A Miss Is A Good As A Mile- Regional Concerns In The Pacific.

Croz Walsh post, outlines some of the mis-reportage covering the Pacific Forum and the discussion on Fiji.

Australia News Network video coverage of issues being discussed in this weeks Pacific Forum in Auckland. (video posted below)

The 2nd Inaugural "Engaging Fiji" regional meeting video coverage and comments by some of the attendees (video posted below).

Island Business Article On Pacific Island Forum

"More seriously, FICs are alarmed to see that the actions of the Forum Secretariat have been characterised by an inappropriate degree of opacity. In particular, while the governance structure of OCTA was discussed through successive rounds of PACER Plus meetings, the contract discussions between the Forum Secretariat and Dr Noonan have not been made available to FICs."

PINA published a recent opinion from Roman Grynberg, that comments on the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA) and the shock resignation of the incumbent, Chris Noonan.

The excerpt of Grynberg's opinion piece:

An islands owned regional body?

By Online Editor
6:57 pm GMT+12, 06/09/2011, Fiji

By Dr Roman Grynberg, www.islandbusiness.com

For the last few months, the region has been racked with highly contentious debate over the issue of the role and independence of its newest institution, the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA).

OCTA was established with Australia and New Zealand funding to help the islands negotiate the PACER Plus trade agreement between the islands and Australia and New Zealand. From its very inception, neither the Pacific Islands Forum nor Canberra were willing to allow it to be what the islands wanted, which was a completely independent source of advice.

Several months ago, the situation was further complicated when PNG presented a paper asking for the extension of the remit of OCTA to go beyond the negotiations with Australia and New Zealand and help complete the negotiations with the European Union over the Economic Partnership Agreement, which has now continued for almost eight years.

The reason offered by PNG for shifting the policy advice away from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) was the Forum had not done a competent job, and progress has been slow on key areas of interest such as fisheries and aid for trade.

More importantly, the membership of the Forum includes Australia and New Zealand, there might be potential conflict of interest in trusting the Forum to handle negotiations that would set a precedent for PACER Plus negotiations.

From a Forum Secretariat’s perspective and from the position of Canberra and Wellington this sent up a red flag as nothing could be more dangerous to their monopoly of advice to the region, in this case on trade negotiations.

This had always been the danger in creating OCTA in the first place. At the time the decision was made to create OCTA in 2008, the islands did not trust the Forum Secretariat’s chief executive to do anything other than serve the interests of Canberra and Wellington and in return Canberra and Wellington did not believe the trade advice going to the islands from the secretariat served their interests. But it was clear at the time that OCTA could eventually become the basis for an independent island-owned and controlled organisation where, for the first time in 40 years the islands could get independent advice and make their own decision without the overbearing presence of the two dominant powers.

By creating OCTA, this ‘remit creep’ could end up destroying the Forum Secretariat’s very reason for its existence, which is to provide advice to the islands which is acceptable to Australia and New Zealand.

Separate, but relevant to the PNG paper, is the scope of work of OCTA was a point of contention at the Forum Trade Ministers’ Meeting in Vava’u, Tonga, in May 2011. Australia insisted that the remit of the work of OCTA be limited to PACER Plus only.

The islands believe that since OCTA is theirs, this should be a matter for their decision, and theirs only. There was no agreement at ministerial level and the issue has now been kicked upstairs to the Forum leaders meeting.
At the August 2011, PACP Trade Ministers Meeting in Port Moresby, PNG presented a revised version of their country paper “Future Management of PACP Business including the Current EPA Negotiations”. Two main justifications were given for the need to consider the issue. First, PIFS faces a potential conflict of interest when supporting the PACPs because it owes a duty to all Forum members. Second, Fiji’s full participation in PACP business on an ongoing basis must be resolved. This has led to a recommendation to PACP Leaders for the convening of an Eminent Persons Group to look into the issue of the long-term management of PACP affairs.

It is here where the matters to be discussed by PACP and by Forum leaders interact. The PNG revised country paper raises the possibility of exploring whether OCTA could be a facility for the long-term management of PACP affairs, at least in the area of trade negotiations. There is obvious value in the FICs/PACPs having support in all trade matters provided by a single regional body to ensure coherence and coordination, if not for the practical reasons of resource-efficiency.

With appropriate terms of reference, findings from the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) would shed more light to the FICs on both the future scope of the activities of OCTA and as part of a broader review of the future management of PACP business.

The most difficult question will be who will be supporting and coordinating the group. Such a function might not have an insignificant control over the findings and recommendations of such a group.

If the Forum is tasked, this could result in a situation equivalent to where the accused is charged with choosing its own jury and helping determine its decision. The obvious decision is to ask a relatively independent body such as the Commonwealth or the ACP Secretariat to oversee the workings of the group.

With the recent resignation of Professor Chris Noonan as Chief Trade Negotiator, the region has now lost a skilled and dedicated negotiator who, once the actual negotiations commenced, would have proven invaluable to the islands. But Australia and New Zealand have done their very best to make his job extremely difficult and insecure. Tongan officials have also been instrumental in helping to undermine OCTA and will no doubt be rewarded by higher levels of aid from Canberra.

The steady drum beat of events is moving in one direction, the isolation of Fiji after the coup, the negotiations of EPA and now PACER Plus have moved the islands to finally push for an institution that is both permanent and genuinely independent of Australian and New Zealand domination.

The push by PNG for such a body was almost inevitable. There will remain a residual role for the Forum and its secretariat as a place where the islands talk to Australia and New Zealand but the genuinely independent body that gives the islands advice that is untainted is still waiting to be born and the EPG will almost certainly be the mid-wives.

• These are the views of Dr Roman Grynberg who was Director of Economic Governance at the Forum Secretariat until he was removed in 2009.

Island Business (I.B) article, explores the perceived conflicts in the Forum.


The excerpt of I.B article:

COVER REPORT: Forum in Conflict

Fiji and trade raise possible conflict of interest questions
Samisoni Pareti

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat’s (PIFS) “exposure” in trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand over PACER Plus has placed the secretariat in a prejudicial position over its management of trade talks with the European Union (EU), a confidential Papua New Guinea Government paper has said.
And Waigani wants PIFS to exclude itself from future Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) negotiations with the EU by establishing a separate and independent office to oversee EPA matters.

“PNG believes there exists a possible issue of conflict of interest in the management role PIFS plays in the EPA negotiations,” said the PNG paper, a copy of which was leaked to this magazine.
“[...]PIFS’ exposure to PACER Plus negotiation places PIFS in a possible situation of prejudice in the EPA negotiations management advice. This is therefore a situation of conflict of interest that exists in the current role PIFS plays in the EPA negotiations.”
 
PNG’s position was discussed at the trade ministers meeting of Pacific members of the ACP group in Port Moresby last month. The paper was “noted” according to the meeting’s outcome statement, and Ministers have asked their leaders at their meeting in the margins of the Forum Leaders summit in Auckland early September to form an Eminent Persons Group to consider the PNG proposal in detail.

As things stand, PIFS is the current Regional Authorising Officer (RAO) for Pacific members of ACP.
In this role, PIFS manages all ACP matters between its Pacific members, as well as with their counterparts in the other two regions of Africa and the Caribbean, and with the EU.

Thorny issues
But the PNG paper claimed two recent developments have made PIFS’ role as RAO “questionable.” One is the need for Pacific members of PIF to negotiate the free trade agreement PACER Plus with their two bigger and wealthier members of Australia and New Zealand. The other thorny issue is Fiji.

While its membership of PIF has been suspended due to the military coup of December 2006, Fiji’s membership of the ACP grouping is still very much intact. “PIFS’ management of the PACP EPA negotiations may not be consistent with its core functions,” said the PNG Government paper.

“Its core functions and responsibilities should be to provide equal service to the full membership of the Forum. What may be happening by the PIFS’ management role in the EPA negotiations is a situation of serving the interest of one group of members to the exclusion of others."

“PIFS’ responsibilities are to the Forum and its duties are to serve the collective interests of the Forum membership, consistent with the Forum Leaders’ decisions. EPA negotiations management is an additional responsibility PIFS has taken on.

---

Chris Noonan resigns as Chief Trade Adviser

Pacific Islands negotiations with Australia and New Zealand on PACER Plus has hit a major snag with the resignation of Chief Trade Adviser, Dr Chris Noonan of New Zealand.

Dr Noonan heads the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser, which is based in Port Vila, Vanuatu, and has only been in the job for just over a year.

Although Islands Government Trade Officials were informed of his resignation at a meeting in Papua New Guinea in early August, no public announcement ha[d] been issued.

“Yes, it is correct, I have tendered my resignation,” Dr Noonan said in response to questions from Islands Business about his future at the OCTA. “There is really nothing to tell,” he added in his electronic mail response. “It was for personal reasons. OCTA will carry on—business as usual.”

But it was certainly no business as usual when the New Zealand lawyer and trade expert got appointed as CTA by the Pacific Islands Forum in December 2009. Two months after receiving his appointment letter, Dr Noonan was still debating the actual nature of his contract and structure of the OCTA, a matter Islands Business had reported in its February 2010 edition.

The story quoted from a letter from then Solomon Islands Foreign Minister William Haomae to PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat) Secretary-General Tuiloma Neroni Slade, complaining bitterly about the delays in Dr Noonan’s appointment.

“Despite the importance placed by the trade ministers on the urgent establishment of OCTA, FICs (Forum Islands Countries) have noted with surprise that the handling of the matter by the secretariat has been characterised by extraordinary delays,” wrote the Solomon Islands’ minister.

New South Wales Green Senator Lee Rhiannon

"I call on the Australian government, when it attends this year’s Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting to live up to its call for good governance and aid ownership in the region and respect the rights of Forum islands leaders to decide for themselves what the mandate of the OCTA is. At the end of the day, they are asking only for funding, not permission."

“FICs are concerned that the significant time lags between Dr Noonan’s communication with the secretariat and its responses are interfering with the fulfillment of the mandate given to the secretariat by the Forum Ministers. "Repeated requests for urgent updates from some FICs have yielded at best, delayed responses". Similarly, it has been brought to the attention of FICs that Dr Noonan’s requests for the chance to travel to Fiji and Vanuatu to assist in moving this process forward have been rejected.

“Given the low costs of the proposed travel and its importance, and the significant amount of funding that remains available, the Forum Secretariat’s recalcitrance is puzzling, contrary to its mission to serve all the members’ interests, and might set a worrying precedent for the on-going PACER Plus process.

“More seriously, FICs are alarmed to see that the actions of the Forum Secretariat have been characterised by an inappropriate degree of opacity. In particular, while the governance structure of OCTA was discussed through successive rounds of PACER Plus meetings, the contract discussions between the Forum Secretariat and Dr Noonan have not been made available to FICs.”

Dr Noonan’s appointment was finalised in no time after Haomae’s letter was leaked and published by Islands Business. But for the new CTA, the fight had just begun. Over the past 12 or so months, he has had to fight to get funding for OCTA, with Australia particularly being accused of interfering with the office’s financial independence.

The accusation became too close for comfort for the Australian Government recently when New South Wales Green Senator Lee Rhiannon told Australia’s Upper House that Prime Minister Julian Gilliard’s Government should stop its interfering and bullying tactics.

“Australia would under no circumstances accept such a compromise of its sovereignty,” said Senator Rhiannon.

 "Yet through its aid programme, the government is attempting to make such an imposition on the Forum islands countries".

The islands have asserted that the OCTA is theirs and should be under their control, and not the control of all Forum countries.

“It is a sad irony that I stand in the building that asserts Australia’s sovereignty, asking for it to allow other countries to do the same". 

"I call on the Australian government, when it attends this year’s Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting to live up to its call for good governance and aid ownership in the region and respect the rights of Forum islands leaders to decide for themselves what the mandate of the OCTA is. At the end of the day, they are asking only for funding, not permission.”

The NSW Green Senator referred to the “documentation” of Australia’s “arm-twisting, power politics and pressure” over the OCTA affair. In particular, she questioned the need for Canberra to attempt to limit the scope of the OCTA to PACER Plus negotiations only, and its insistence that OCTA funding be released and reviewed on a quarterly basis.

---

PIFS role redefined
“This would normally be the responsibility of the ACP Secretariat to its members, ACP being a different legal entity to PIFS. It would therefore be in the best interest of both the PIFS and PACPs that the PIFS role in the EPA negotiations be redefined.”
 

The Waigani paper asserted that removing the RAO role of PIFS would also resolve the “inappropriate issue” of Fiji’s participation in EPA negotiations.
“Fiji’s case provides a substantive impetus for PACP matters to be managed independently of the Forum. Fiji’s case with PIFS is an example of what can happen if the PACPs, which are members of a completely different legal entity, surrender the management responsibilities of their affairs to another legal entity.
 

“Hence, the inappropriate issue of Fiji’s eligibility or otherwise comes into play.”
PNG’s view was echoed by a Fiji Government paper which was also presented at the same Port Moresby meeting of Pacific ACP Trade Ministers last August.
 

In this paper, which was also obtained by Islands Business, Suva made the call that the RAO role should be removed from PIFS.
 

“PIFS is not a signatory to the Cotonou (Agreement between ACP countries and the EU) and therefore its role to coordinate and provide technical advice to the PACPs was consequential to the PACPs’ commitments and decisions.

“It therefore follows that the PACPs are at liberty to assign this role to the PIFS (which they did in 2004) or to transfer it to another organisation if they feel PIFS is unable to perform the role effectively.”
Fiji is particularly displeased that because of its suspension from PIF, its leader Commodore Frank Bainimarama would not be able to attend this month’s Pacific ACP Leaders summit in Auckland.
Under its travel sanctions policy, Wellington bans Bainimarama, his cabinet ministers and senior military officers and their families from visiting New Zealand. Canberra has a similar policy.

---

EPA – interim or comprehensive?

The future structure of a free trade agreement between Pacific members of the ACP and Europe hangs in a balance as parties scramble to meet the once again changed negotiation deadline of mid-2012.
As a negotiating bloc, the 14 members of the Pacific ACP countries have agreed to negotiate as a region with the EU (European Union) and to all aim for a full, comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA).


However, the two larger members of Papua New Guinea and Fiji opted out of that agreement when they individually signed an interim EPA (I-EPA) with the European Union in 2007 to protect their tuna and sugar exports respectively. PNG has since ratified that agreement.
The race to meet the EPA negotiation deadline, which has now been pushed from the end of December 2011 to mid-2012, has only added pressure on what is already a complex and highly charged negotiation environment.


To-date, only eight out of the 14 members of the Pacific ACP have submitted their market offers to the EU—a pre-requisite for negotiations over a comprehensive EPA.
But if that’s not complicated enough, the European Union has upped the tempo when at the Pacific ACP Trade Ministers meeting in Papua New Guinea last month, proposed that the islands of the Pacific should follow PNG and Fiji by opting for a revised interim agreement, something that has been dubbed I-EPA Plus.


“Accession to the interim EPA would greatly reduce negotiating requirements and would provide countries wishing to benefit from this option with quick access to the EU market,” acting Head of the Delegation of the European Union in Papua New Guinea Dr Kay Beese told Pacific ACP Trade Ministers.
“If a substantial number of countries would be joining the agreement, the existing agreement could later be amended and new chapters added.


“These could concern fisheries or development cooperation, if the parties to the agreement so wish.”
According to Dr Beese, an interim EPA Plus was much more realistic and takes into account the specific nature of members of the Pacific ACP.
Whilst the outcome document of the Trade Ministers meeting showed that Dr Beese’s proposal was not accepted, it was Fiji that officially expressed some support for the interim EPA Plus option.
“Fiji had always supported that the comprehensive EPA was its long-term vision for the region’s relations with the EU,” a Fiji position paper said.


“It had initialled and signed the I-EPA as an interim solution to maintain its market access into the EU.“This position will be reconsidered if the current arrangement of Fiji’s participation in the EPA continues.“The EU mooted the idea of I-EPA Plus this year.
“Two of the PACPs have indicated their strong interest to join the I-EPA.“Fiji would join the like minded countries in pursuing the proposed I-EPA Plus concept with the EU if its participation in the comprehensive EPA negotiations is frustrated,” the Fiji paper said.

---

 
EPA negotiations crucial stage
At the Port Moresby meeting in August of Pacific ACP trade ministers, Fiji lobbied for support to get an invite to attend the Pacific ACP Leaders summit, or failing that, the venue of the PACP leaders summit be changed from Auckland to Port Vila.

“Given that the EPA negotiations are at a crucial stage, the consequences of excluding Fiji from the next PACPs leaders meeting would be more significant than past meetings,” the Fiji paper argued.
“Fiji cannot agree to a process where the outcomes are beyond its control and where it cannot defend its own interest.”
Islands Business was told Fiji received a lot of support at the Port Moresby meeting, but because of time and logistical constraints, ministers felt it would be very difficult to change the venue of the Pacific ACP Leaders meeting.
As a way forward, PNG is proposing a permanent independent Pacific ACP trade facility or office.
“In PNG’s original paper (tabled at the last Trade Ministers meeting in Apia in April 2011), the possibility of the transfer of current EPA negotiations management to the Office of the Chief Trade Advisor (OCTA) was raised,” the PNG position paper had said.
“Some of the arguments used in favour of OCTA in the original paper still remain useful for consideration for a possible long-term arrangement for the management of PACP affairs.
“This may be more feasible to consider, now that the OCTA is an established legal entity under Vanuatu laws.”
PNG went onto suggest that in addition to the formation of an Eminent Persons Group from amongst Pacific ACP countries to consider its proposal, Pacific ACP ambassadors based in Brussels should sound out the ACP Secretariat and the European Commission to fund a study on a separate Pacific ACP office.
This proposal would be put before Pacific ACP leaders at their Auckland meeting.

Issue of conflict
Papua New Guinea has raised this issue of conflict of interest against PIFS before.
In fact. it first raised the matter in October 2010 when its then Trade Minister Sam Abal complained bitterly about PIFS, accusing it of stalling EPA negotiations with the EU.
He specifically called for the removal of the PIFS legal adviser and questioned the independence of  Director of Economic Governance and leading trade adviser Dr Chakriya Bowman of Australia.
PIFS now has a new legal adviser but Dr Bowman, a former AusAID trade negotiator, is still with the Suva-based regional organisation.
Official meeting documents do not show them, but Islands Business has been told the perception that PIFS is too close to Canberra and Wellington is still very much alive and common amongst islands government officials. This, they said, is also driving the push to strip PIFS of its RAO role on ACP matters.
An official in particular pointed to the agenda that PIFS prepared for the September Pacific ACP Leaders meeting in Auckland.

Although PACER Plus is a key factor, this item was not included in the meeting agenda initially, prompting the Solomon Islands Government, as the current chair of the OCTA Governing Board, to direct PIFS for a PACER Plus briefing on the agenda.
“In my own discussions,” this government official said, “a number of FOC officials do share the view that PIFS share a bed with Australia and New Zealand and some PIFS officials, especially the senior ones, do show that during our meetings or in drafting sessions of outcome statements and in their body languages.”
With the Melanesian Spearhead Group meeting in Fiji a week before the Forum leaders  meet in Auckland, it is obvious the PNG’s position on PIFS and Fiji will be adopted by other members of the group.
The message would be that PIFS has too much on its plate and the matter of conflict of interest over EPA negotiations makes it a compelling case for this role to be shifted elsewhere.

---

Snag in fishing talks

Pacific negotiators for an economic partnership agreement with the European Union have drawn a line on the sand over their fish resource negotiations. At their summit in Auckland this month, leaders of the Pacific ACP countries would be urged to adopt a strong stance on negotiations with the EU over their lucrative fish resources.

 
Documents made available to Islands Business showed that Pacific ACP countries view the global sourcing concession under its rules of origin provision already offered to them by the EU is immutable and cannot be re-negotiated.
 

This concession applies specifically to items labelled as HS tariff headings 1604 and 1605.
These refer to canned tuna and processed tuna loins. Under this concession, Pacific members of the ACP could export canned tuna or processed tuna loins to the EU, so long as they are processed in the Pacific. Where the raw fish was fished or by whom is irrelevant.
As signatories to an interim EPA, Papua New Guinea and Fiji (once it ratifies its I-EPA) could access this facility. However, in their push for a comprehensive EPA with the EU, smaller members of the Pacific ACP bloc particularly, want similar concessions for O304 and 0305, which are fish fillets and fish pieces.
The EU, on the other hand, reportedly countered that it would only consider negotiations on this front provided the Pacific ACP offers access into their fishing waters and that the fish species be limited only to tuna.

 
Both counter proposals were rejected by the Trade Ministers at their meeting in PNG in early August. They said fishing access was not on the table, although this could be pursued bilaterally between the EU and any interested Pacific ACP member. The Pacific also wants the EU to remove limitations on the concession to tuna species only. Already the word from Brussels is that the Pacific would be in for a tough fight.
 

Addressing the Port Moresby meeting of Pacific ACP Trade Ministers, acting head of Delegation of the European Union in PNG, Dr Kay Beese said the EU understands why global sourcing for fresh and frozen fish is an “important objective” of some islands in the Pacific. An EPA without such a provision would be of little interest to you, Dr Beese said.

 
“At the same time, you are aware that the provisions on global sourcing, which are part of the interim agreement, have become the subject of significant controversy between some of the European Union stakeholders.
 

“This controversy also dominated the recent Parliamentary ratification process in the European Union.” Dr Beese urged Pacific members of the ACP to wait for the outcome of a study the EU is jointly conducting with the PNG Government about the implementation of global sourcing under its interim EPA.
Outcome of the study would be available in mid-December, and until that is available, Dr Beese warned it would be difficult for the EU to start talking about extending the global sourcing provision to fresh and frozen fish.

---

On Tuna Fishing, Green Peace briefly outlines the matters of concern, with respect to sustainability. 
(Video posted below)

Radio NZ podcasts covers the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon.


Club Em Designs

Letting The Cat Out Of The Bag- Gross Media Bias In The Pacific & Geo-Politics.

Happy New Year to SiFm readers.

As a indication of the power of blogs, this interesting posting from Bronte Capital, reveals its role in uncovering a Ponzi scheme lurking deep within Australia's privatized Social Security (Superannuation) fund.

To start off the 2010 blog sesssion with a bang, SiFM will re-visit subjects and concerns raised from 2009 posts. The starting point of 2010 posts will be from an earlier SiFM post titled "Clenched Fist, Open Hand-The Curious Case Of A Faltering Forum In The Pacific".

The coverage of Fiji media restrictions has drawn a lot of criticisms from regional news organizations lately, clamoring on to the media veneer of independence. This particular issue was raised by a recent posting by Croz Walsh's blog with respect to a NZ Dominion Post editorial.

SiFM has repeatedly pointed out the collusion between some Trans-Tasman media organizations and their respective Governments, pro-actively skewing, slicing and dicing facts to suit their given agenda in the region, at the given time.

The outcome of the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations and the recent legal tribulations of Julian Moti; has now become the embarrassing crown jewel of this Trans-Tasman belligerence; forever squandering the trust built up over past decades.

Based on this postulation of Trans-Tasman media collusion, it does not surprise many regional watchers, that this subject of media bias(out of bounds for some) have been pointed out, alluded to, outlined by many objective and independent regional researchers. Sadly, the mainstream media outlets have buried the lead on these insidious developments within the Pacific.

Sanjay Ramesh's recent opinion piece does touch on that segment. Partly related to the media bias, is the use of Australian and New Zealand radio broadcasts to the Pacific region. Unfortunately, the Trans-Tasman radio outreach, is perceived in the region, as an extension of these re-occurring themes of neo-colonialism.





Radio Australia's F.M transmission were touted in a blog posting from Radio Netherlands. It appeared that Radio Australia had used Tebutt Research, a firm based in Suva, Fiji to measure the local weekly audience listenership of ABC’s Radio Australia, across 5 Pacific capitals- a feather in their proverbial cap.

No Money, No Funny

Tebbutt Research was also once used extensively by the Fiji Times to gauge public perception on the issue of the day.

This controversial practice had raised many eyebrows and is similar to the issue of credit ratings agencies colluding with Hedge Funds to ensure a favorable rating. The poll or rating company are paid to provide a service.

As a service provider, the polling organization or ratings agencies are well aware of who the pays the pied piper. To guarantee that this revenue stream is kept intact, these ratings/polls seek blessings of their client, whoever that may be, prior to its publication.

First, Tebbutt is not a scientifically based opinion poll because it fails to highlight the margin of error of their surveys. Salon posting offers a basic explanation for Polls and Margin of Error.

Creatively and deceptively enough, it was these same skewed talking points, initially raised in a Fiji Times article; which are then polled on by Tebbutt.

The following excerpt is a Fiji Times article, using a Tebbutt poll published in 20 November 2006.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Fiji impasse to be solved without trouble: Poll

Monday, November 20, 2006

Tebbutt/Times Opinion Poll

Dates: 14-15 November

Sample: 1018

Method: Personal interview

Question: Which of these statements is closest to how you feel about the current situation?

1. - I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble;
2. - I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble;
3. - I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.

Conducted by: Tebbutt Research on behalf of Fiji Times

The majority believes the current standoff between the military and Government will be resolved without trouble, according to the latest Tebbutt Times Poll.

A total of 1018 adults were surveyed for the latest Tebbutt Times Poll on 14 and 15 November 2006 and were asked which of three statements they most identified with either I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble, or I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble, or I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.

Overall the Tebbutt Times Poll showed that 54 per cent believe there will be no trouble in the resolution of the standoff and are not worried at all.

Of the remainder, 28 per cent feel somewhat nervous and are concerned there might be trouble, and 18 per cent claimed they were very nervous and worried there will be trouble.

Fijians are the least likely to be nervous, and the most likely to have confidence in a trouble-free resolution.

A total of 62 per cent of all Fijians surveyed claimed they were not concerned at all, while 26 per cent of Fijians were somewhat nervous and 12 per cent were very nervous.

In contrast, one in four Indo-Fijians (25 per cent) were very nervous, 29 per cent were somewhat nervous and 45 per cent were not worried at all.

Digging further into the Tebbutt Times Poll data revealed that there was no difference in any segment of the Indo-Fijian sample but there were differences in the Fijian sample.

Among Fijians, an inverse relationship is seen between nervousness and age, meaning that as age goes up nervousness goes down.

Specifically, while 18 per cent of Fijians aged 18 and 29 years are very nervous, only 11 per cent of 30 to 44 year old Fijians are very nervous and just 5 per cent of 45+ year old Fijians are very nervous.

The Tebbutt Times Poll data also showed that those living in Suva were more concerned and nervous overall than those living in the West.

Overall, while 50 per cent of Suva residents are not worried at all, this confident group is 63 per cent of the sample in the West.

Interestingly those in the West were also more polarised in their views, with 22 per cent being very nervous and 63 per cent being not worried at all, leaving just 16 per cent sitting in the middle claiming to be somewhat nervous.

The Tebbutt Times Poll is collected in strict accordance with the global polling guidelines published by ESOMAR the world association of professional market research organisations.

Question	Total	Fijian	Indian	Other	Suva	West
I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble	18%	12%	25%	17%	17%	22%
I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble	28%	26%	29%	28%	33%	16%
I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble	54%	62%	45%	55%	50%	63%

The issue of Radio Australia transmitters closure and subsequent removal, were zealously covered by the Australian and New Zealand outlets; playing the innocent victim, as well as the used and abused media freedom card.



Psychological aspects like false scarcity, social proof, perceived value are intrinsically related to the use of opinion polls, skewed news articles, which share a common thread used by pitch-men in TV infomercials. The industry of "Pitching" was covered in a recent "On The Media" (OTM) article. The podcast of the OTM program is posted in MP3 player below.



A recent opinion article by Australian academic and former Fiji resident, Sanjay Ramesh, actually underscores that particular point of biased media in Fiji and dove tails with US academic Bruce Buene de Mosquita's ideas featured later in this post.

The excerpt of Ramesh's article:

Lament over Democracy in Fiji

Sanjay Ramesh
January 4, 2010

A recent wave of articles, mostly from New Zealand and Australian media, criticized the direction taken by the Fiji authorities following the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution in April 2009.

These articles should be seen as yet another example of "parachute journalism," where journalists are sent to political trouble spots to compile informed analysis when they have little understanding of the socio-cultural context. On the face of it, it is claimed that Fiji is under a dictatorship, but Fiji had gone through this path before, so why overseas media and their willing interviewees are surprised and shocked by the unfolding political events in Fiji begs belief.

In 1987, the democratically elected multiracial government led by an indigenous Fijian doctor, Timoci Bavadra, was deposed in a bloodless coup by Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who was quickly promoted to the rank of Brigadier General by the late Governor General of Fiji, Ratu Penaia Ganilau. In 1987, Indo-Fijians were a majority in Fiji, and they complained to the international community that an elected government was ousted at gunpoint and democracy was destroyed by indigenous nationalists.

However, the same international community, including Australia and New Zealand, remained silent, and policy makers in these countries actually accused the Indo-Fijians of undermining indigenous interests, thus supporting the nationalist position.

At best, both Australia and New Zealand allowed skilled Indo-Fijians to emigrate, and this trend has continued since. Fast forward 20 years later, and the indigenous Fijians who benefitted from the 1987 coup suddenly found themselves, like their Indo-Fijian counterparts in 1987, under the gun of an indigenous military leader Frank Bainimarama, who became fed up with indigenous nationalism and the associated cronyism and patrimony.

The very people who supported the destruction of democracy in favor of indigenous rights in 1987 are now champions of democracy and rule of law, while Indo-Fijians—reduced from close to 48 percent of the population in 1987 to just little under 37 percent in 2006—have transformed into avid supporters of the "undemocratic" actions of the commander.

The contradictions in both these communities are caused by the complex trajectories of history that Australian and New Zealand media are refusing to comprehend and policy makers overseas are adamant to acknowledge.

Hot on a mission to sensationalize and exaggerate Fiji's political situation, regional media played a major role in the 2000 coup where anti-Indo-Fijian arguments were published in the local press, unchallenged by the Australian and New Zealand journalists, as indigenous thugs held an elected government hostage for 56 days and unleashed unprecedented terror and violence against Indo-Fijians living in rural Fiji.

With unrestricted access to the 2000 coup leader, George Speight, local media created a misguided view that indigenous nationalists were once again reacting to the tyranny of Indo-Fijians and, in particular, their leader, Mahendra Chaudhry.

In 2000, indigenous Fijian traditional institution—for example, the Great Council of Chiefs—was divided along indigenous confederacy and provincial lines because indigenous cultural logic dictated that chiefs from the provinces involved in the Speight coup supported them, despite the fact that rule of law had been effectively compromised.

The Australian Government, which has now taken a moral position on democracy and is deeply worried about the impact of a coup culture in the South Pacific, remained an impotent regional observer, along with its counterpart New Zealand, as Fiji descended into anarchy.

The political establishment that came into power following the Speight coup continued with the agenda of the indigenous nationalists. In 2003, reports surfaced that the commander of the Fiji Military Forces, Frank Bainimarama, had become increasingly uncomfortable with the elected government, in particular with its policies to appease indigenous militants.

A series of events started over a three-year period resulting in the December 2006 coup. Initially, the military government attempted to work within the 1997 Constitution, but this position became untenable following the judgment by the Fiji High Court that the 2006 political order established by the 2006 takeover was illegal.

Overseas media alleged on many occasions that Commander Bainimarama executed the coup to scuttle the investigations into the deaths of eight Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit soldiers who were allegedly involved in a mutiny at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva in November 2000. These allegations, while sounding quite serious, ignored the fact that there was a bounty on the head of the commander in 2000 for refusing to acquiesce to the demands of the indigenous chiefs who supported the Speight coup.

It was a dangerous situation of kill-or-be-killed. Supporters of the commander rounded up and interrogated the mutineers and their associates, and some interrogations resulted in death. Human rights conventions abhor deaths in custody, but following the events of 2000, there were deep divisions within the army that had the potential for prolonged violent internal conflict.

Moreover, following the 2006 coup, the military discovered a number of irregularities in the manner in which the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) conducted its business with respect to indigenous land. Much has been written and discussed on the rate of return on indigenous land leased by Indo-Fijian farmers, but a greater and a more interesting story relates to the way elected indigenous nationalist governments conducted business with overseas commercial interests with total disregard for indigenous land rights.

As a result, the military government "cleaned up" the NLTB. There are endless volumes of information compiled by the Fiji Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption that point to past indigenous Fijian leaders exploiting indigenous Fijians and their resources for personal gains. The details of official corruption in Fiji make for very dry reading and do not fit into the agendas of Australian and New Zealand media and, as a result, we never hear about them, except claims that "corruption and mismanagement is often overstated by the military to support their own agenda."

Overseas media are interested in understanding the resilience of indigenous Fijians who have yet to rebel against the Bainimarama regime. The media hopes to overturn an authoritarian system and in its place establish a nationalist indigenous government based on ethnic division as it existed from 1970 to 2006. There is no choice for the Indo-Fijians who are currently supporting the Bainimarama Government because, on the face of it, the Bainimarama regime has offered a "non-ethnic political solution" while the indigenous nationalists want continuation of "positive discrimination," as stated in the deposed government's political manifesto of 2006.

The question is still asked as to why the Fiji regime has suspended freedom of the press indefinitely in Fiji. The answer is quite simple.

The press has, in the past, attempted to instigate ethnic hatred and destabilize the Fiji government. Overseas-owned newspapers in Fiji have continuously emphasized the need for quick elections and democratic rule, but they have yet to make a case for addressing deep-rooted institutional and ethnic problems in divided communities.

What could be done to cement multiethnic democratic values does not fit within "commercial parameters" of contemporary journalism. Overseas media have little idea of the socio-cultural history of Fiji, including the emphasis on communal politics established by the British colonial rulers to support their indirect rule of the colony.

While many indigenous soldiers have sacrificed themselves for the Commonwealth and the empire and continue to volunteer to fight in failed states like Afghanistan and Iraq and replenish war-weary soldiers from "democratic" nations, there is lack of appreciation on the part of Australia and New Zealand journalists for the complexity of Fiji's multidimensional problems.

Past indigenous Fijians as well as Indo-Fijian leaders have failed Fiji because they were interested in protecting their own communal hive. Since independence of Fiji in 1970, Fiji has oscillated between ethnic conflict and conflict between elected and appointed entities, and these conflicts are yet to be resolved.

To argue that democracy is a "magic bullet" that will solve Fiji's problems is naïve. Previous initiatives to move Fiji towards a non-ethnic model were comprised by indigenous nationalist assertions, and the current regime should be allowed to implement its reforms without interference.

Sanjay Ramesh is an adjunct research associate in transforming cultures at the University of Technology in Sydney and is currently completing a research degree on inter-group conflict in Fiji at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.

Send comments to sanjay.ramesh@uts.edu.au

The contenscious issue of regional media bias and false reporting addressed in the above opinion piece by Sanjay Ramesh, among other notable moderate opinions, is buttressed by a revealing Broadcasting Green Paper on Radio transmissions to the South Pacific region by New Zealand and Australia and their 5 year spectrum outlook 2010-2014 (posted below).

Letter_PM_AU-NZ_RA-RNZI_v301 (PDF)



The following images (posted below) are screen shots from the above mentioned paper, that features technical and geo-political issues; undoubtedly a pitch to increase the respective government budgetary allocations to Radio NZ and Radio Australia.















One particular interesting concept of game theory in geo-political forecasting, raised by a US Academic Bruce Bueno de Mesquita was presented in a recent World Affairs Council program. (video posted below).

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita at the World Affairs Council 10 26 09 from Its Your World on Vimeo.

Much of the ideas presented by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, have wider regional applications, or had been demonstrated recently by one form or another. Particularly, when these issues dove tail neatly into alternative academic perspectives from the Pacific area.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs