| Croz Walsh on the latest Australian election debate regarding the issue of foreign policy initiatives during the Lowy hosted debate; highlighting the litany of promises politicians bring to the discussion, during the season of elections.
The excerpt of Croz's post. AUSSIE OPPOSITION WOULD open negotiations with Fiji's military ruler Frank Bainimarama for electoral reform as a way of breaking the current diplomatic standoff between Suva. If this means they will respond to Fiji's requests for legal, technical and financial assistance, great; but if they are still talking about dates, what's new? Another Fiji specialist in Lowy, apart from Jones, comes from the "silly mid-wicket" quadrant of Lowy's "experts"- whose latest post reflects the same old "anglosphere" oversimplification, cultural ignorance and gubernatorial over reach. The excerpt from Fergus Hanson's post: Hanson's remarks seemed to have missed the large point of contention, which has been successfully underscored by Dev Nadkarni's opinion article. In comparison, the former was a more astute piece of observation as well as, authored from a person with more street cred than, Hanson and the usual suspects from Lowy. Island Business columnist offers another view point. The excerpt of Nadkarni article: VIEWS FROM AUCKLAND Save Page As PDF            |
Showing posts with label Pacific Forum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pacific Forum. Show all posts
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Greater The Sin, The Greater The Saint- A Waning Crescent Of Forum Influence In The Pacific?
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Dangerous Liaisons? - Copenhagen Leak & Trans-Tasman Double Dealings In The Pacific. (Updated)
In a follow up to the November issue of Island Business (I.B), featured in a SIFM post; the article in question irked an official (Johnson Honimae)in the Forum Secretariat, who penned a response letter accusing the Island Business of misrepresenting the facts.
The excerpt of the response letter published by (I.B):
First and foremost the Pacific Forum final communique on Climate Change, as it appears on Forum website:
The excerpt of Forum Communique On Climate Change:
Secondly, the position taken by the Pacific Forum was basically to have Australia voicing their collective environmental concerns at Copenhagen.
That stance was disputed by Fiji; who subsequently aligned itself with the Association Of Small Island States (AOSIS) according to a Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBCL)article.
The excerpt of FBCL article:
One particular brow raising revelation was that the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd had a central role in the draft compilation, according to an article published in The Age.
The excerpt of the Age article:
More so, when the current Chair of the Pacific Forum (Australia) is covertly advocating a position (that basically contradicts their stance adopted by the Pacific Forum). According to a NZ Herald article, The Government of New Zealand was also involved in the draft agreement.
Australia and New Zealand's two timing position on Climate Change is now undisputed and vilified as, Tiger Wood's transgressions, wrapped in the controversial Downing Street Memos.
This climate scandal already labeled "Carbon Colonialism" by an article from the Times of London; has serious implications on the final agreement in Copenhagen and its acceptance or abeyance by the least developed nations on this planet (many of whom are seething with anger) pivots on the knife edge of history.
The leaked Danish text (posted below) courtesy of Doom Daily.
Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement
Save Page As PDF
Social Bookmarking
The excerpt of the response letter published by (I.B):
Island Business continues to unravel the layers of manipulation, coercion within the confines of the Forum Secretariat, by those who take their marching orders directly from Canberra and Wellington.Letter misrepresentation
Your LETTER FROM SUVA affirmed that Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat officials present at the recent Forum Trade Officials Meeting (Brisbane, October 2009) were asked to leave by islands officials in an “unprecedented” manner.
I refer to your “Letter from Suva” titled “Officials Make a Strong Stand,” which appeared in the November issue of your magazine.Your editorial is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The Forum Secretariat takes its responsibilities to all Forum Members very seriously. As part of providing its services professionally, Forum Secretariat Officials at the meeting in question sought to excuse themselves from deliberations in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest.
Your failure to report accurately, act professionally and uphold expected standards of journalism is unacceptable. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat remains accessible to you and your reporters should you wish to seek facts and clarifications on the work of the Forum Secretariat.
At the time, island officials were discussing Forum Islands Countries’ position on appointing a Chief Trade Adviser and the framework for PACER Plus negotiations as a lead-up to the meeting with Australia and New Zealand. Because the Forum’s membership consists of both parties involved in negotiations (ANZ and Forum Islands Countries), it was only appropriate for our officials to excuse themselves from the proceedings.
A similar request was made by the Forum Secretariat at the subsequent Forum Islands Countries’ Trade Ministers Meeting (Brisbane, October 2009). After discussion, this request was not accepted by Ministers. Forum Secretariat Officials therefore remained in the room for the duration of that meeting.
Johnson Honimae
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
FIJI
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The Forum Secretariat is entitled to its views. We are, as always, happy to publish them. As an experienced former journalist, Mr Honimae would know LETTER FROM SUVA is a viewpoint, or opinion, column, not a news report.
It is clearly designed as such. However, the views in this LETTER FROM SUVA column were based on information supplied by trusted senior Pacific Islands officials, These officials are well aware of what actually happened and briefed LETTER FROM SUVA.
FORUM SECRETARIAT UNDER HEAVY FIRE
OCTA was established to assist Forum Islands Countries (FICs) in their negotiations with the Australia and New Zealand under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus) Agreement.
Laisa Taga
Editor-in-Chief
Islands Business
DECEMBER 2009
The two biggest Pacific Islands countries have come out firing. Fiji and Papua New Guinea have criticised the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat for including the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA) for funding under EDF (European Development Fund) 10.
Twelve programmes have been proposed by the Forum Secretariat for funding under the Aid for Trade for EDF-10 RIP funding which was circulated to all Forum member countries.
Twenty six million Euros (approximately A$36 million) is available to the Forum member countries of the ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific) group. The Pacific ACP countries were required to submit their five priority areas.
The establishment of the OCTA for PACER Plus Related Activities is priority number eight and the Forum Secretariat is seeking 7 million Euros (A$11,402,443) for this.Fiji is opposing the use of such funds to fund the Office of the Trade Adviser and Pacer Plus Negotiations.
Fiji’s opposition was made known to the Forum Secretary-General Tuiloma Neroni Slade, in a letter dated November 18, 2009.
A source within the Fiji Government told LETTER FROM SUVA: “Why should EDF funding fund OCTA and PACER Plus negotiations when that has got nothing to do with EPA? The Europeans are giving money in relation to the EPAs, so Australia and New Zealand should cough up for the PACER negotiations.”The letter signed by Fiji’s Roving Ambassador Ratu Tui Cavuilati said: “Fiji wishes to register our concern that the EDF facility should not be used to fund OCTA and PACER Plus negotiations, rather, funding for those activities should be separate and should not divert the much needed resources away from EPA related activities.” Fiji is not alone. Papua New Guinea has also written to the Forum Secretariat expressing its concern.
“Papua New Guinea’s position is that the great portion of the assistance towards PACER Plus activities for the deepening of trade and economic relations between FICs and Australia and New Zealand should be committed from a more neutral source other than ANZ but not necessarily through EDF sources.
Acting Foreign Secretary Lucy Bogari said in her letter to Mr Tuiloma: “Papua New
Guinea is very concerned that PACER Plus related activities especially in the form of assistance to OCTA featured prominently in the proposed allocations.“As such the Government of PNG does not support the proposed allocation for OCTA and requests the revision of the proposed allocation in EDF 10 to match the financial commitment by ANZ, which should be an equivalent of 1.5 million Australian dollars only,” Ms Bogari also used the opportunity to rebuke the Forum Secretariat on the state of play regarding OCTA.
“It is therefore PNG’s view that once the initial three years of ANZ support to OCTA lapses, FICs need to bite the bullet and take exclusive ownership of the subsequent requirements for OCTA and resolve any related issues internally,” Ms Bogari wrote in her November 19, letter.
“The OCTA should have been an issue strictly discussed by the FICs themselves without consulting ANZ. After all, it is odd that the FICs discussed with ANZ the OCTA which is a FIC negotiation strategy.Both Australia and New Zealand have jointly committed A$1.5 million (US$1.3 million) to help fund the setting up of the office in Vanuatu.
Meanwhile, LETTER FROM SUVA has been told that the Head of the Pacific Plan Unit at the Forum Secretariat, Ed Vrikic, has lodged an application for a new work permit through the Fiji foreign ministry. His current work permit expires this year. But the new one he is applying for is for the position of Executive Officer.LETTER FROM SUVA had revealed a few months ago, that he had been appointed Chief of Staff following the Cairns Leaders meeting, although the job title has now changed to Executive Officer. And he will take up that position once his Pacific Plan contract expires this year. The new job is a one-year contract and he will be on secondment from the Australian Government.
This is going to be a very powerful position and a strategic one too, as one Forum observer had told LETTER FROM SUVA.
“This person will vet everything the SG [Secretary General] will see—what comes to his table and what goes out from his table,” this Forum observer said. “He will also have access to all the vital and top secret information the Forum Secretariat might have in relation to trade negotiations for instance and so forth, which could find itself turning up at the Australia’s Pacific desk in Canberra—preempting our every move.”
It will be interesting to see how the Fiji foreign ministry will handle the issue. Would it be another case like Chakriya Bowman, another Australian, who is now understood to be working from the Forum trade office in Sydney?
First and foremost the Pacific Forum final communique on Climate Change, as it appears on Forum website:
The excerpt of Forum Communique On Climate Change:
ANNEX A PACIFIC LEADERS’ CALL TO ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
6 August 2009
For Pacific Island states, climate change is the great challenge of our time. It threatens not only our livelihoods and living standards, but the very viability of some of our communities.
Though the role of Pacific Island states in the causes of climate change is small, the impact on them is great. Many Pacific people face new challenges in access to water. The security of our communities and the health of populations are placed in greater jeopardy. And some habitats and island States face obliteration.
Mindful of the Niue Declaration, we therefore address this Call to Action to all leaders in the global community, and urgently seek their support to address this grave threat.
Many actions are needed, but a strong global agreement is vital. We therefore seek redoubled efforts from all states to secure a successful agreement at Copenhagen in December.
With 122 days to go, the international community is not on track to achieve the outcome we need unless we see a renewed mandate across all participating nations.
We call upon world Leaders to urgently increase their level of ambition and to give their negotiators fresh mandates to secure a truly effective global agreement.
We call for a post-2012 outcome that sets the world on a path to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius or less.
We call on states to reduce global emissions by at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
We call on states to ensure that global emissions peak no later than 2020.
We call on developed economies to take the lead by setting ambitious and robust mid-term emissions reduction targets – consistent with the agreed science and the directions embraced by the Major Economies Forum Meeting in July 2009.
We also call on developed economies to strengthen the seriousness and credibility of their claims at Copenhagen by putting in place domestic policies and legislation now to achieve emission reductions targets.
And we call on major developing economies to commit to slow and then reduce emissions growth over time, to nominate a peaking year for their emissions, and to ensure a substantial collective reduction below business-as-usual levels by 2020.
We call upon each major emitter to show leadership – to demonstrate by their words and deeds that they are willing to make the tough decisions necessary to secure the agreement that we need; and not to wait for others to show the way forward.
We understand that just as deforestation is part of the problem, so reducing deforestation and providing incentives to preserve forests should be part of the solution.
To defeat deforestation and forest degradation, we acknowledge that finance, technology and capacity development are necessary to underpin a step-wise process necessary to increase emissions reductions and carbon sequestration. Global carbon markets will play an important role, requiring robust methodological standards for measurable, reportable and verifiable actions.
For our part, we know that we will need to adapt to the changes in our climate that are already inevitable. We stand ready to lead our peoples in this adaptation process. But developing countries cannot do this alone. We call for increased support, prioritised to those developing countries most vulnerable and least able to respond.
We call for increased financing through carbon markets and other channels for climate change adaptation and mitigation action in developing countries, including through technology development and diffusion, and we welcome initiatives by G20 Leaders to develop financing options.
We call upon world leaders to recognise and act upon the threat climate change poses to our marine environment, particularly its effect on coral reefs, fisheries and food security.
We also call upon world leaders to include in a post-2012 arrangement practical and concrete solutions for those whose future existence is under threat.
In view of the situation of Small Island States and their future survival action by the major emitters, both developed and developing countries, should embrace the possibility of going beyond the 2050 targets contained within this Call to Action.
The world has shown, in responding to the global financial crisis, that it is prepared to act swiftly and decisively to address tough challenges. There will be no tougher challenge than addressing climate change, and no greater imperative for the peoples of the Pacific.
We, the Leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum, commit ourselves to working intensively with Leaders of all states to achieve an effective agreement at Copenhagen. We stand ready to play our part in securing an outcome that can safeguard our people, their prosperity and the planet.
Secondly, the position taken by the Pacific Forum was basically to have Australia voicing their collective environmental concerns at Copenhagen.
That stance was disputed by Fiji; who subsequently aligned itself with the Association Of Small Island States (AOSIS) according to a Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBCL)article.
The excerpt of FBCL article:
Fiji opposes Forum climate change policySadly, the hens have come home to roost for the Pacific Forum; after the recent revelation of a Final Draft agreement, which was leaked to the Guardian Newspaper.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Fiji is opposing the climate change stance adopted by the Pacific Island Forum that is going to be taken to the Copenhagen meet in Denmark next week.
Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama says Fiji has aligned itself with the Association Of Small Island States (AOSIS) for the Copenhagen meet and it opposes the stance taken by the Forum at the recent meeting in Australia.
“We certainly have differences with the stance of the Forum. It is in Fiji’s interests to be leading the region on climate change that have the backing of other pacific island countries. As for Copenhagen, yes negotiations will be held with the developed countries concerning emission levels…”
The climate change policy agreed to by the Forum is to allow Australia to be the voice of their climate change concerns at Copenhagen.
This is something many environmental and NGOs in the Pacific oppose, saying it will only dilute the Pacific’s concerns.
One particular brow raising revelation was that the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd had a central role in the draft compilation, according to an article published in The Age.
The excerpt of the Age article:
Anger at 'secret' climate change dealIt seems those Pacific Island States, which voted for Australia speaking on behalf of the Pacific region were in for a rude awakening. This whole climate change fiasco has become a diplomatic metaphor for "bait and switch".
ADAM MORTON, COPENHAGEN
December 10, 2009
PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd had a central role in the creation of a "secret" draft climate agreement that has sparked angry accusations that wealthy nations are trying to railroad the developing world into an unfair deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen.
The G77 bloc of developing nations said the draft deal would abandon a long-held agreement that rich nations were responsible for lowering emissions and condemn 80 per cent of the world's population to suffering and injustice.
The proposal would for the first time require developing countries to put forward climate policies as part of a binding international treaty and split the developing bloc into two groups.
Although this has been widely expected, it drew a furious response from G77 head Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping of Sudan.
He accused wealthy leaders of trying to shore up their economies by demanding action from developing nations before committing to deep emissions cuts themselves and saying what they would pay towards a green fund to help vulnerable communities.
The proposal was prepared by the Danish Government with members of its "circle of commitment", including Mr Rudd.
"Perhaps it is the Danish idea that maybe developing countries are not competent enough, not knowledgeable enough, to articulate their own views and their own solutions," Mr Di-Aping said.
"This is a very serious development, a very unfortunate development, a major violation that threatens the success of the Copenhagen negotiations."
Late last night Mr Di-Aping stepped up his rhetoric, comparing the rich nations with nations that appeased Nazi Germany before World War II. ''Many of them were willing to appease gross violations of human rights, but at the end of the day humanity prevailed,'' he said
Developed nations quickly played down the draft, saying it was just one of several working papers being put forward before world leaders arrive next week.
It is believed an updated version has been distributed, but work on it has been put on hold while the negotiations continue this week.
Australian climate change ambassador Louise Hand said the Danes had consulted with several delegations, including Australia's, on what a climate agreement might look like but had not prepared a final draft.
Denmark's Ministry of Climate and Energy issued a statement denying the existence of a ''secret Danish draft''.
Speaking in Cairns, Mr Rudd said Denmark had been taking ''inputs'' from other countries. But he would not comment on the draft document, which was leaked to The Guardian in Britain.
He said the world needed a ''strong, levelled political agreement … but more broadly, the right approach is to get the right outcome for the developed and the developing world, because we live on one planet''.
As part of the Danes' ''circle of commitment'', Mr Rudd has had weekly video links with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a bid to find an approach to satisfy both the US and developing nations while giving a chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees.
It is understood the Governments of all members of the circle have consulted on text that could form part of a political deal at Copenhagen.
Proposals in the leaked draft reflect the ''schedules'' approach proposed by Australia this year. This would require industrialised countries to take on emissions targets, as under the Kyoto Protocol, and developing countries to put forward measurable climate policies of their choice, such as targets for renewable energy.
The draft proposes a global 50 per cent cut in emissions by 2050, a figure opposed by China and other developing countries because it is understood to demand an overall cut of 20 per cent by the poor.
Wealthy nations would be expected to make an 80 per cent cut by 2050 - more than Australia's current target of 60 per cent. But the Government has pledged to take an 80 per cent policy to the next election if a climate deal is struck.
Erwin Jackson of the Climate Institute said parts of the draft proposal could be the basis for an ambitious climate deal. But he criticised the absence of 2020 targets and commitments on a green fund. ''There is no doubt the Prime Minister and the Government are playing a role in attempting to avoid the negotiations spiralling towards a low ambitious outcome,'' he said.
"However, all countries have to lift their game."
More so, when the current Chair of the Pacific Forum (Australia) is covertly advocating a position (that basically contradicts their stance adopted by the Pacific Forum). According to a NZ Herald article, The Government of New Zealand was also involved in the draft agreement.
Australia and New Zealand's two timing position on Climate Change is now undisputed and vilified as, Tiger Wood's transgressions, wrapped in the controversial Downing Street Memos.
This climate scandal already labeled "Carbon Colonialism" by an article from the Times of London; has serious implications on the final agreement in Copenhagen and its acceptance or abeyance by the least developed nations on this planet (many of whom are seething with anger) pivots on the knife edge of history.
The leaked Danish text (posted below) courtesy of Doom Daily.
Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement
Save Page As PDF
Social Bookmarking
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Crouching Newspaper, Soaring Blog- The Future Of Journalism?
David Robbie's latest blog posting, is updated with developments at the UNESCO funded Pacific Media Freedom Forum, held recently at Apia Samoa.
What was interesting in that particular forum, is that most of discussions were centered on Fiji, as David Robie suggests:
Ironically, while those journalists were enjoying their well-endorsed junket in Apia, oblivious to the fact that media freedom is not the central story.
It seems that, the diplomatic negotiations to the Pacific Free Trade Plan (PACER Plus) and the detrimental effects of this Trans-Tasman lobbied treaty; has somewhat not registered highly on their list of priorities; despite the notion that those negotiations affect all Pacific Island states.
Is the lack of coverage on those trades negotiations, a clear demonstration that most news published in the Pacific, is viewed through the prism of their Australian or New Zealand Publisher or Editor?
The funny thing about these Pacific media Forums is that these journalists, really don't focus much on Pacific trade negotiations with EU, US or Australia or New Zealand or even in-depth coverage of their own industry and the future trends of their profession based on the current global events like the changing landscape of the news paper business.
It's just that Freedom of the Media, is a story that elevates sales and elevated sales mean elevated circulations. SiFM fills in this lack of analytical and balanced coverage.
Last week, the Boston Globe almost filed for bankruptcy, according to New York Times article. Even the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announced the following Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet hearing: The Future of Journalism on Weds. May 6th 2009. Video of webcast.
St Louis Today article quoted from Senator John Kerry (D-MA.)from the hearing: "The Newspaper industry appears to be an endangered species"
Another marked absence from media discussions among Pacific journalists was the story about News Corp CEO, Rupert Murdoch claiming that the era of free content on the internet is over. According to Chicago Tribune article, News Corp took a "financial beating" in the first quarter, ending in March 2009.
Guardian journalist Mark Tomasky pointed out the perceived madness of Rupert, in his blog:
On the Media(OTM), added the combined the paid online content angle, with a story that featured Associated Press's concerns about the free news stories on the internet. The OTM story feature titled "Google Me Once".
The excerpt of the story transcript:
Save Page As PDF
Social Bookmarking
What was interesting in that particular forum, is that most of discussions were centered on Fiji, as David Robie suggests:
The Fiji challenge kept bubbling to the surface, leading to a spirited debate on the future of PINA at one session and feisty calls for the regional news service Pacnews to get out of Suva at others. Fiji dominated all the speeches on the opening day with several of the region's media freedom heavyweights giving the regime a hard time - but they also warned that the young generation coming through into the industry should not be seduced by government freebies.
Ironically, while those journalists were enjoying their well-endorsed junket in Apia, oblivious to the fact that media freedom is not the central story.
It seems that, the diplomatic negotiations to the Pacific Free Trade Plan (PACER Plus) and the detrimental effects of this Trans-Tasman lobbied treaty; has somewhat not registered highly on their list of priorities; despite the notion that those negotiations affect all Pacific Island states.
Is the lack of coverage on those trades negotiations, a clear demonstration that most news published in the Pacific, is viewed through the prism of their Australian or New Zealand Publisher or Editor?
The funny thing about these Pacific media Forums is that these journalists, really don't focus much on Pacific trade negotiations with EU, US or Australia or New Zealand or even in-depth coverage of their own industry and the future trends of their profession based on the current global events like the changing landscape of the news paper business.
It's just that Freedom of the Media, is a story that elevates sales and elevated sales mean elevated circulations. SiFM fills in this lack of analytical and balanced coverage.
Last week, the Boston Globe almost filed for bankruptcy, according to New York Times article. Even the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announced the following Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet hearing: The Future of Journalism on Weds. May 6th 2009. Video of webcast.
St Louis Today article quoted from Senator John Kerry (D-MA.)from the hearing: "The Newspaper industry appears to be an endangered species"
Another marked absence from media discussions among Pacific journalists was the story about News Corp CEO, Rupert Murdoch claiming that the era of free content on the internet is over. According to Chicago Tribune article, News Corp took a "financial beating" in the first quarter, ending in March 2009.
Guardian journalist Mark Tomasky pointed out the perceived madness of Rupert, in his blog:
Is Rupert Murdoch losing it?
Murdoch's plan to charge for access to his newspapers on the internet is a sign he's lost his touch
Comments (110)
I guess there was more important news this morning – Pakistan, the American banks – but it was Rupert Murdoch who caught my attention. I was stunned to read Andy Clark's dispatch in the Guardian this morning about Murdoch planning on charging for access to his properties on the internet.
Look, Rupe usually knows what he's doing. But this really flies in the face of common sense. He argues that the Wall Street Journal's experience proves that one can successfully charge readers for internet access to one's newspapers.
But does it? The Journal and the Financial Times, are kind of sui generis. They're financial newspapers, read by a global financial elite. You can charge global financial elites to read a tailored product of financial news.
But can you do the same with regular readers, to get them to read general-interest news? The universal experience has been that you can't.
The New York Times tried it and got hammered. It charged for so-called "Times Select" content – most prominently the paper's famous opinion columnists like Paul Krugman and David Brooks – for a little while, hoping to crowbar $50 a year out of saps like me.
It worked in my case, but there was a general hue and cry against it (not least from the columnists themselves). The paper quit charging for this premium content, and the whole experiment was chalked up a disaster.
And now Rupert thinks general readers who refused to pay for the quality New York Times are going pay for the proletarian New York Post? And the Sun and the News of the World? And for that matter the Times (your Times). If people didn't pay for our Times (the New York one – let's face it, an immeasurably better newspaper these days, such that there's utterly no comparison anymore between the two), why will they pay for yours? I just don't see it.
Maybe he's got something up his sleeve. I'm thinking about the New York Post here, a property I know quite well. I bet Murdoch would say, of the Times' experiment, that their mistake was to put the highfalutin stuff behind the pay wall. People aren't really that interested in politics.
So his bet, instead, might be on gossip and sports.
The Post has the most famous newspaper gossip page in America, Page Six. It started as, well, a page in the newspaper, and actually used to be on page six. Now it's an industry. It runs to three or four pages in the paper most days, has been moved back to page 12 or so while retaining its brand name. There's also a weekend supplement magazine under the brand, and I think there's some kind of TV deal.
It's huge. Movers and shakers in New York and Hollywood (but Washington not so much) read it religiously.
But will they still read it if they have to pay for it? With Gawker and Perez Hilton and TMZ out there? I think some will. I'm not sure tens of thousands will.
Same with sports. The Post's sports pages are terrific. But they don't strike me as being quite so terrific that people will forego several roughly-as-good free alternatives.
As for Britain, well, the only thing I can think is that he's going to put the big knockers behind the pay wall. But of course a lot of that's free on the web these days too (at least the first look).
Maybe he knows something the rest of the world doesn't. He often has. Or maybe he's just losing his touch. I was surprised also to read in Clark's piece about the jaw-dropping decline in News Corp profits. The newspaper division collapsed, and the television profits went up in smoke.
Hey, if Murdoch's right, he might introduce the rest of the world to the model that can save the newspaper once and for all. That'd be something to celebrate. Or it could be that we're getting to the end of the Murdoch era. In that case, I wouldn't cry.
On the Media(OTM), added the combined the paid online content angle, with a story that featured Associated Press's concerns about the free news stories on the internet. The OTM story feature titled "Google Me Once".
The excerpt of the story transcript:
Google Me Once
April 10, 2009
This week, the Associated Press fired a shot across the bow of news aggregation sites like Google and the Huffington Post. Without calling any site out by name, the AP said they would take legal action against websites that use their content without paying. Business Week's media columnist Jon Fine says news companies seem ready to ask consumers to pay for content again.
BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield. And now the latest on present and future business models for monetizing the newspaper industry.
GROUP SINGING: Present and future business models for monetizing the newspaper industry.
BOB GARFIELD: The past couple of weeks have been very bad for those who believe that all content wants to be free. With a glut of online advertising inventory depressing not only online ad rates but ad rates across all media, the titans who had long traded content for eyeballs were rethinking their calculus.
News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch said, quote, “People are used to reading everything on the Net for free, and that’s going to have to change.” Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner, unveiled a plan that would let people see cable programming free online, but only if they're cable subscribers in the first place. And the Associated Press, apparently disgusted with news sites like Google for selling ads adjacent to Google News aggregated from the AP and others, said, no more free lunch. If you want AP content, you need permission and you need to pay for it.
Jon Fine, media columnist for Business Week, says this had something to do with the freefall of media revenue and something to do with negotiating tactics.
JON FINE: Google and the AP have a licensing agreement. Coincidentally enough, that licensing deal is up at the end of this year. And the thing that’s starting to rankle the Associated Press, and, indeed, newspapers and content providers, broadly, is that a lot of users are perfectly happy just to go to Google News, look at the headline and the first two sentences and decide they've basically had enough; they've gotten what they need out of it.
That is not – bad word alert - monetized for the people who are making these stories.
BOB GARFIELD: You know, back in January, on this very show, the owner of Philadelphia Media Holdings, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Daily News, complained that he wasn't able to monetize his Web operation and said that papers have to start charging for content. Three weeks later his company was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And other voices have since come out to say, we have to charge, we have to charge, we have to charge. But - but just how? Is anyone doing that?
JON FINE: Some people are doing that. The Wall Street Journal is doing it. There are a couple of smaller examples elsewhere. There’s a website, I believe, called Packers Insider. If you’re an absolute, diehard, screaming, insane fan of the Green Bay Packers you pay five bucks a month and get every data point you could possibly want on them.
There’s a newspaper in Little Rock called The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Their site is primarily paid. The problem with that is that it’s kind of hard to extrapolate that to The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, you know, the local newspaper in Dubuque.
I think that what we're going to see a lot of is all newspapers are going to try like sort of subsites that there’s a pay wall around. It’s not like all of a sudden you won't be able to access anything on The Denver Post. It’s rather that The Denver Post or, you know, The Salt Lake City Tribune are going to try to find little areas where they can, you know, get some money out of users.
The problem is, is that it’s kind of hard to see a way where that makes a heck of a lot of money. The newspaper in Little Rock is often pointed to as kind of a success here, but I think they maybe have, gosh, you know, 5,000, 10,000 paid users. That comes to a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, and if you are a big city newspaper that’s just not going to get you anywhere, especially when they're facing ad losses and, indeed, just losses, period.
BOB GARFIELD: The New York Times did try at one point to wall off some of its premium content with a program it called TimesSelect, changing people extra to see certain columns and so forth, finally abandoned TimesSelect because it was depressing online traffic and they needed online traffic to generate more advertising revenue.
JON FINE: I think the problem with TimesSelect was that it was kind of a half measure. Their political columnists and their foreign policy columnists aren't necessarily content areas where advertisers were dying to get next to them. Advertisers don't love hard political content, which is a problem that someone like Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post is going to run into. But they thought by doing it in a small way it could work out for them.
I'm not sure it was as enormous a failure as it was. I mean, they did get a substantial number of subscribers. They just decided they could get more the other way.
BOB GARFIELD: In the meantime, people like us have been trained that everything is for free. Can we be untrained to pay subscriptions for online content or, you know, some sort of micro-payments to buy content a la carte?
JON FINE: The problem is free is very hard to beat. If you go to an awful lot of newspaper classified websites, you can click through, they're easily searchable, they look pretty decent, whereas Craigslist, as we all know, is just this kind of like online bazaar that’s like, you know, the wall at your college where you used to tack up various garish flyers – but it’s free.
BOB GARFIELD: It’s a great price point.
JON FINE: And I think, you know, the danger is if, say, someone like The Minneapolis Star Tribune, another newspaper that’s in bankruptcy, decides to put all of their site behind a pay wall, well, there happens to be a local online news start-up called, MinPost.com - they'd be ecstatic with that. And, you know, they have reporters and they're doing similar kinds of stories, and you’re going to have that kind of free/paid dichotomy.
It’s really tricky. If it was easy to figure out, someone would have figured it out by now. I mean, did these guys make a mistake in making it free at the very beginning? You know, maybe. Maybe. Can that genie be gotten back in the bottle? Maybe, but I wouldn't want to have to bet on it. The problem is there’s not much else for these guys to bet on right now.
BOB GARFIELD: Jon, thank you so much.
JON FINE: Thanks, Bob.
BOB GARFIELD: Jon Fine is contributor to CNBC and the media columnist for Business Week.
Save Page As PDF
Social Bookmarking
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Clenched Fist, Open Hand- The Curious Case Of A Faltering Forum In The Pacific.
In a follow up to an earlier SiFm posting (Jan 31st 2009), titled "Trans-Tasman Foie Gras Of Pacific Forum", which foreshadowed the suspension of Fiji from the Forum and the unintended consequences derived from the ultimatum.
The Pacific region free trade proposal and Fiji's participation in it, has been largely decided by the automatic suspension from the Pacific Forum. A spokesperson for the New Zealand Trade Minister has been quoted in New Zealand Herald article, stating that Fiji will not take part.
The excerpt of New Zealand Herald article:
Social Bookmarking
The Pacific region free trade proposal and Fiji's participation in it, has been largely decided by the automatic suspension from the Pacific Forum. A spokesperson for the New Zealand Trade Minister has been quoted in New Zealand Herald article, stating that Fiji will not take part.
The excerpt of New Zealand Herald article:
Fiji will not take part in Pacific free trade talks
11:31AM Monday May 04, 2009
Fiji will not take part in talks to set up a Pacific free trade area while it is suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum, a spokeswoman for Trade Minister Tim Groser confirmed today.Fiji has not been invited to informal talks in Auckland this weekend called to discuss ways to progress a Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (Pacer).
Trade ministers from the forum's 15 other member states were invited to the Auckland meeting, although not all of them will be able to attend. Pacer has been on the agenda for more than a decade, with the aim of helping island nations develop their economies.New Zealand and Australia are keen to set it up but they are looking for an arrangement which benefits the small economies rather than their own. "The general thinking is that the final product needs to be tilted in favour of the Pacific, one source said.
Foreign Minister Murray McCully spoke on Friday about the trade imbalance between New Zealand and the islands. "Our billion-dollar export trade into the Pacific has been reciprocated by imports from Pacific nations so miserly that they should be a source of national embarrassment," he said.New Zealand research and education network Arena yesterday suggested the Pacer talks be put on ice."If Fiji is excluded, what purpose do the negotiations have when one of the two largest economies in the Pacific, alongside Papua New Guinea, is not at the table," said Arena spokeswoman Jane Kelsey. The region's major powers wanted to announce the start of a formal process of consultations leading to negotiations at the forum summit meeting in Cairns in August, she said.
- NZPA
What the NZ Herald article did not mention in an obscene display of omission, that many Pacific Island States were treating the free-trade proposal as if, it were infected with Swine flu virus.
Also, the decision to join the free-trade treaty is a bi-lateral treaty between willing nations and it is not a decision that Australia or New Zealand can arbitrarily force on smaller and weaker nations. The fact is, this free-trade treaty is a concept that Trans-Tasman nations want more than the Pacific island states. Not the other way around. It has become evident that since the posting highlighting the Trans-Tasman belligerence in the region, other voices have joined the chorus highlighting this sad and serious dichotomy.
A local coordinator for the regional watch dog and advocate for Fair Trade and Globalisation in the Pacific (PANG) contributed to an article published in Feb 12th issue of Fiji Times, which illustrated how Australia and New Zealand pushed the free trade agenda through the South Pacific Forum.
The excerpt of F.T article:
Australia, NZ push trade agendas
By MAUREEN PENJUELI
Thursday, February 12, 2009Pacific Island Countries have had a dismal experience negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU in recent years.
Next week Pacific Island Country trade officials will meet with their counterparts from Australia and NZ to discuss the structure and coverage of free trade negotiations that may get underway later this year. Under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, Pacific countries must begin discussions about a possible free trade agreement (called PACER-Plus) with Australia and NZ if free trade agreements are pursued with any other party.
Both Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled a free trade agreement (covering goods trade) with the European Union in late 2007, and Australia and NZ feel that now is the time to negotiate PACER-Plus with all of the Forum Island Countries. Australian and NZ government officials have been quick to assert that PACER-Plus would be designed to benefit the Pacific - while down-playing potential negative impacts for the Islands and benefits to their own countries. However, these assurances are starting to have a hollow ring to them, as both countries pursue aggressive strategies (mainly behind closed doors) to stack the deck in their favour even before negotiations start.
Pawns in a power game
Pacific Island Countries have had a dismal experience negotiating a free trade agreement (an 'Economic Partnership Agreement' - EPA) with the EU in recent years. In those negotiations, the Pacific, along with African and Caribbean countries simultaneously negotiating similar deals, failed to secure meaningful concessions from the EU, and few countries are interested in signing a new deal. Recognising this, Forum Island Country trade ministers decided that a new Office of the Chief Trade Advisor should be established separately from the Forum Secretariat to help the Islands in negotiations with Australia and NZ.
In March 2008, Pacific trade ministers decided the Chief Trade Advisor should be "the only point of contact between ANZ and the FIC's for PACER-Plus" and that "the CTA takes responsibility for the PACER-Plus negotiations with ANZ on the basis of mandates and negotiating instructions from the FIC Trade Ministers".
However, Australian and NZ officials are resisting attempts to have in place, well before negotiations begin, a new Chief Trade Advisor to help organise the region's negotiating positions - critical, given the diversity of Pacific countries, and national-level capacity issues.
Instead of supporting the Pacific's Chief Trade Advisor proposal, Australia announced (in April 2008) a "trade fellowship program" whereby Pacific trade officials are trained by Australians to negotiate with them. Australian officials also announced money would be provided at the national level for Forum Island Countries to undertake studies on PACER - a far cry from a regional office that can guide research and establish strong negotiating positions.
At the Forum Trade Ministers' meeting in the Cook Islands in July, 2008, Pacific trade officials reported bullying tactics, a divide and rule strategy and explicit threats to remove key Forum Secretariat staff. This behaviour was exhibited by both Australian and NZ officials, who pushed for Pacific Trade ministers to agree to begin negotiations on a wide-ranging free trade agreement during 2009. Officials from several countries put up a fierce resistance to attempts to fast-track PACER-Plus - attempts made by ANZ officials and their key Pacific allies, namely Tonga and Nauru, at that meeting.
Australian officials were so disappointed with FIC Trade ministers' refusal to fast-track the negotiations that they told Pacific media Australia would not commit funds to set up the CTA office because "it did not regard the outcome of the July 2008 Forum Trade Ministers' meeting as constituting an adequate commitment to negotiations that will lead them to fund the CTA".
Having failed to get their way with the Trade ministers, Australian and NZ officials took their battle to the annual Forum Leaders' meeting in Niue to secure favourable language. During that meeting, Pacific leaders met separately from Australia and New Zealand, and issued a press release which stressed the need for "careful preparations by Forum Island Countries (FICs), both individually and collectively, before consultations began with Australia and New Zealand" and for the early appointment of a Chief Trade Advisor to assist the FICs in realising their shared objectives.
However, such caution about entering PACER-Plus negotiations with Australia and NZ was not reflected in the outcomes document of the Niue meeting - where Australia and NZ leaders were present. This reflects the position of Australia and NZ as major donors in the region, and the importance that Pacific leaders place on maintaining good relations with Australia and NZ. It is not the 'Pacific way' to confront such partners directly.
The Niue meeting indicated that Forum leaders would direct trade officials to "formulate a detailed road map on PACER Plus, with the view to leaders agreeing at the 2009 Forum to the commencement of negotiations". This is an outcome Australian officials are happy with, especially as Canberra will host the 2009 Forum Leaders' meeting.
Rigging the game?
PACER-Plus negotiations could lead to a free trade agreement that will have radical implications for Pacific Island economies and societies. Any agreement will have a much smaller impact on Australia and NZ. A bad agreement could lead to a closing off of policy options that are used to stimulate development in the Islands, increased pressure for privatisation and an undermining of access to basic services.
Certainly, PACER-Plus will lead to business closures and thousands of job losses in Pacific countries - problems that will be exacerbated because many Pacific states will lose much needed government revenue if they cut tariffs.
One study commissioned by the Forum Secretariat found that for around half the Pacific Island Countries, liberalisation will lead to government revenue losses of 10 to 30 per cent per year. It is vitally important for Pacific governments to "get this right".
Despite this, the approach taken by Australia and NZ to PACER-Plus discussions in 2008 indicates a willingness to fast-track the process (to ensure negotiations begin at the 2009 Forum Leaders' Meeting), to derail any effective regional negotiating machinery (by refusing to support the Pacific's Chief Trade Advisor proposal and funding national-level training and research instead) and to manipulate Forum Secretariat meetings to secure their priorities.
Next week, PIC trade officials will meet with their counterparts from Australia and NZ (in Adelaide, Australia) to discuss the "road map" for PACER-Plus. Discussions will cover the structure, timing and coverage of potential negotiations. Australia and NZ are keen to begin (and conclude) negotiations as soon as possible, and both countries want to negotiate as wide a range of areas as possible.
The meeting is also likely to discuss the Pacific's latest CTA proposal (which was revised on request from Australian officials). Despite the fact that this meeting will help set the structure of the Pacific's most important trade negotiations in decades, there is unlikely to be any public oversight of the meeting.
Just as concerning is the fact that many PIC trade officials are already in Adelaide this week for the second module of a 'capacity building' program at the Institute for International Trade. This capacity building program targets "upcoming negotiators" from all 14 Pacific Forum Island Countries.
During the first module of training last year, Pacific trade officials engaged in "relevant debates" with "Australian negotiators who will be part of future PACER-Plus negotiations" as well as discussing some of the Pacific's "key negotiating priorities".
It is very concerning that Pacific officials (who may be tasked with developing Pacific negotiating positions) are sitting through carefully designed training aimed at concluding PACER-Plus and are discussing key issues for the negotiations in forums where Australian officials are present. There are many alternatives for independent capacity-building for Pacific trade officials that should be explored.
In another move that could weaken the Pacific's regional negotiating power, it appears the axe has fallen on one of the region's most respected trade advisors, Dr Roman Grynberg, whose contract with the Forum Secretariat is not being extended. Dr Grynberg is not a popular figure with trade officials from developed countries, who often see him as a key stumbling block for advancing their trade priorities.
In 2003, The Guardian newspaper highlighted a letter between the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the British Government colluding to get rid of "unsympathetic" trade officials within the Commonwealth Secretariat.
One such unsympathetic trade official was Dr Grynberg - whose work advocating on behalf of developing countries was seen as derailing free trade discussions. Reasons for his contract not being extended with the Forum Secretariat were based on a performance review that found him to 'lack leadership' and not being 'client focused'.
The question that begs to be asked is, which client(s) is unhappy with Dr Grynberg's work? Whatever the reasons for his removal, his absence means that the PIC's have lost an important critical voice prior to going into negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Islands' most important trading partners.
Pacific Way
The late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara coined the term the 'Pacific Way' to reflect a Pacific way of diplomacy based on conversation, respect and mutual consensus. In recent years Australia and NZ have moved from strength to strength in their quest to replace the Pacific way with their way. It appears their goal is to impose their ideology, their free trade agenda, their institutions and operatives, their economic interests, their political authority and their strategic influence on the islands of the Pacific.
If the approach taken by Australia and NZ to PACER-Plus in 2008 is an indication of things to come, then pressure is now on Pacific leaders to take back the initiative and demand an approach to trade that reflects Pacific concerns (alternatives to PACER-Plus could for example include improvements on the existing SPARTECA scheme).
PIC Trade ministers and their officials, and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Secretary General Neroni Slade are more than ever faced with the task of stemming the tide of ANZ influence. If they are not able to, we could see the beginning of the demise of the Pacific Way and the reign of the ANZ Way.
* Maureen Penjueli is Coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation.
The FT article alluded to the murky and unceremonious manner of sidelining the former Director of Economic Governance at the Pacific Forum Secretariat namely, Dr. Roman Grynberg, who interestingly enough penned an outstanding article titled "Who Owns The Forum" published in the Fiji Times on March 9th 2009.
Grynberg also wrote an article titled "Negotiating With Friends: A Free Trade Deal With Australia and New Zealand", warned the Pacific Islands leaders in no uncertain terms, to be wary of this Free Trade Agreement being brokered by the Trans-Tasman duo. Grynberg's sentiments were echoed by another academic, Dr. Jane Kelsey in an article titled "Big Brothers Behaving Badly".
Another SiFm post, outlined the skirmish of opinions between Western Samoa's Prime Minister and American Samoa's Congressman; both issuing public comments on Fiji. Since the post, the Congressman has reiterated his view that Australia and New Zealand heavy handedness and insulting views on Fiji.
The Samoan PM later backpedalled from his earlier stance and ridicule, realizing his own tenure is at stake, after the SiFM post highlighted an online survey of Samoan readers that disagreed on the P.M's remarks on Fiji.
Subsequently, the American Samoan Congressman was quoted in another RNZ article, stating that the Forum's suspension of Fiji was no solution.
The excerpt of RNZ article:
American Samoan Congressman says Fiji suspension is no
solution
Posted at 04:28 on 01 May, 2009 UTC
American Samoa’s member of the United States Congress, Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin, says suspending Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum will not solve anything.Faleomavaega says it will simply add to the country’s political and
economic woes. He says New Zealand and Australia have been too punitive and should have been taking a more constructive approach such as maintaining a dialogue with Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s regime.“I’m no more supporter of a military takeover but the fact that Fiji has
a history of three military coups and a civilian takeover with three
constitutions, that should tell anybody that they have very serious problems that you cannot just simply dismiss by saying ’let’s have an election’. That’s not going to solve the problem.”
Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin
News Content © Radio New Zealand InternationalPO Box 123, Wellington, New
Zealand
All in all, the litany of bullying outlined by PANG and the documented acts of self-dealing by Trans-Tasman policy advisers as, Dr Grynberg had alluded to, finally puts a different perspective into the Forum operations, one that is well different from the flawed narratives of Australia and New Zealand.
Fijian academic, Dr. Steven Ratuva is quoted in Radio NZ web article that, Fiji's expulsion is likely to hurt other smaller island nations.
The excerpt of RNZ article:
Expulsion from Forum likely to hurt small countries rather than Fiji
Posted at 06:10 on 04 May, 2009 UTC
An academic from the University of the South Pacific says Fiji’s suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum could hurt its small neighbours more than Fiji itself.Dr Steven Ratuva says he has spoken with people from the interim government who believe the suspension will have minimal impact on
Fiji. But he says its growing isolation from the rest of the Pacific will
hurt small countries in the region that depend on it.“What’s going to happen is that regional cooperation as we knew it for a
long time since 1972 is going to go through a significant and substantial shift. And the shift is going to affect mostly the small island states like Kiribati, Tuvalu and Tonga who rely significantly on Fiji for economic survival.”Dr Ratuva says the suspension will see Fiji fall more under the influence of China, while Australia and New Zealand will lead the other powerblock in the region.
News Content © Radio New Zealand InternationalPO Box 123, Wellington, New
Zealand
Social Bookmarking
Monday, March 09, 2009
Who owns the [Pacific] forum?
DR Roman Grynberg says initiatlly the Forum and its secretariat, then called the South Pacific Economic Community, was there to provide technical assistance to the islands, hand out small bits of cash for training and workshops and to service the annual meetings of leaders.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Coalition of Client States.
Given that the subject of Fiji's democracy has been deliberated by the Pacific Forum recently, the final abattoir of that transition lies with the Interim Government.
Despite the veiled threats reported by Newstalk article, made by NZ Foreign Minister while pushing Fiji to comply with the Pacific Forum's communique; the question of the road map and its accelerated time-tables (proposed by Fiji's neighbors) was also addressed and dismissed by an opinion article written by the Archbishop of Fiji, Petero Mataca.
This is the excerpt:
The subject of Fiji's electoral system is in the lime-light, prompting an objective and informative opinion article by a local member of Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF).
This is the excerpt.
Club Em Designs
Despite the veiled threats reported by Newstalk article, made by NZ Foreign Minister while pushing Fiji to comply with the Pacific Forum's communique; the question of the road map and its accelerated time-tables (proposed by Fiji's neighbors) was also addressed and dismissed by an opinion article written by the Archbishop of Fiji, Petero Mataca.
This is the excerpt:
Now is the time for charting a gracious new Fiji
PETERO MATACA
Saturday, March 17, 2007
There is a story that I would like to begin this reflection with. A minister of the United Church of Canada, who ran a drop-in centre for homeless people in downtown Toronto, Canada, had planned to raise enough money to keep the centre running.
His dilemma was how could he raise the money he needed to do that? He later shared his problem, not intentionally though, with one of the regulars to the drop-in centre.
As the minister recalled, to his amazement and humility, the homeless man emptied his pockets of all sorts of rubbish until he found and gave his only dollar coin to start off the fundraising.
I am sure we could recall many such instances in our own experiences.
In the story about the widow's offering (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4), Jesus made the observation that the woman, with the little she had, gave everything while those who have and could have given more, only gave from the surplus of their riches.
By Jewish law, each person is required to give and in that respect, by law, the wealthy people did their religious duty.
But the main point of the story is not about the rich and the poor, although it is a theme. Rather, it is about recognising that giving and sharing what one has is a necessary part of our human dignity.
The giving of the rich people in the story is nothing more than a legal requirement and means little to their dignity, whereas, the widow's giving means much more to her dignity as a human being. There is a detail in the Jewish law that specifies that even a person dependent on charity must give charity.
On the face of it, the rule is absurd. Why give enough money to one poor person so that he or she can give to another poor person?
It would be much more logical and efficient if the money is given directly to the second poor person.
But, the Jewish Rabbis, by making this law, understood correctly, in my view, that giving is an essential part of our human dignity.
The insistence that we provide the poor and the needy with enough money so that they themselves can give is a profound insight into the human condition we are not only capable of being greedy and selfish, which we must always guard against, but equally capable of giving, sharing and caring for one another.
In this Lenten season, I invite all Catholic priests, religious, lay people and women and men of good will to reflect upon this theme. Whatever one wishes to sacrifice or wishes to do better during this season of Lent, these resolutions must and need to be done with a spirit of giving and sharing.
When we give up or share what is most precious to us, our experiences become meaningful and beneficial to ourselves and to those we live with and to our respective communities.
When we wish to do better in some things that we had neglected in the past, and which requires the sacrifice of our time and energy to other non-essential things, our experience will mean something to us and those whom we love and care about.
Giving and sharing is an essential part of our dignity as human beings.
To give and to share is to go beyond the care of the self-centred self. This is the message that I wish to share with all Catholic priests, religious and lay people and women and men of good will in this Lenten season.
Furthermore, in the spirit of sharing and giving, I wish to offer the following reflections on some of our important national issues.
The poor must be looked after. As the above stories show, the poor and the needy among us are the ones who can teach us about giving and sharing.
In my New Year message, I designated, after consultation, that this year is a "year of solidarity with the disadvantaged, the poor and the stranger" for the Archdiocese.
We repeatedly read and heard from our local leaders that the poor are the most affected by the coup's impact on the economy.
Unfortunately, as in such cases, it is true, and in this regard, we must stand in solidarity with them.
But we must stand in solidarity with them as they are the key to our moving forward. How is this possible?
This is because knowing what they know about living in poverty, their demand on the rest of us to move forward and find ways to cushion the impacts has a far greater moral claim on our resources.
I challenge us all civil society, business organisations, religious and cultural institutions to find ways of highlighting the demand of the poor for the nation to move forward and find creative ways of helping each other.
Not to be in solidarity with the call of the poor to move forward creatively would be to invite consequences that our fragile social fabric may not be able to hold.
Resolution of legal issues
There is a need to seek clarity and closure on some of our significant outstanding constitutional and legal issues. Some of these concern the suspension of the Chief Justice and the subsequent appointment of an Acting Chief Justice, the independence of the judiciary, and the ousting of the Qarase-led Government.
The resolution of these constitutional and legal matters is crucial to rebuilding our sense of respect for and confidence in the rule of law and public order, and in the Constitution and its central place in our public life. The church, therefore, calls on the Interim Government to ensure that these legal concerns are independently and transparently acted upon.
Respect for human life
Respect for human life is a deeply rooted value in all our religious and cultural traditions. Two lives were lost, allegedly, as a result of military beatings during their time in detention. Again, I wish to reiterate the absoluteness of this principle. If we allow the two to become three and more, we will be in danger of reducing the value of human life from being absolute to relative and when that happens, everything of real value and essential to our living together, such as tolerance and respect, are in danger of being lost as well. In this regard, the church wishes to again remind the military and those in leadership positions to do everything possible to prevent a third loss of life during their tenure in power.
Heed the need for justice
Following from the above, I urge those who are responsible for the administration of justice to deal with the allegations surrounding the deaths of the two men while in custody or as a result of the alleged beatings while in detention. This is to be done truthfully and credibly. Forgiveness will not be possible until the truth is told about these events. The families and relatives of these men will not be fully free to move forward with their lives without having a sense that justice has been done to absolve them of their anger and hatred.
Therefore, the church urges the Interim Government to properly investigate the allegations made and bring to trial those who perpetrated these crimes.
Foreign interventions
At least, in Fiji, most of us know that the coup was illegal and that the Interim Government didn't have our consent to rule.
At least by now, all of us in Fiji know that there is a "road map" to general elections, and, while we may differ on the timeframe, at least, we know that until then, we will do whatever we can to hold the Interim Regime accountable to the fundamental principles of human decency.
The incessant and condescending calls for Fiji to hold general elections within a year or two from the governments of New Zealand, Australia and, lately, the US, from the point of view of convention, is understandable but shallow and lacking proper contextual assessment.
I say this for two good reasons. Firstly, as Andrew Murray (2007:3), a political scientist at the Catholic Institute in Sydney recently observed, "In a country, where local communities are run by chiefs, a less democratic form of government is not as troubling as it would be elsewhere" at least while we rectify and strengthen our democratic institutions and processes.
Secondly, we have had more than 30 years of democratic experience, and imposing overnight democracy in the form of holding general elections within a year after coups is a fundamental lesson that we must not repeat this time.
At least three years is time enough to rectify and put in place meaningful democratic processes.
Perhaps Fiji should begin writing on the sand while the governments of New Zealand, Australia and the US decide among themselves who is to throw the first stone.
I wish to end this reflection by repeating something that I had shared some time ago. To those of us who believe that our situation is essentially tragic simply because some supposedly foreign experts and western governments say so, the Fiji condition will show itself as a series of tragedies.
To those who believe that we can rewrite the script of our democratic history in order to ensure a genuine democratic future, history will reveal itself as a series of slow, faltering but compassionate steps to a more gracious nation. I call upon all people of goodwill to give and share with each other the resources that each one lacks.
I call upon all Catholics to strengthen your networks of helping the poor and the needy in your parishes and communities.
I request that we stand in solidarity with the call of the poor for us to work and move forward together by sharing what we have with each other and highlighting their call in our parishes and communities.
God bless.
Archbishop Petero Mataca is head of the Catholic Church in Fiji
The subject of Fiji's electoral system is in the lime-light, prompting an objective and informative opinion article by a local member of Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF).
This is the excerpt.
Avoiding further disasters with a new electoral system
Father DAVID ARMS
Saturday, March 17, 2007
IN the much talked about need for a "roadmap" back to democracy, the endpoint seems to be the holding of elections under the requirements of the 1997 Constitution (namely the Alternative Vote, a certain ratio of Communal and Open seats, etc).
Elections completed, Fiji is "back to democracy" and all is well again with the outside world.
With the outside world, perhaps. But not within Fiji itself.
It is simplistic to equate democracy with elections. Deep consideration needs to be given to what sort of democracy we want after any elections. For true democracy, elections need to genuinely reflect the people's view. None of the three elections held so far under Fiji's current voting system have done this.
The people's views have been greatly distorted, resulting in insufficiently representative parliaments. The present electoral system is itself the cause of many of Fiji's democratic woes.
Electoral experts agree that the former First-Past-the-Post (FPP) system would not have served Fiji much better than the Alternative Vote (AV). They would also agree, on the whole, that what Fiji needs is a form of Proportional Representation (PR).
I do not intend to present again here the many unjust results brought about by the AV system, nor the various arguments for PR.
What I wish to emphasise is that the time to make the change to PR is now. To plan electoral reform now for application after the next elections is most unsatisfactory. Fiji needs a truly representative parliament if it is to establish a more viable democracy and extricate itself from the coup culture. This in turn requires an immediate change of electoral system to PR.
Only after holding elections under a suitable new system does Fiji reach "democracy".
An immediate objection that will be raised is that AV and certain other requirements are mandated in the 1997 Constitution, so to change the electoral system now means contravening that Constitution. But the question must be asked: do we want genuine democracy, or don't we?
It may well be true that by having a coup, Fiji has simply jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. But it is no solution to suggest that Fiji now jumps out of the fire, back into the frying pan! We need to jump clear of both to employ new, just arrangements. The unfair AV system and the bipolar ethnically-based political scenarios it generated are not something that Fiji wants to relive. The AV system has not just been controversial in the Fiji context; it has been disastrous.
In the 1999 election we had the great unfairness that, although the FLP-led coalition had only one and a third times the first preferences of the SVT-led coalition, the AV system gave them more than five times as many seats. Such a wildly unjust result set the stage for the coup of 2000.
While many court cases have (rightly) been brought against the culprits, not at all enough blame has been attached to the AV system itself, which without any shadow of doubt contributed in a major way to the coup and all that has happened since.
In the 2001 election the AV system, which according to the Reeves Commission was supposed to encourage moderation, managed to reduce the so-called 'moderates' to the barest handful. In fact it can be cogently argued that, as well as wiping out the middle and setting up two major ethnically-based parties at loggerheads, it even managed to hand victory to the wrong party! Certainly by Fiji's former FPP system or by a PR system, the FLP would have been the major party and would probably have been able to form the government. As it was, the manipulation of people's choices provided by the above-the-line voting in AV, worked against the FLP this time (whereas it had worked for them in 1999).
In the 2006 election we again had results that were most undesirable, and a complete contradiction of what the Reeves Commission had wanted the AV system to achieve. Instead of encouraging multi-ethnic parties and inter-ethnic cooperation, the AV system provided us with the situation where all ethnic Fijian Communal seats and all Open seats with a clear ethnic Fijian majority were won by one party (the SDL), all Indo-Fijian Communal seats and all Opens seats with a clear Indo-Fijian majority were won by another party (the FLP), all General seats bar one (that of Robin Irwin) were won by another party (the UPP), and the single Rotuman seat was won by a different party again (an Independent, in fact).
Apart from Robin Irwin's and the Rotuman seat, the only seats where there was any real contest were the few Open seats where the ethnic ratio between ethnic Fijians and Indo-Fijians was quite close. For by far the greater number of seats the outcome was predictable, and the exercise of voting for thousands of voters was a rather meaningless formality. That is hardly the way voting should be.
With this evidence from the three past elections confronting us, is it not madness to suggest we go back and have elections again under the AV system?
The voting system is supposed to provide us with a House of Representatives, yet it is clear that major segments of our society have not had fair representation at all. The most outrageous case is surely that of the NFP, who held almost a third of the Indo-Fijian vote in 1999, a quarter in 2001, a seventh in 2006, but received no representation in any of the three elections.
Even in 2006 when they did least well, they held over 49,000 first preferences. They nevertheless got no seats even though the UPP party, with well under 7,000 first preferences, picked up two!
Surely in a country that prides itself on its concern for all groups, this sort of nonsense cannot be allowed to continue not even once more.
A further reason for changing the electoral system immediately is that, if such reform were to be implemented only after the next general election held under AV, there would be a huge waste of resources, which Fiji cannot afford. Modifications would have to be made to the AV system, new constituency boundaries drawn up, and comprehensive voter education programs undertaken. Yet all this work would have to be repeated if a new electoral system were to be used later rather than immediately.
Sufficient time, of course, must be given to prepare for a new electoral system. But it should still be possible to have it in place by 2010. It did not take very long to get the AV system into place (proposed by the Reeves Commission in 1996, used in the elections of 1999).
What needs to happen is for the Interim Government to call together the various political groupings for a meeting to change the electoral system.
This time of uncertainty, when the political allegiances of the people are less predictable, is quite a good time to propose a change to PR. PR gives to each party the percentage of seats corresponding to its percentage of voter support.
When parties are unsure of their ground, that is the time when they are most likely to support PR, as they realise it is eminently fair, and will ensure that everybody, including themselves, gets fair representation. They prefer to get less than they might, rather than risk missing out altogether.
It is only when some parties become clearly the major power blocks that they may try to steer away from PR, realising that certain other voting systems (such as AV) will exaggerate their dominance, eviscerating rivals or eliminating them altogether.
If the political groupings can agree on a change to a better voting system, we are in a good position to move forward and adopt it immediately. If they cannot agree, then there would need to be analysis of the areas of disagreement and the reasons for it.
If the matters are minor (for example, the details of the PR system to be used) or if only one party disagrees or seems bent on being a 'spoiler', the Interim Government may nevertheless be able to proceed. If, however, the disagreements are more substantial, it would need to be more circumspect.
But what needs to be done, needs to be done! We are faced by a 'doctrine of necessity' type situation. A change of electoral system is urgently needed. If the constitutional path is followed, the delay in making the change is too long, plus the fact that those with the power to make the change may very well not do so (from self-interest).
One of the big problems in changing the electoral system in any democracy is that the people empowered to change it are the very people who have just been elected by it. They usually have a vested interest in leaving the electoral system much as it is. It is important, therefore, to change the electoral system while Fiji is in the process of re-setting its course.
Undoubtedly, the coup of 2006 and its aftermath are highly controversial. The legalities (and clear illegalities) of a lot of what has taken place will be long discussed, analysed, and litigated.
But life must go on. We must deal with Fiji as it is, not as we might like it to be. If a referendum was held on some matter of national importance, would it be regarded as invalid merely because it took place during the reign of an illegal regime? Surely not. Provided it was conducted fairly, such a referendum would be accepted as a valid expression of the people's will. I am not, however, suggesting a referendum regarding the electoral system. The issues are too detailed and unfamiliar to the public to do that at this stage. If, however, a good cross-section of political interests could agree on changing the electoral system to one clearly more appropriate, why should this be treated much differently to a referendum? Surely in the crisis situation Fiji finds itself in, a certain flexibility is required.
There may not be much opposition to such a change even from outside countries. Foreigners with any understanding of Fiji at all, know that our AV voting system has not been successful. The European Union Electoral Observation Mission forthrightly questioned whether AV was suitable for Fiji. Off the record, a number of them spoke even more strongly, and recommended a PR system. Fiji has been criticised for some time over its high proportion of Communal seats, with recommendations that they be reduced over time to be ultimately done away with.
If, then, there is agreement that PR is fairer and more suitable to Fiji; and if Communal seats are done away with (the interests of ethnic communities being well enough protected by PR itself), opponents will look rather silly if they continue to claim that AV must be used because it is in the Constitution.
The Constitution was made for Fiji, not Fiji for the Constitution.
Although Fiji is still some time away from the elections proposed for 2010, suggestions, discussions and decisions towards adopting a form of PR need to be made, so that the necessary ground work for a change to PR (the particular form of PR, different electoral boundaries, training of electoral officials, voter education, etc.) can be completed by the 2010 deadline. The time to start work on this is now.
Father David Arms is a member of the Citizens Constitutional Forum. The opinions expressed here, however, are his own and not those of the CCF.
Club Em Designs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)