X-Post- New York Times: China Buys Inroads in the Caribbean, Catching U.S. Notice

China's developments in the Caribbean as outlined in a New York Times (NYT) article, brings to mind an earlier SiFM post titled "The Islanders with a Dragon Tattoo" , the recent reports of the arrival of US Marines in Darwin and Huawei being blocked from bidding on Australia's broadband network. All symptoms of the changing geostrategic landscape.

The excerpt of NYT article:


China Buys Inroads in the Caribbean, Catching U.S. Notice 

Jason Henry for The New York Times

Tourists and locals enjoying the view at a restaurant and bar in Nassau, a beneficiary of China's largess. More Photos »Slide Show Jason Henry for The New York Times

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

Published: April 7, 2012 

NASSAU, the Bahamas — A brand new $35 million stadium opened here in the Bahamas a few weeks ago, a gift from the Chinese government. 

T he tiny island nation of Dominica has received a grammar school, a renovated hospital and a sports stadium, also courtesy of the Chinese. Antigua and Barbuda got a power plant and a cricket stadium, and a new school is on its way. The prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago can thank Chinese contractors for the craftsmanship in her official residence.
China’s economic might has rolled up to America’s doorstep in the Caribbean, with a flurry of loans from state banks, investments by companies and outright gifts from the government in the form of new stadiums, roads, official buildings, ports and resorts in a region where the United States has long been a prime benefactor.

The Chinese have flexed their economic prowess in nearly every corner of the world. But planting a flag so close to the United States has generated intense vetting — and some raised eyebrows — among diplomats, economists and investors. “When you’ve got a new player in the hemisphere all of a sudden, it’s obviously something talked about at the highest level of governments,” said Kevin P. Gallagher, a Boston University professor who is an author of a recent report on Chinese financing, “The New Banks in Town.” Most analysts do not see a security threat, noting that the Chinese are not building bases or forging any military ties that could invoke fears of another Cuban missile crisis. But they do see an emerging superpower securing economic inroads and political support from a bloc of developing countries with anemic budgets that once counted almost exclusively on the United States, Canada and Europe.

Jason Henry for The New York Times (More Photos)

The $35 million stadium in Nassau financed by China.

China announced late last year that it would lend $6.3 billion to Caribbean governments, adding considerably to the hundreds of millions of dollars in loans, grants and other forms of economic assistance it has already channeled there in the past decade. Unlike in Africa, South America and other parts of the world where China’s forays are largely driven by a search for commodities, its presence in the Caribbean derives mainly from long-term economic ventures, like tourism and loans, and potential new allies that are inexpensive to win over, analysts say. American diplomatic cables released through WikiLeaks and published in the British newspaper The Guardian quoted diplomats as being increasingly worried about the Chinese presence here “less than 190 miles from the United States” and speculating on its purpose.
 
One theory, according to a 2003 cable, suggested that China was lining up allies as “a strategic move” for the eventual end of the Castro era in Cuba, with which it has strong relations. But the public line today is to be untroubled. “I am not particularly worried, but it is something the U.S. should continue to monitor,” said Dennis C. Shea, the chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan Congressional panel. But, he added, “With China you have to be wary of possible policy goals behind the effort.” This archipelago, less than a one-hour flight from Florida, has gotten particular attention from the Chinese. Aside from the new stadium, with its “China Aid” plaque affixed prominently at the entrance, Chinese workers here in the Bahamas are busy helping build the $3.5 billion Baha Mar, one of the region’s largest mega resorts.

Beyond that, a Chinese state bank agreed in recent weeks to put up $41 million for a new port and bridge, and a new, large Chinese Embassy is being built downtown. The new stadium here, Bahamian officials said, was in part a reward for breaking ties with Taiwan in 1997 and establishing and keeping relations with China. It is one of several sporting arenas that China has sprinkled in Caribbean and Central American nations as gratitude for their recognition of “one China” — in other words, for their refusal to recognize Taiwan, which Chinese officials consider part of their country. “They offered a substantial gift and we opted for a national stadium,” said Charles Maynard, the Bahamian sports minister, adding that his government could never have afforded to build it on its own.

 In this enduring tug of war with Taiwan, others have switched, too, with a little financial encouragement. Grenada ended relations with Taiwan in 2004, and it is now in talks with China about getting a new national track and field stadium. The parting has not been entirely amicable; Taiwan and Grenada are now locked in a financial dispute over loans that Grenada received to finance the construction of its airport. Determined not to be sidelined, Taiwan is seeking to solidify its existing relationships with countries like Belize, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Lucia — which in 2007 broke relations with China in favor of Taiwan — with a bevy of projects, many of them agricultural, including an agreement signed with Belize in recent weeks to develop the fish farming industry there. Still, Taiwanese diplomats in the region conceded that they could never keep up with China’s largess but continued to make strategic investments in the Caribbean. There are some commodities in the region that China wants.

In August, a Chinese company, Complant, bought the last three government sugar estates in Jamaica and leased cane fields, for a total investment of $166 million. Last year, Jamaica for the first time shipped its famed Blue Mountain Coffee to China. The Jamaican government has also received several hundred million dollars in loans from China, including $400 million announced in 2010 over five years to rebuild roads and other infrastructure. “In order to be prosperous you need to build roads first,” said Adam Wu, an executive with China Business Network, a consulting group for Chinese businesses that has been making the case for China in several Caribbean countries.

Several analysts in the Caribbean say they believe that China eventually will emerge as a political force in the region, with so many countries indebted to it, at a time when the United States is perceived as preoccupied with the Middle East and paying little attention to the region. “They are buying loyalty and taking up the vacuum left by the United States, Canada and other countries, particularly in infrastructure improvements,” said Sir Ronald Sanders, a former diplomat from Antigua and Barbuda. “If China continues to invest the way it is doing in the Caribbean, the U.S. is almost making itself irrelevant to the region,” he added. “You don’t leave your flank exposed.” In some places, Chinese contractors or workers have stayed on, beginning to build communities and businesses.

So many have opened in Roseau, Dominica, that local merchants have complained about being squeezed out. immigration over the past century, but locals are now seeing more Chinese restaurants and shops, as well as other signs of a new immigrant generation. “I am second-generation Trinidadian-Chinese, and like most of us of this era, we have integrated very well in society, having friends, girlfriends, spouses and kids with people of other ethnicities,” said Robert Johnson-Attin, 36, a mechanical engineer now with his own successful business. “It’ll only be a matter of time before it happens with the Chinese coming in now.”

Here in the Bahamas, Tan Jian, the economic counselor at the Chinese Embassy, said he that believed “it’s only the start” of the Chinese presence across the Caribbean, casting it as one developing country using its growing economic power to help other developing ones. The Bahamian government, he said, “cannot afford to build huge projects by itself.” While the Chinese built the stadium, the Bahamas is responsible for utility hookups and the roads and landscaping outside it. The $35 million gift “is costing us $50 million,” said Mr. Maynard, the sports minister. “But at the end of the day it will pay for itself” by putting the Bahamas in position to host major sporting events and reap the tourism revenue that comes with that. For Baha Mar, the Chinese Export-Import Bank is financing $2.6 billion, nearly three-quarters of the cost, and China’s state construction company is a partner.

The Bahamas agreed to allow up to 8,000 foreign workers, most of them Chinese, to work on the project in stages, but it also required employment for 4,000 Bahamians, dampening concerns that Chinese workers were taking jobs. American companies will also take part in building and running it. Mr. Jian played down any economic competition with the United States, whose tourists, he asserted, stood to benefit from China’s presence in the Caribbean. The Chinese workers here live in barracks behind the project fences, largely shielded from public view. “We hardly know they are here,” said James Duffy, watching a track practice next to the stadium one recent afternoon, adding with a chuckle: “Except for the big things they build.”  

Karla Zabludovsky contributed reporting from Mexico City, Camilo Thame from Kingston, Jamaica, and Prior Beharry from Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago .


Club Em Designs

X-Post- Harvard Political Review: Papua New Guinea’s Great Power Conflict

By John F.M. Kocsis

In one of the coming decades’ most important developments, tensions between the United States and China have begun to escalate on a whole host of new fronts. Prospects for the presidency have soared to new heights of monetary nationalism, the Obama administration has announced plans to station 2,500 marines in the Pacific, and Chinese diplomats have turned up the heat on American allies in the South China Sea.

As in all great rivalries, China and America both have proxies whom they support, provided the junior partners act in their interest.  One such proxy nation is Papua New Guinea, the resource-rich Pacific nation whose domestic political instability has made it a surprising focus of American and Chinese geopolitical maneuvering.

John F.M. Kocsis

"As in all great rivalries, China and America both have proxies whom they support, provided the junior partners act in their interest[...]
A surface-level reading of this scenario focuses on an internal struggle within government leadership over political control and resources, a common occurrence in developing nations. However, a broader and perhaps more accurate view of the situation requires putting it in terms of American and Chinese interests[...]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished Somare for getting too close to his neighbor to the north. She warned of a “resource curse,” insinuating that he would fail as leader if he lacked commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability. Clinton has taken a Kissinger-esque stand when it comes to the nation, urging the U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, “Let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in and let’s just talk straight, realpolitik[...]"

Of potential flashpoints for conflict in the Pacific arena, Papua New Guinea is generally less studied than its regional counterparts, such as the Philippines and Vietnam.  New Guinean history is primarily viewed through the lens of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel.  This ignores the island’s long history on the world stage.  A battleground between Allied and Japanese forces in World War II, the country was restored to Australian ownership at the campaign’s end.  Sir Michael Somare, a perennial leader of Papua New Guinea, finally won his people independence in 1975 – but ever since, the Melanesian state has been fraught with conflict.

Despite recent military developments, Papua New Guinea is ostensibly in the throes of a petty constitutional crisis.  Sir Michael Somare, in his fourth nonconsecutive role as prime minister until this past August, has returned from his convalescence in Singapore claiming to be the country’s rightful legislative chief.  The person serving in that position now, Peter O’Neill, toppled the placeholder Somare who appointed in August and was voted by the parliament as the rightful prime minister.  The small nation’s supreme court ruled that because Somare left for heart surgery with full intention to reclaim his seat, he is legally entitled to the role of prime minister. By and large, parliament disagrees – and Papua New Guinean ministers strongly support the new prime minister, Peter O’Neill.  This vehement disagreement at the highest levels of government led to a mutiny attempt to remove O’Neill and restore Somare.

The rebellion was successful at first.  Hired by Michael Somare, the Indonesian colonel Yaura Sasa and his troops seized control of the military barracks in Port Moresby, the capital, and captured Brigadier-General Francis Agwi, the Commander of the PNG Defense Force.  After days of escalation, soldiers surrendered their weapons on January 30.  They promised to stand down instead of facing prison time.  The colonel was jailed but later released on the grounds that he was merely operating under government commands.  The government of Sir Michael Somare, which the Supreme Court deemed legitimate, had, after all, executed the order.

A surface-level reading of this scenario focuses on an internal struggle within government leadership over political control and resources, a common occurrence in developing nations. However, a broader and perhaps more accurate view of the situation requires putting it in terms of American and Chinese interests.  Papua New Guinea is an attractive destination for investors due to its untapped 22.6 trillion cubic feet in natural gas, not to mention its copper and gold wealth.  Exxon Mobil is working on a $15.7 billion liquefied natural gas project that should due to be completed in 2014.  The China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) is developing China’s largest overseas mining investment, a $1.6 billion attempt to exploit 140 million tons of nickel.

As is typical of situations in which foreign investment is involved, outside nations require government compliance in forging ahead with their designs.  China had an easy time injecting itself in the nation when Somare was in charge.  The once and perhaps future prime minister supported Chinese interests in his Environment Act, which amended the law so that landowners could no longer contest damaging activities on their land – a move that authorized the MCC’s plan to dump toxic mine waste into the Bismarck Sea.  This provision was repealed by the O’Neill government, which claimed to look out for both the environment and the rights of its constituents.

The acts of Peter O’Neill are not necessarily so principled.  While Somare instituted a “look north” policy during his tenure, O’Neill has increasingly conducted his primary business with Julia Gillard and her Labor government in Australia.  Sir Michael Somare saw China as the country to emulate.  He invited members of the People’s Liberation Army to train the Papua New Guinea Defense Force.  He also established a program for PNG officers to undertake military training in the People’s Republic of China for up to three years.  Historically, since Papua New Guinean independence, training aid had been under the aegis of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.  In the past couple of months, O’Neill has attempted to revert to those days, inviting Australian troops back to the island.

Last spring, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished Somare for getting too close to his neighbor to the north. She warned of a “resource curse,” insinuating that he would fail as leader if he lacked commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability.  Clinton has taken a Kissinger-esque stand when it comes to the nation, urging the U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, “Let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in and let’s just talk straight, realpolitik.” She bluntly claimed that China is trying to “come in under us” regarding “Papua New Guinea’s huge energy find.” As if there was any doubt, she strongly asserted, “We are in a competition with China.”

U.S. diplomats aren’t the only ones to recognize the recent skirmish’s implications on the Chinese-American divide.  Resentful PNG citizens have circulated text messages claiming, “The Somare regime existed through Asian mafia’s funding.” Papua New Guinea has experienced the rapid rise in Chinese immigrants to which the entire Pacific region has become accustomed.  Nativist anti-Chinese riots ulcerated in 2009; accordingly, most citizens strongly prefer America to China. However, as America’s unipolar moment fades into a period of increased Chinese assertiveness, it is not hard to imagine a future of Chinese dominance in Papua New Guinea.  Pacific Islanders might not like their new neighbors, but many established politicians have a tendency to get along with Beijing just fine.  As China’s aggression continues, its influence is unlikely to go anywhere but up. .

Club Em Designs

America's Pacific Century Pivot - A Pirouette In The Potomac Two-Step?

Following up to an earlier SiFM post titled: "The Re-adjustment Bureau 2.0", illustrated the aspect of Australia's self appointed role in the Pacific region.

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?

John Weiley Broken Head

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/china-is-not-a-threat-but-us-policy-may-well-be-20111111-1nc0k.html#ixzz1dUcrIxtS

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 full excerpt of the article:

Asia-Pacific: New Theatre of Power Play
Aurobinda MAHAPATRA (India) | 12.11.2011 | 08:18

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.

Club Em Designs

X-Post: The Diplomat- Fiji Explores Its Options

Check out the new dynamic view of SiFM from Blogger App.

Cross posted from The-Diplomat article -New Leaders Forum:

Fiji Explores Its Options

By Eddie Walsh

October 26, 2011

Over the next few months, The Diplomat will be running a series of interviews with Washington DC-based ambassadors on defence, diplomacy, and trade in the Asia-Pacific region.

In the second of these interviews, conducted by Washington correspondent Eddie Walsh, Ambassador Winston Thompson of the Republic of Fiji discusses the opportunities and challenges facing his government following the 2006 military coup.

The CIA World Factbook states: ‘Commodore Bainimarama has neutralized his opponents, crippled Fiji's democratic institutions, and refused to hold elections.’ As the country's representative to the United States, how do you respond to this position by the US government?

We still consider ourselves a democratically-based country. The reason that we have gone off-track for the moment is because the democratic system that we had in place was not in fact fulfilling the long-term interests of Fiji. Various acts were undertaken by the previous government that were causing polarization within the community. Ethno-nationalistic policies were being followed which the military said shouldn’t be pursued. But the democratic government insisted on carrying on with it, which is why it was removed.

Since it has been in place, the objective of the current government has been to remove ethnic considerations out of the body politic. They will appoint a committee to review the Constitution and carry through this non-racial aspect. They have also embarked upon establishing a developmental programme within Fiji that’s addressing those areas which haven’t been well serviced in the past, such as putting in roads, bridges, and shipping. They’ve been concentrating on that and making development more uniform across the country, and reforming the government system to remove elements of patronage. Finally, there’s the issue of corruption, which the military felt was getting out of hand. One of the reasons given for staging the coup was to get rid of corruption. If you look back on the record, the current government very quickly adopted and ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption and set up the Fiji Independence Commission Against Corruption that has gone into addressing the corruption issue in a vigorous way.

Because the population is made up of two big components, ethnic Fijians and ethnic Indians, you need policies in the government system that bring them to a common position, which the government that was overthrown wasn’t doing. It was processing legislation that would in fact give over the seas and reefs as outright ownership to the land owners – 90 percent of whom are ethnically Fijian. That wasn’t seen as unifying. They were also processing legislation which would have given amnesty to those that had staged the coup in 2000, including releasing those who were imprisoned and being prosecuted. The military said that wasn’t good for the country.

Do you believe that the preconditions existed for democratic governance at the time of Fijian independence? Or do you think that the history of the coups illustrates that those preconditions didn’t exist, or that they must be restored prior to the restoration of democracy?

Those preconditions clearly existed because we were a multiracial society. I think it was hoped that the way the 1970 constitution was framed would provide sufficient time for the communities to develop a more common identity and get on better. In the fullness of time, they then could amend the constitution to better reflect the situation. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. We had the first coup in 1987, and it dislocated the whole dialogue between the two main races. This was being exacerbated by the government, which was overthrown in 2006. Rather than finding ways to bring the communities together, they were driving them apart. This gave rise to the unhappiness of the military over what was happening, which is ironic given that the majority of the military are ethnic Fijians.

Do you therefore perceive the military as the safeguard for stable government in an otherwise cleaved society?

They certainly perceive themselves in that way. Perhaps the circumstances that we are in, they are needed to maintain a national stability.

Despite significant emigration, Indians still represent almost 40percent of the population. From your perspective, are tensions between the Indian and Melanesian population in Fiji dissipating under the current government? What is the current government doing to address such tensions?

I think before the coup, it’s true to say that the Indians were very unhappy and migrating in very large numbers. Since then, they are happy that the conditions in Fiji aren’t against them and they are more prepared to stay and contribute. Also, those that migrated are being encouraged to return. They can also vote in the upcoming election abroad, and the government has moved to allow for dual citizenship for the migrants.

When do you foresee free and fair elections returning to Fiji? Will the Constitution be reinstated at that time?

The government has set out a very clear timetable for the return to elections. In 2013, the constitutional review will take place. By 2014, you’ll have the basis for the elections to take place under a non-racial constitution. Beginning next year, there will be electronic voter registration. This will put in place the proper process to proceed. International monitoring of the elections hasn’t been discussed, but I am sure that will be part of it.

In its short history as an independent country, Fiji has experienced more than its fair share of coups. Why do you think such political turmoil has been an endemic feature of the political system in Fiji?

Since 1987, we’ve had a coup culture. But once we have a constitutional framework that will give a more balanced and universal representation for people in the political system, it will be overcome. Many countries have gone through these cycles, so there’s no reason we can’t get out of it.

What has been the diplomatic impact of the coup and your country's suspension from participation in the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and Commonwealth of Nations?

As far as we’re concerned, we have a timetable for elections and they have delivered on the path they have promised. Unfortunately, Australia and New Zealand in particular have said that they don’t believe that the elections will be held in 2014. If you take that approach, it’s very difficult. They refuse to acknowledge that steps are already underway for the elections, development is going on, and people are very happy with the progress. Fiji is also still a member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), which is in terms of representation of the Pacific Islands Forum 90 percent of the population, and serves as its chairman. The MSG met before the PIF and its leaders pledged support for Fiji. In fact, they said that they’d move to have Fiji reinstated at the PIF meeting, but only the President of Kiribati was brave enough to come out and say that.

Do you see any opportunity for the strengthening of the multilateral relations between the small island nations of the South Pacific in the future? Could a new security architecture emerge?

There has always been a strong feeling of the South Pacific Islands peoples being together. There was more intercourse between the islands before the European colonization than after. There’s an identity as a South Pacific people. That feeling has strengthened in the last 10 years. Since Fiji was excluded from the PIF, there has been established in the United Nations the Pacific Small Island Developing States. They meet on a regular basis and have more to do with what goes on in the UN than the PIF, which hardly gets a look in anymore. Australia isn’t a South Pacific island – they are a donor country and a post-colonial influence. But, in terms of self-identity, they don’t view Australia and New Zealand as part of the common identity.

As the United States reasserts itself in the Pacific region, how has it affected progress for Fiji and have you seen the relationship between the US and Fiji improve?

Until recently, the US has looked to Australia and New Zealand to call the shots with respect to the relationship with Fiji. But recently, the relationship has improved. They must have realized that after five years of this sort of stand from Australia and New Zealand, it hasn’t made any difference, and there must be a different approach if you want to have any impact or influence on what goes on in Fiji. The other thing is that many others have come to cooperate with Fiji. We have more countries in a friendly relationship with Fiji than ever before.

What is Fiji's perception of US hegemony in Asia-Pacific? Will the US continue to serve as an unrivalled security guarantor, and do you see its military dominance enduring for at least the next 30-40 years?

Given the recent developments in geopolitics and global economic development, that isn’t as clear as it used to be. There’s going to be more geo-political competition. Our area could be faced with a lot more issues than we have faced in the past.

Are small island nations in the region hedging against US hegemony by looking to other powers?

That’s already happening in the case of Fiji because we were ostracized by our traditional allies and we have had to look elsewhere. That is a fact of life.

The increased diplomatic assertiveness of China in the South Pacific has garnered the attention of many experts and diplomats. Many believe this was the trigger for the large American delegation being sent to the Pacific Islands Forum this year. What do you think China's motivation is for engagement in the Pacific, and do you see China trying to promote long-term peace and stability in the Pacific?

China has been in Fiji for a long time. They were one of the first to come in when we achieved independence. This isn’t something new. I don’t know why people are interpreting this as something suddenly happening. They have been in the region for 40 years as a development partner. I think their intentions are development oriented. They want to benefit from trade and development possibilities from the economic zone – the exploitation of the seas around us and the mineral resources on land. Their requirements for these are growing all the time. Taiwan also is in Fiji, not in a diplomatic capacity but as a trade partner.

When Kurt Campbell from the US State Department spoke at CSIS a few weeks ago, he was critical of the type of foreign aid that China was providing in the South Pacific and voiced his government's willingness to work with China to ensure that its aid better met the long-term needs of the region. Do you agree with his assessment? What can China and other foreign countries do better with respect to foreign aid in the South Pacific?

I don’t think that is true at all. The aid that China has been giving for infrastructure development in Fiji has been one of the central requirements for the development of the country. One of the pre-requisites of development in the remote areas is to put in roads, and that’s what they have done. Just because it is an area that other countries haven’t looked at, why should they criticize it as not contributing to long-term development? Trade access is something that should be facilitated by all countries. There should be some concessions provided for small countries to gain access to markets. We find the US has strict quality standards for food imports that it’s very difficult for countries such as ours to meet. It’s something we have to work on and a place where countries with greater capabilities could help.

How are Fiji's bilateral relations with Australia and New Zealand today? Where are there opportunities for improvement or concern in the relationship?

The relationship isn’t very good at the moment because of the stand that they take. Fortunately, they haven’t disrupted the trade between the two countries. Business relationships are continuing with their counterparts. From that point of view, it’s good. We depend a lot on them for markets for tourism. Fortunately, over the last five years, the number of visitors from Australia and New Zealand have continued to rise. They’ve seen nothing to dissuade them from coming from the domestic situation. Things could have been much better though if they hadn’t taken this very difficult stand.

As ASEAN deepens ties, there is the consideration that it also should broaden. This could be achieved through an extension of relationships to South Pacific countries such as Fiji. Do you see an interest in ASEAN playing a more concrete role in your economic development? What about India?

We would hope ASEAN will play a more concrete role. We are moving to get observer status with the ASEAN countries so they can play a more tangible role. As countries develop, they want to extend their influence to potential markets and areas that could be involved in an economic relationship with them. We are part of their geographic area. With respect to India, economic relations are good. India is part of the Commonwealth stand on Fiji, so military cooperation isn’t something that they are exploring. I think that India’s interests moving forward, though, means that they’ll want to have a greater presence. We want to develop relations with a wide array of countries. In the past, we’ve been influenced to a large extent by Western powers and restricted in our relations by the Commonwealth. What we are realizing is that the world is opening up and we want to take advantage of it by looking more widely than in the past to take advantage of any opportunities that there might be to promote our own interests. This should have happened either way, but being pushed out of the Commonwealth forced us to do this more seriously than we would have otherwise.

Fiji is fortunate not to be party to any major international disputes. Aside from governance, what then are the major traditional and non-traditional security issues facing Fijians today?

We don’t have any serious security issues. We have no arguments with anybody that could lead to war. Since 1978, we’ve contributed troops to UN peace keeping operations in theatres around the world. We are also a member of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. That’s a vulnerable resource, and there has to be careful management of it. But I think there’s enough interest in international conventions that manage this on a diplomatic basis so that it isn’t a military issue.

Many countries in the Asia-Pacific are undergoing serious military modernization. Fiji is seriously limited in its capacity to modernize – both from a budget and human resources standpoint. In your opinion, does Fiji need to pursue more aggressive military modernization in the years ahead, or will you stay the course?

Generally, we don’t see ourselves being faced with any serious security threats that require major modernization of our military capabilities. We would need to modernize our military capabilities though to just do the job we currently are doing in peace keeping operations on a proper basis, because military equipment is evolving all the time and we need to keep up with the technology.

At the time of the coup, some analysts worried that domestic instability could undermine Fiji’s role as the transport hub of the South Pacific. Do you see any long-term effect of the coup on Fiji’s role as a hub in the region?

Fiji has played a central role for a couple of hundred years because of its geographic position. The undersea cables, shipping lines, airline routes make it a central location. We have a very well developed infrastructure that can handle an entrepôt function. If we were going to have serious political instability, it could affect this, but I don’t see that happening. I don’t see other countries hedging against us playing this role either.

Tourism remains a driver of economic growth. Given the volatility in the international markets (especially energy), are you concerned that Fiji must urgently diversify its sources of foreign exchange, and what is the government doing to promote foreign investment?

The government is trying to promote diversification as much as possible. It’s encouraging the agriculture and resource sectors. We have bauxite, gold, and manganese in our mines. We have resources within our exclusive economic zone (EEZ), including manganese nodules. Tourism is moving on its own – it’s experiencing a very satisfactory increase.

It has been reported that Fiji would push for the South Pacific Stock Exchange emerging as a regional exchange. Why hasn’t this occurred, and do you see renewed interest in pushing this ahead?

It’s still moving in the direction of a regional stock exchange. We have Fiji TV listed on the stock exchange, which has holdings in Papua New Guinea (PNG). Bank South Pacific South Pacific of PNG has bought one of the banks in Fiji and is moving to be listed on the South Pacific Stock Exchange. So, I think that with time it will be able to gradually interest others.

Fiji participated in the Shanghai World Expo in 2010. How important is cultural diplomacy to advancing your countries national interests abroad? What countries are the main focus of such outreach?

We aren’t doing too much in public diplomacy. We do have regular attendance at such expos, a military band that travels, a festival of arts held in the South Pacific, and shows like Pacific Night in Washington, DC and elsewhere . However, I don’t know if there’s a systematic plan to exploit this area on the world stage. It is just not being thought of – we don’t have the resources to do much about it. It has nothing to do with our present government status. I think it’s increasingly realized that we need to get a brand though. The fact that Fiji Water is such a recognizable brand matters. We now are launching Fiji Pure Mahogany as a brand. The government is increasingly realizing it needs a systematic approach to building a brand. The government is going to have to take the initiative and spearhead building a brand. It will need to put resources into it and get input from agencies in other countries.

For a small country, Fiji nonetheless is a major force in international rugby union. Unfortunately, the country had a poor showing at this year's World Cup. What impact will this have on the local economy and what is Fiji doing to ensure that the team is more competitive in the future?

Our sevens team is a better brand for our country than the 15-man competition, and we have won the World Cup twice with the sevens. If we had done well in this World Cup, it would have had an impact. But almost the entire team that played at the World Cup plays their professional rugby full-time overseas. The fact that they are all playing overseas and they have good reputations in the places they play, especially Europe, Australia, and New Zealand – that has an economic impact. So, more Fijian players are being encouraged to go play abroad. There’s a lot of economic benefit that comes from the recognition of Fijians’ ability to play rugby.

Club Em Designs

NZ PM To Raise Fiji Aid Quandary With Chinese Premier

New Zealand’s Prime Minister, John Key, says he will raise the matter of the current crisis in Fiji with the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, during his current visit to Beijing[...]John Key says China gives aid to Fiji, and there is a risk that if Australia and New Zealand pull aid away from Fiji then China may simply step in and fill the gap.

read more | digg story

New Zealand blog "Tailor of Panama" whose latest posting covers John Key's latest speech at Peking University. It would be a stretch of the imagination, on DFAT's part, to think Key's insistence on controlling China's aid to Fiji will gain any traction in Beijing, let alone an audience.

A Question of Numbers- Tied Foreign Aid To Fiji.

An earlier SiFM post" covered the issue of foreign aid to Fiji and the Pacific region. The blog "The Interpreter" featured a posting follow up from Fergus Hanson, who defends his data regarding China's aid to Fiji.
The excerpt of "The Interpreter" posting:

Fighting words from Fiji
by Fergus Hanson
1 day ago

An opinion piece I recently wrote for the SMH on Chinese aid in Fiji has stirred up a fighting reaction, along with some factual errors.

The Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office in Fiji, Parmesh Chand, is reported in the Fiji Times today as saying 'His figures are all wrong'. But at the same time, he has refused to reveal what the actual figures were. This is peculiar as the same newspaper in November 2007 reported the Finance Minister expressing his gratitude for a $US150 million Chinese soft loan (the largest part of pledged aid to Fiji in 2007). Other pledged aid figures were also drawn from the public record and then independently verified.

I don’t pretend using reports of pledged aid is the most accurate way of measuring China’s aid program, but unfortunately, given the secrecy, it remains the best.

The response to my article contains some unfortunate inaccuracies* — such as mistaking my figures on pledged aid for aid received — but is a good reminder of the secrecy surrounding China’s aid program. Clearly, a lot more work needs to be done to persuade China to disclose the details of its aid program and recipient governments to accurately report the aid they receive. The interim government in Fiji should publish the figures on the aid it receives from China if it is serious about contesting the use of the only figures available to the public.

* The Fiji Times journalist also reports me as saying China’s aid to Fiji 'was more than the total amount of aid China gives to the Pacific as a whole on an annual basis'. This is not only a logical impossibility — as Fiji is part of the Pacific and therefore cannot receive more aid than the Pacific as a whole — it is not what my opinion piece said. It said China’s pledged aid to Fiji 'is more than half China's annual aid to the entire Pacific'.

Hanson comments on the remarks by the Permanent Secretary to Prime Minister's Office, Parmesh Chand; who refuted, in a Fiji Times article the published figures of China's 2007 aid to Fiji.

China's aid to Fiji clearly exceeds the aid from Fiji's neighbors- Australia and New Zealand by a resounding factor. Irrefutably, China's deep pockets has created ripples of uneasiness in Wellington and Canberra; both resigned to notion that the untied aid from China equates to a considerable degree of influence, as well severely embarrassing their own 'tightwad' foreign policy in the region; which is traditionally packaged with strings attached.



Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs