adding that there will be further requests. A Foreign Office spokesman said the motive was to "protect the environment".
advertisement

Greenpeace demurs. "It is a grab for resources. These countries are in a panic about commodity prices and now view the seas as key to their national security," said Charlie Kronick, the group's climate chief.

The Law of the Sea allows the maritime powers to claim 200 miles of waters around their islands. They can win an extension to 350 miles if the geology of the seabed fits a set of complex technical conditions.

The requests are studied by a panel of world experts, and usually granted on a strict scientific basis. This is not conducted like the Eurovision Song Contest, where imperialists score "nul points".

The deadline expires in May 2009, so there is now a rush to stake out claims. If countries waive their right, the area from 200 to 350 miles automatically returns to the world community: claim it now, or lose it forever.

In a sense, the system is deeply unfair. China gets virtually nothing. Poor landlocked countries get absolutely nothing. Yet the old powers - after enjoying the fruit of imperial rule for four centuries - enjoy a second bite of the cherry. "The sea goes to the most powerful states that were able to colonise the remote parts of world. That's the way the law is," said Martin Pratt, head of the international boundaries unit at Durham University.

Nobody has ever explored these regions thoroughly for oil and minerals, although Mr Pratt said there was a burst of interest 20 years ago in "polymetallic nodules" - boulders of manganese, and such, on the sea floor. Commodity prices did not stay high enough to make it worthwhile investing, and the waters were mostly too deep.

That calculus is now changing fast as oil futures contracts for 2016 vault to $135 a barrel. The International Energy Agency warns that world output will fall far short of the estimated 116m barrels per day by 2030 unless there is massive investment.

The technology of deep-water drilling is improving in leaps and bounds. Three-dimensional seismic imaging can look through the salt canopies that cover up reserves and play havoc with exploration.

The ageing North Sea rigs drill to around 3,000ft: the Jack 2 test well, run by a consortium of oil companies, plunges through 7,000ft of water and 20,000ft of sea floor into the entrails of the earth below the Gulf of Mexico. The state-of-the-art fields off Angola may soon be routinely drilling at near 9,000ft. It is no longer far-fetched to imagine rigs drilling as deep as 15,000ft, once oil companies learn to cope with crude gushing out at temperatures of 300C.

Shell and Lasmo explored the Falklands in the 1990s, but gave up when crude prices crashed to $10 a barrel. Nothing much came to light. Desire Petroleum, Rockhopper, Borders & Southern and Falkland Oil and Gas are all probing again. Desire plans to start drilling this year. "A working hydrocarbon system in the North Falkland Basin has been established," it said.

Dr Phil Richards from the British Geological Survey - who helped to prepare the UK's extension claim - doubts stories that the area could hold 60bn barrels of oil (Saudi Arabia purports to have 260bn). "That is not credible. It is based on how much oil the rocks are potentially capable of holding. We won't know how much there is until we actually drill. All we have so far are educated guesses," he said.

Mr Richards denies that the Government is privy to secret discoveries. "There are no vast reserves that we know about. But who knows, it may come good for our grandchildren," he said.

Is it in the interests of mankind to tap deep-sea reserves? We may have no choice. The world has consumed one trillion barrels of oil already. The second trillion is located but not yet tapped, and will take us to 2035 or so. The third trillion eludes us. Any suggestions?


New Zealand which lies to the immediate South of Fiji and has it's own continental shelf claims which impinge upon Fiji's area, that lies adjacent to the Kingdom of Tonga, also facing the same seabed deadline claim, covered in an article in Islands Business. The excerpt of I.B article:

Seven Pacific countries race against time as deadline to claim extra ocean space draws near

Fiji along with Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, Tonga and Papua New Guinea have a credible claim to more than 1.5 million square kilometers of additional space beyond their current 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone.


Pacnews
Mon, 12 May 2008

SUVA, FIJI ---- Fiji and six other Pacific island countries are beginning to feel the pressure to complete their submissions to the United Nations (UN) to claim extra ocean space, with only one year remaining to the May 2009 deadline.

Fiji along with Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, Tonga and Papua New Guinea have a credible claim to more than 1.5 million square kilometers of additional space beyond their current 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

This is being made possible under Article 76 of the International Law of the Sea.

A week long workshop on the preparation on the country’s submission on Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) begins today in Fiji and is coordinated by the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) and Geoscience Australia (GA) and the UNEP Shelf Programme.

SOPAC, GA and UNEP would help these countries to complete the activities required to delineate the outer limits of their continental shelf. These countries are currently faced with the costly and complex work of data identification, collection, analysis and submission preparation.

Due to limited technical and financial capacity they may not be able to complete the submission process without considerable external support, both technical and financial

Scientific studies have revealed the access to extended continental shelf could mean more access to mineral rich resources previously outside our EEZ. It’s the first time the pacific region is combining their efforts in its bid to extend their exclusive economic zones.

SOPAC Director Cristelle Pratt, said countries are committed to working together to improve lives in the Pacific.

“Securing greater maritime sovereignty can provide increased revenue for Pacific States and deliver significant economic and social benefits from access to ocean resources that occur on the seabed and within the subsoil.

Ms Pratt said that assessments have identified strong grounds for these Pacific countries to extend sovereignty over their continental shelves.

“These Pacific Island Countries recognise that determining the boundaries of their Exclusive Economic Zone beyond 200 nautical miles is critical to securing exclusive ocean development of potentially rich non-living resources, such as oil, gas, gold and silver, as well as living organisms that live on and beneath the seabed,” Ms Pratt said.

Submissions to claim an extended continental shelf must be based upon sound technical data and meet requirements prescribed within Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS), to secure an extended Continental Shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.


It is undoubtedly a Machiavellian template, applied by Australia and New Zealand to get the Pacific Island states vis a` vis the Pacific Forum, and pressure Fiji into 2009 elections, indirectly creating divisions among the ranks of island states. The ultimate objective: scooping the seabed treasure, right under their collective noses of Pacific island states, too occupied with petty rivalry and bickering.


Zemanta Pixie





Social Bookmarking



Add to: Digg
Add to: Del.icio.us
Add to: Reddit
Add to: StumbleUpon
Add to: Furl
Add to: Yahoo
Add to: Spurl
Add to: Google
Add to: Technorati
Add to: Newsvine