Pacific Islands Forum Meeting-The Cracker In Cairns?

From Island Business, "Letter From Suva"(LFS) column examines the lead up to Pacific Islands Forum meet in Cairns. This meet is expected to be a cracker and already some sparks have been observed, as L.F.S describes the leak of Forum draft report.

FIJI TIME BOMB TICKS FOR FORUM

Laisa Taga - Editor-in-Chief


Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hosts his first Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting in Cairns next month and those in the know expect it to be fiery and fiesty.
And that’s judging from how the June trade ministers meeting in Apia went. Observers who attended the meeting told LETTER FROM SUVA that it was obvious the meeting was split when it came to Fiji and its non inclusion at the trade ministers meeting.

“On one side you had Australia, New Zealand, Samoa and the Cooks and, on the other side, the Melanesian Spearhead Group—PNG, Solomons and Vanuatu—Kiribati and Tonga. Tonga’s PM Dr Feleti Sevele was definitely very vocal about Fiji’s non-inclusion and he was supported by other ministers including PNG’s Sam Abal.

“Most of these ministers were expressing the view that legally Fiji has every right to be at the meeting before chairman, Samoa’s trade minister Misa Telefoni, ruled the issue closed,” a Forum observer said.

“Judging from what was happening there in Apia, there would definitely be fireworks at the leaders meeting if the Fiji issue is not handled properly. It could turn out to be divisive or be a dynamite waiting to explode,” the observer said.

Already the islands are split over Fiji’s suspension by the Forum. A draft report leaked to LETTER FROM SUVA was critical about Fiji’s suspension from the Forum saying it is a major setback for regional co-operation and intergration.

The report was authored by Makurita Baaro, a former senior adviser at the Forum Secretariat (ForumSec). She was hired by the ForumSec to review the three years of implementation of the Pacific Plan.
Forum Leaders had called for an independent comprehensive review of the progress on implementation, every three years. In her report, following extensive consultation meetings totalling over 150 with all Forum members and other stakeholders across the Pacific, Ms Baaro said Fiji’s suspension would pose a major challenge to regional solidarity and the Pacific Plan.

“Already, there are differing views and an increasing polarisation amongst the Forum membership on this very sensitive issue and the subject is one that has real potential to create fragmentation and a major division amongst Forum members.”

She added that Fiji’s suspension will have far reaching and major implications, not only on regional solidarity but also on the implementation of the many initiatives under the Pacific Plan.

The leakage of the report, just a few days after it was presented to the Forum Secretariat, forced the secretariat to launch a major investigation on who leaked the sensitive report. When this edition went to press, the Forum Secretariat was still no way near identifying the culprit, although they have their own suspicions.

But why the witch-hunt? What was so sensitive about the report that ForumSec did not want people to know about? Was it the differing views revealed about Fiji’s suspension by islands countries, which is contradictory to the decision made by the islands leaders in PNG early this year? Was it because the ForumSec was caught out before it had time to censor or tone down the report?

LETTER FROM SUVA understands Ms Baaro was instructed not to include comments on Fiji in her report. But she refused. As a result, ForumSec has now put on hold payment of the rest of her consultancy fees.

Ms Baaro is being paid A$10,000 a month to carry out the review. It was to be a three-month exercise but was extended by a month. So far ForumSec has only paid her A$20,000.
It is not the first time ForumSec has tried to tone down a report. Consultants of an AUSAID review in September last year were also asked to tone down their report but refused, saying it was an independent report and as such they were entitled to their views.
This review was critical of regional organisations and the Pacific Plan, warning that if they don’t shape up and improve their act, they could lose funding from their two major donors—Australia and New Zealand. Both countries poured approximately A$130 million into regional organisations during 2005-2008.

So what now? What version of the Baaro report gets to see the light of day when it is presented to the leaders in Cairns? It will be interesting to see which version finally makes it to the leaders.
Hopefully, the ForumSec will not tone down or censor it that it does not truly reflect the views of the Forum member countries which are coming out loud and clear.

Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders (PNG, Solomons, Vanuatu and Fiji) will meet this month in a special one-day retreat in Port Vila on July 10. Although there is no set agenda, the meeting has been specifically called by the MSG chair, Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Edward Natapei, to discuss concerns about Fiji and its suspension from all Forum organised meetings.

Fiji had issued a statement expressing disappointment about being excluded from the PACER talks held in Apia, Auckland and Port Vila. The exclusion, the statement said, was a violation of its rights.

All MSG leaders have indicated they will attend the Port Vila meeting, where they are also expected to discuss their position at the Cairns meeting.

Fiji’s Bainimarama has been specifically asked by PNG’s Sir Michael Somare to attend the meeting where he will also deliver Fiji’s roadmap to 2014, when it is expected to hold an election.
Bainimarama will be banking on these leaders and on this meeting to push Fiji’s case at the Cairns meeting, after all he won’t be there.

A MSG source said the Port Vila meeting will be interesting. “MSG leaders will be asking themselves – do we consolidate on our position on Fiji, or do we have differing views?

“Meeting chairman Vanuatu’s Natapei and Solomons’ Dr Derek Sikua are likely to gravitate towards Fiji and while Somare, I think, will differ slightly. He is likely to adopt a more cautious stance, reminding the leaders that a decision has already been made and to do otherwise will undermine the intergrity of the Forum and its leaders,” the MSG source said.

“But if the MSG decides to take a stand on Fiji, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and even Tonga will jump onboard. If this happens, we may come out with the fragmentation of the Forum,” the MSG source said. Another issue that is likely to cause fireworks in Cairns is PACER and particularly how the islands countries were railroaded by Australia into accepting its position.

What then? Australia anticipating fireworks at the Forum meeting, could use its chairmanship to douse the fire by steering clear of regional issues like Fiji and PACER and putting the current global economic crisis centre stage—an issue that affects everyone across the board, relegating regional issues as secondary issues.

Let’s hope the islands leaders will stand up and be counted and stop bending backwards to accommodate others’ interests that run counter to their own.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

MSG, Pacific Forum, Global Trade & The American Dream.

From The Interpreter's
Jenny Hayward Jones post:

Is the MSG a threat to Pacific unity?

by Jenny Hayward-Jones - 20 July 2009 9:26AM

The decision by the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s (MSG) leaders on 10 July to lend their support to Fiji’s interim Government, and the backpedalling by leaders since that decision, reveals some interesting insights into how diplomacy works — or does not work — in the Pacific.
The meeting was held at a useful juncture for Bainimarama – a week after he delivered his Strategic Framework for Change speech and three weeks before the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders’ Summit in Cairns, from which he has been excluded. He seized the opportunity to secure endorsement for his agenda from a group of the region’s most influential countries.

The support offered to Bainimarama by the leaders of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu was likely driven by a sense of obligation to Melanesian brotherhood, a desire to assert a Melanesian approach that differed from that of Australia, New Zealand and the Polynesian members of the Forum, and some pandering to domestic constituencies concerned about Fiji’s suspension from the Forum.

If the MSG is to prove it is an effective sub-regional grouping, its leaders should present a clear and united front to the region and demonstrate that Melanesian-style diplomacy offers a better way of dealing with Fiji. The situation in Fiji is such that the region is crying out for creative solutions. Supporting Bainimarama's Strategic Framework for Change, Fiji’s continuing engagement in the PIF and the right to participate in regional trade agreements all telegraphed a strong message to the region about Melanesian solidarity.
But in the week since that message was delivered, Prime Minister Somare has said dialogue with Fiji was 'not an issue for the MSG', confirming that the MSG would ultimately abide by the majority decision on Fiji’s status in the PIF in Cairns. And Vanuatu Prime Minister Edward Natapei has indicated the MSG didn’t necessarily support Bainimarama’s roadmap.

The softening of the MSG’s tone may have been a response to reminders from other PIF members (almost certainly delivered early last week) about the importance of Forum unity. But it does beg questions about the future role and integrity of the MSG. The MSG should be a dominant sub-regional group and should be leading discussion within the Forum on handling Fiji. The members of the MSG (excluding New Caledonia) have a combined population of 8.2 million, GDP of US$12.7 billion and land area of 521,672 sq kms. By contrast, their Polynesian and Micronesian fellow members of the Forum have a combined population of 608,000, GDP of US$1.7 billion and land area of 6,363 sq kms.

The delivery of such contradictory public messages on Fiji within the space of one week, however, is hardly a demonstration of a group capable of challenging the status quo in the region or indeed of an approach that will assist Fiji in 'building commitment and capacity for genuine dialogue consistent with Melanesian values and traditional practices.'
Photo by flickr user Jo Levine, used under a Creative Commons license.

New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key is gearing up for Forum meeting in Cairns. Article originally from New Herald, about the signals being sent to Pacific states.

PM Key sending clear diplomatic signals to Pacific nations

By Online Editor
5:04 pm GMT+12, 20/07/2009, New Zealand

NZ PM John Key

Too much attention to foreign fields can result in a few tantrums back home.
In the Far North last week, Mayor Wayne Brown wrote a truculent column about the attentions Mr Key had given to the Pacific compared to the Far North. Callers to a talkback show grilled him about giving aid to Pacific countries when New Zealand itself was hardly rolling in the money.

A supporter of medicinal cannabis castigated him for "enthusiastically" swigging back "a psychoactive substance called kava" despite rejecting bids to allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes at home.
They should get their pens ready again - Mr Key is off in a fortnight to Cairns in Australia for the Pacific Forum leaders' meeting. He will visit Australia again soon after, to meet Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to push for the furtherance of the single economic market goals.Then it is off to Trinidad and Tobago for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. A trip to the United States follows the month after.

By choosing to take over the trip that is traditionally left to the minister of foreign affairs, Mr Key was sending a clear indication that he intends to be no less prominent in foreign affairs than Helen Clark was.
On the face of it, it was a “goodwill” mission. After a decade of Miss Clark, the leaders must have wondered what they were in for. It did not take them long to find out. He has a proclivity for what the media call “Clark would never have done that” moments.
There was a “Clark would never have done that" at the lively nature of Mr Key's delegation, complete with hip hop dancers and former All Blacks.
There was another as Mr Key camped up his dance with Miss Niue and again as he used the word “children” about Fiji and Samoa when commenting on the relative merits of their kava.

“Clark would never have done that,” they muttered after John Key hollered out a joke to them about the king's dog Poobah. It is true that Miss Clark - a polished performer on the international stage and well aware of the gravitas of her role - would never have done the things Mr Key does.
But the difference is deliberate and, for him, it works. He knows he lacks the grounding to emulate Miss Clark, of whom a foreign affairs official only half joked was better placed to brief them to be briefed by them.
His personality is also starkly different. Mr Key has never been risk averse, as long as the risk is calculated. The trip proved that.
The delegation which began looking somewhat like a circus did more than simply cement Mr Key's relationships at a leader to leader level.
The hip-hop crew proved strong ambassadors at a level Mr Key could never have done.

But the leaders of those countries will also have learned that after the dancing is over, Mr Key plays as straight a game as Miss Clark did.
Niue's Toke Talagi in particular learnt not to try to lure Mr Key into a diplomatic game by playing China off against New Zealand in a bid to have aid funding released.
Mr Key called his bluff - telling him to go ahead. Mr Key takes a pragmatic stance on China's incursions with aid money and easy loans into the Pacific.
Rather than rail King Canute-like against it, he has instead publicly said China's increasing role is an inevitable consequence of its efforts to gain wider international influence.
Instead of protesting, he has urged China to work with New Zealand.
His aim is not only to ensure the money is not spent on wasted efforts, but to allow New Zealand to see exactly where it is spent.
However, he has also sent the clear message to those island countries that they deal with China at their own risk, that New Zealand will not step in to bail them out if it goes awry.
Behind the doors, Mr Key was also trying to shore up support for centring the Pacific Forum agenda next month on them and the economic downturn - not Fiji.
The Pacific Islands Forum has often been criticised as of negligible value, a grouping that talks a lot but does little.
Such outcomes are anathema to Mr Key, and so his reconnaissance trip was more about trying to ensure something concrete emerges when the leaders meet next week.
What he wants when he flies into Cairns is allies to help staunch talk of allowing Fiji to rejoin the forum.

What he wants when he flies out of Cairns is to be carrying a communique filled with concrete proposals on measures to help the Pacific Islands in the recession.
So as soon as Mr Key returned from his trip, Murray McCully went on his own - to Kiribati and Tuvalu, as well as follow-up visits to Tonga and Samoa.
Duncan Kerr, the Australian Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Islands Affairs, was simultaneously roaming the Pacific, peddling much the same message Mr Key - tend to your own lands in a time of trial, not Fiji.
What Mr Key got out of the trip was some surety that the other leaders would largely be singing from the same song sheet.
What the Pacific leaders got out of it was some reassurance that Mr Key would not neglect their interests - and the chance to make it just that little bit more difficult for him to make decisions based solely on bottom lines.
The difference in New Zealand's relations with the Pacific and the wider world was spelled out in an uncharacteristically sentimental paragraph in a Cabinet paper on the Pacific Agreement for Closer Economic Relations.
“In every other context, trade policy starts by putting the interest of New Zealand exporters first and aggressively so. In the Pacific, it is different.
“Here, our policy approach should start by putting our political, people to people relationships first. In some cases - Tonga, Samoa, the Cooks, for example - they are part of us.”

A day in each country was not long. But it was long enough for Mr Key to learn the truth of that. John Key emerged from his trip knowing he got on famously with the King of Tonga, albeit perhaps with a slight headache after being plied with champagne at 11am and then two hours of pre-dinner drinks later in the day for a dinner that went well past the scheduled 10pm end.

Samoa also won a little of his heart, especially the village of Poutasi, where he was met by the village men proudly wearing New Zealand themed T-shirts as a tacit "thanks" for the seasonal labour scheme.
After just one hour in the village, they were offering him a chiefly title and he was waxing lyrical about the conch shell blowing at 6pm for prayers each day and 10pm bedtime rule. Miss Clark's greatest gift to Mr Key is in the area of foreign affairs where she drove home the importance of assiduously built connections and Zealand's reputation as an honest broker.
He knows he cannot out-Clark her - but nor does he plan to squander what she has bequeathed him.

• Claire Trevett is a political writer for The New Zealand Herald.

SOURCE: NZ HERALD/PACNEWS

Trans-Tasman leverage against MSG countries appears to be eroding like a sand castle on Bondi. As the post by Interpreter alludes to, the MSG decision to back Fiji was recognized as a constructive engagement that could undermine the very credibility of the forum.

Lately, the definition of decisions conveniently stamped with "manufactured consensus" in Forum communiques seems to be attracting clouds of doubts. Subjectively, those decision were made with Pacific Island representatives, wholly omitted from the negotiating table.

These warnings have been heard before. Some from a former and ousted Pacific Forum's Director of Economic Governance, Dr. Roman Grynberg; who dispatched an open letter to PNG Prime Minister and MSG Leaders prior to their recent meet.

Such advice. which was undoubtedly crucial and persuasive to the outcome. Melanesia Spearhead Group (MSG) represents a regional sub-bloc of island states in the region-with more population, mineral and fossil fuel resources.

Dr. Grynberg's letter was published in Pac News website.

The excerpt:

Open Letter from Dr Grynberg's to PNG Prime Minister and MSG Leaders

By Online Editor
1:38 pm GMT+12, 10/07/2009, Fiji

Dr Roman Grynberg is the former Director of Economic Governance at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare
I am writing this public letter to you and the other MSG leaders in the hope that the troubling recent developments in regard to the future PACER Plus Agreement with Australia and New Zealand can be addressed at the up-coming MSG Leaders Summit.
There can be little doubt that the PACER Plus agreement, if properly negotiated, will be of enormous benefit to the people of Papua New Guinea as well as all the peoples of Melanesia and the wider Pacific islands region. However, the lead up to these negotiations has shown that the reality is likely to fall far short of the potential because of the excessive haste that has been shown by Australia and New Zealand in pushing the Pacific Island Countries into negotiations when they are simply not ready to do so given that they remain involved in highly complex negotiations with the EU.

The Pacific island nations have not had sufficient time to either consult adequately with national stakeholders or to undertake genuinely neutral and scientific analysis of what type of future trade arrangement would be in their interests. The arrangements for future negotiations that have been reported in the media following the Apia meeting of Forum Trade Ministers are very disturbing and will almost certainly leave the PNG, as well as Melanesian countries and the wider Pacific islands without sufficient capacity to negotiate.

A significant issue in all of this has been the exclusion of Fiji from the negotiations. While I am deeply supportive of the democratic process and the Forum efforts to promote democracy the current situation will mean that the entire people of Fiji will be penalized by their exclusion from PACER through events not of their own making. Moreover, once democracy returns to Fiji there can be little doubt that a future democratic government will have little choice but to accept the terms of an agreement that will have been negotiated without its participation.

The arrangements being developed require complete ownership of the negotiating process by the Pacific islands. It is for this reason that I write to you to call on you and other MSG leaders to remove the negotiating process from the Pacific Islands Forum altogether and move it to the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat. I also call upon you to assure the rights of the people of Fiji are protected and that their voice can be actively heard at the trade negotiations.

In order to assure that a neutral negotiation occurred the small island states should also be invited to participate in an MSG based negotiation. While I recognize the direct financial cost of such an action the PACER plus treaty is so important to an entire generation of young Papua New Guineans, Melanesians and Pacific Islanders that it cannot be handled by institutions which are so thoroughly dominated by Australian and New Zealand interests. Only the MSG has the neutrality to manage this process.

I know that PNG and other Melanesian countries jealously and rightly guard their sovereignty. To sacrifice this sovereignty on such an important matter as your future economic relations with your neighbors and to potentially end up with a treaty that is not in your interests would be the sacrifice of your sovereignty for which you fought.

Sir, you are the last remaining father of the Forum. Your vision in creating the Forum was grand but in certain matters such as these the Pacific Islands simply cannot leave such important negotiations to institutions dominated by the interests of Australia and New Zealand.

Yours sincerely
Dr Roman Grynberg


Dr Roman Grynberg is the former Director of Economic Governance at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

As growth seems to be among the crucial factors for economic growth. In light of the current global economic climate, and the ripple effects to the world in general. The aspect of the American Dream was addressed and how that image of consumerism inadvertently contributed to the global financial malaise.

This discussion of trade, growth, consumerism and global trade was featured in an American Radio Works documentary and the growing doubt about the entire system of trade, banking, regulation and government.

Description:

The "American dream" has powered the hopes and aspirations of Americans for generations. It began as a plain but revolutionary notion: each person has the right to pursue happiness, and the freedom to strive for a better life through hard work and fair ambition. But over time, this dream has come to represent a set of expectations about owning things and making money. So what exactly is the American dream? How did we come to define it? And is it changing?

Australia had the Pacific Islands for lunch in Apia

In a follow up to an earlier SiFM posting that covered the controversial PACER Plus negotiations in the Pacific. An interesting letter to the Editor of Matangi Tonga adds context to the debate. 04 Jul 2009, 06:36

Australia: Editor, THERE'S an old saying in trade negotiations, if you're not on the menu, you're on the table. So there's no doubt that Australian trade officials are happy with what was served up in Samoa last week, June 17/18. When trade ministers from the Pacific region met in Apia to discuss a potential free trade agreement, they concluded with a unanimous recommendation to their leaders to enter into negotiations come the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting in Cairns this August. Before the meeting Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries, including host country Samoa, were pushing for an agreement. Many expected this meeting to conclude with a recommendation to enter into negotiations, but few expected it to happen so easily. What was scheduled for the whole second day of the meeting was in effect agreed to over a luncheon on the first. The Ministers went out to lunch without their delegation of advisors and government officials and ended up agreeing on a statement that would most likely have been pre-drafted. By the afternoon it was all stitched up, some happy, some very happy, and some quite rightly embarrassed. Just six months ago the Pacific had presented to Australia and New Zealand a draft roadmap for dealing with a Pacific trade agreement, the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, or PACER-Plus. In that draft road map, the Pacific Island nations mapped out a much longer timeframe, first starting with national consultations and research to determine whether or not to enter into negotiations. If the research suggested negotiations were a good idea, this would be followed by informal negotiations, and then finally formal negotiations beginning in 2013. In addition to this was the $11 million proposed for an Office of Chief Trade Advisor, a separate entity that would provide research and negotiation capacity and even act as a point of contact for negotiations. This would all up take 5 years. All these would have combined to place the Pacific in a much better position to assess and participate in any negotiations. What did they end up with? Negotiations to be announced in August with the first round likely to be one week after that with timelines for the whole process yet to be decided. An Office of Chief Trade Advisor funded to the tune of $3 million over 3 years with a reduced remit that boils down to essentially facilitating meetings. In terms of funding for research and capacity building, Australia has offered $65,000 for research and will continue with its ten module training course for negotiators. That's right, the Pacific officials are learning how to negotiate their sensitive trade issues by discussing them with Australia before hand. This is a far cry from the Pacific's initial call for an independent Office of Chief Trade Advisor that would act as a collective point for research and negotiations. You do have to hand it to the Australian and New Zealanders, they comprehensively outmanouvered and outplayed their Pacific counterparts. Critical to this was the removal of Roman Grynberg from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. Dr Grynberg has long been a thorn in the side of Australia's trade ambitions with his expertise and strategy in negotiations, particularly in providing assistance to the under resourced Island Countries. So it must have been much to Australia and New Zealand's delight that his contract was not renewed last year on account of some Pacific Islands Forum members not being happy with his role in the servicing of all the clients, including Australia and New Zealand, in Pacific Islands Forum. To add even more insult to injury, it now looks like an Australian, Dr. Chakriya Bowan will fill Dr Grynberg's role as Economic Governance Director. Not only this, Australia played the old trick of starting out with the outrageous and then 'compromising' on something more in line with what they wanted. Australia was initially demanding to have a say in the governance of the office of chief trade advisor. This is highly controversial as any negotiating party should not have a say in the structure of the capacity and negotiating support for another party. This is something that Australia would surely not stand for in negotiations with other trade partners and the Pacific should have done the same. This was one thing that should never even have been on the table, yet there it was and there were no surprises to see it cut back in the giving and taking of the final decision. However with the Office of Chief Trade Advisor initially being housed at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat the likely Australian replacement of Dr Grynberg will, as it turns out, have some involvement in its governance. How this influences the OCTA remains to be seen but as a symbol it further erodes any supposed 'taking' for the Pacific in the negotiation of this decision. If that wasn't enough, there was the presence of Bob McMullan, Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance. Throughout this year Bob McMullan and Simon Crean have been touring the Pacific talking about the benefits of free trade and handing out aid money as they go. With Pacific countries so dependent on aid money, the message was not lost: free trade and aid go together. Fiji's absence was also apparent. Fiji has been one of the strongest voices in holding a strong Pacific position and their absence significantly weakened the stance of the Pacific. Simon Crean has maintained that the suspension of Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum automatically applies to PACER-Plus talks, a very convenient position from Australia's point of view. Fiji's exclusion however, is being challenged. A legal opinion released to the media by the Pacific Network on Globalisation claims that PACER is a separate legal framework to the Pacific Islands Forum, hence the suspension of Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum doesn't automatically equal suspension from PACER-Plus talks. This means that the recommendation to launch PACER-Plus negotiations is technically not legally binding. Fiji has already issued a statement condemning their exclusion from the talks last week and stated that any outcomes from the meeting violate the terms of �consensus� and therefore doesn't apply to Fiji. How this gets taken up by the rest of the countries remains to be seen. This was the situation that faced the Pacific. Not only were they facing pressure from Australia and New Zealand to negotiate, but they also faced the issues of diminished capacity and extreme demands. With media statements from various Ministers within the Pacific Islands buying into the idea, as well as the host of the meeting and agenda setter, the pressure on those trade ministers from still holding out was immense. Not only this, the lunch �meeting� without government officials also meant that the expertise of the officials was lost on the decisions of the Ministers. With decisions needing to be made by consensus it's hard to be the lone dissenting voices. It was this backdrop that greeted us non-government organisations when we rocked up to the Ministers' cocktail party. Despite officials from the Australian delegation reassuring us that there was a consensus and general happiness with the outcomes one only had to talk to those who weren't 'celebrating' at the cocktail party. A number of ambassadors from the Pacific Islands expressed their anger at what Ministers had agreed upon to the non-government groups. One Pacific Minister from the Cook Islands was so upset by what was agreed to he was on the first plane home, without a cocktail. As the Pacific enters this new era there are big questions that need answering. All the social, environmental, and labour issues associated with a proposed PACER-Plus remain, this decision to enter into negotiations does nothing to answer them. Not only that, the trade ministers from all these countries need to be called to account. It is reckless for all involved to enter into negotiations without knowing the full impacts of what is proposed. In particular, Simon Crean needs to explain why undermining the capacity and time for the Pacific to be prepared to enter into negotiations (if they found it was worthwhile) helps them enter into what he refers to as �enhancing prosperity in the Pacific�. With PACER set to diminish $10 million in government revenue for the Pacific as well as see thousands of jobs go the Pacific has a lot of soul searching to do. Australians on the other hand shouldn't let their government get away with pushing their neighbours around like this. Adam Wolfenden campaign@aftinet.org.au Adam Wolfenden is the Trade Justice Campaigner for the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET). Top of Page

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

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:

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

Club Em Designs

Diplomatic Straits.

Interesting article appearing on blog titled "The Briefing Room" which was also referenced on a NZ blog: Whale Oil Beef Hooked, which had a thought provoking posting regarding the expulsion of Micheal Green and deportation of Micheal Field. A seemingly opposite perspective was seen in the harangue by No Right Turn.

Fiji Problem

This in from a correspondent of ours:

Thought you might be interested in this, which I've sent to the PM, Winston, Mikky Cullen, Ron Mark, Leighton Smith, Rodney Hide Gerry Brownlee and Bill English

Methinks 'tis time for a modicum of good old-fashioned honesty, credibility, and integrity. This was sent to me by Thakur Ranjit Singh, a migrant from Fiji who is concerned about the way New Zealand is trying to undermine the progress of the return to a non corrupt government. It has been claimed that the "democratically elected government" was not above some dodgy dealings involving the Fiji Holdings Limited, no doubt more information will be forthcoming in due course. Jim Sowry, Warkworth

Michael Green and Field cannot blame others for their Fiji expulsion

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

If NZ Government claims that the expulsion of Michael Green came as a surprise then it is a white lie. This is because the NZ government was warned about Michael Green's behaviour some four months earlier by members of Fiji community in Auckland.

NZ Labour Party had been concerned with its falling ratings and intelligence that Fiji's migrant community had been unhappy with its uncompromising and insulting attitude towards Fiji. To gauge the feeling, it commissioned a meeting with Fiji's community leaders in Auckland at Ministry of Internal Affairs office where I was in attendance. The meeting was attended by a NZ Labour Party Minister, a listed Member of Parliament and leaders of Fiji community.

The meeting was told about Michael Green's behaviour towards the military regime as well as people of Fiji seeking services from NZ High Commission. It was reported that Michael Green was very close to Qarase regime and could not fathom the fact that he would no longer be in the cocktail circuit after Qarase's removal in December last year.

Subsequent to that it was recently revealed to me by an Auckland taxi driver where one of his Kiwi passengers reportedly told him that Michael Green was cross with the military because his brother had been involved in some investment in Fiji under SDL regime, and that was on hold at the moment. This I have not been able to confirm, and perhaps is a job involving some investigative journalism. Therefore it has yet to be revealed whether Green's wrath with the military was professional or personal.

We need to see how Fiji citizens got treated by Michael Green's regime at NZ High Commission in the Reserve Bank Building where the Commission is based. Before the coup, anybody seeking services could go up to their offices but after December, people were herded outside the building where you had to queue like herd of Kiwi sheep to seek services, in sun rain and storm.

While Australian High Commission could issue visitors visa in just ten days, NZ High commission took at least 30 days. An aunt of mine who is mother of two leading journalists in Fiji has applied for her visa to visit Auckland so see her sick brother in early April, 2007 but has only got her visa in June, only when the sponsor from Auckland had to call NZ High Commission.

New Zealand professes itself as a country leading in productivity, yet the time it takes them to process visas in Fiji after December shames them when compared to Australians or any other Embassy in the world. Perhaps it would be interesting to know how many unprocessed visa applications are held by NZ High Commission in Fiji today. It would run into thousands, and perhaps the reason why Air Pacific had to cut back on flights, as increasingly larger numbers of Fiji people are visiting New Zealand now.

Every man and his dog either applying for a NZ visa or already on NZ work permit were made to fill forms declaring that they were not related anyway to Frank Bainimarama. Under Michael Green's regime, you were your brother's keeper. Joe Rokocoko's fiancée, daughter of former military spokesperson had her work permit not renewed because she accidentally happened to be daughter of her father, while her cousin, bearing the same surname was denied a NZ scholarship because of accident of birth.

While Helen Clark and Winston Peters are political animals, Michael Green is not. He is supposed to be a respected career diplomat, but he revealed little evidence of this. Merely dancing to tunes of political leaders, who come and go, is not a very good habit for any astute civil servant. As the Commander recently said, we cannot argue about the legality of the events. We must be pragmatic and understand that Military was governing the country with the mandate of the President.

He failed to appreciate the reality of the situation and has now paid a heavy price for it.

The other Michael also came into prominence. The supposedly expert in Pacific affairs, Michael Field was detained at Nadi on the eve of marching orders to Michael Green and deported the following morning to New Zealand.

On 20th December, some two weeks after the removal of Qarase regime, Coalition for Democracy in Fiji held a panel discussion on Fiji affairs in Auckland. Apart from Suliana Siwatibau and N Z MP Keith Locke, I was also one of the speakers. Michael Field also attended this forum. In my presentation which was reported in Fiji as well as NZ papers, I revealed the ills of Qarase regime. The theme of my presentation was that: democracies that are devoid of or lacking in granting freedom, rights and equality to all its citizens and those without social justice are not worth defending. Qarase's regime that Bainimarama removed was an epitome of such a democracy. Michael Field did not report any part of my presentation. I am not cross that he did not report me but he displayed acute case of dereliction of media ethics in not telling Kiwis what they deserved to know.

Michael Field works for a very influential NZ mainstream media which shuns migrants as its journalists. When you look around at the paternalistic NZ mainstream media, they profess to be experts in Pacific affairs but hardly employ any sizable Fiji or Pacific journalists, as they rely on Kiwi parachute journalist to cover Pacific issues, and hence New Zealand's jaundiced views on Pacific.

While Michael Field had a strategic position to inform ignorant Kiwis on the actual Fijian politics, he missed this opportunity and abused his position in joining the bandwagon in calling the military thugs from day one and failed to reveal the shortcomings of Qarase to NZ. It is surprising that I as a migrant to New Zealand was made to reveal the actual truth about atrocities under Qarase's regime. I have difficulty in getting articles to mainstream media in NZ because the perception here is that migrants cannot write.

If Michael Field was indeed the veteran journalist then he should not have abused his position and status in keeping Kiwis ignorant about what was really happening in Fiji. My experience shows that like NZ Labour Party, New Zealanders generally are still ignorant about Fiji and this had to do with a journalist like Michael Field who while occupying an influential position indulge in news selling reporting rather than informative reporting.

Therefore the two Kiwi Michaels, both Green and Field had it coming. It is not only Bainimarama who needs to learn the art of Diplomacy, but on his return to NZ, Green needs to attend a course on diplomacy himself. Michael Green needs to be pragmatic about the situation as the interim administration was governing the country and decides what it does. As a diplomat, he was not a politician and hence should have respected Fiji's sovereignty.

And it is so important for New Zealand mainstream media to have Pacific or Fijian journalists reporting on Fiji issues and informing the ignorant Kiwis on local politics, so that they get the correct picture.

But unfortunately, the mainstream media in New Zealand is in no hurry to use Fiji journalist who have migrated to New Zealand, and will depend on jaundiced views from parachute journalists from New Zealand. Unfortunately, such views appear to get copied as New Zealand's foreign policy in the Pacific.

E-Mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz

(About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is Fiji migrant to NZ, commentator on Fiji issues and is human rights activist and advocate of good governance.)
Download winmail.dat

Another intriguing view of the expulsion of New Zealand's High Commissioner was a blog posting from Micheal Tarry's blog titled Magnus Frater Spectat Te.

This is an excerpt:

Fiji: It's an independent country now.

Sovereignty is a difficult and complex thing. Philosophers in several countries, in several centuries, in several notable tomes, have considered the concept. Thinkers from Aristotle to Bodin to Mill to Schmitt and others have thought and pondered, and each has a different position. Each has dismissed their predecessor, and each in turn was dismissed by their successor.

It would seem that the nature of sovereignty presents conundrums without answers at all; indeed, asking the political theorist to define sovereignty is akin to asking the theologian to define God, or the metaphysicist to define love.

Similarly, asking the theorist to determine who may exercise sovereignty and what rights and prerogatives such a sovereign might have would be like asking our theologian, having defined God, to tell us why we ought to believe in Him and not some other deity, or of our metaphysicist, who once setting out what constitutes love, is then called upon to tell us why, as the case might be, love is limited to relations between people and not animals.

The problem of sovereignty has been brought to the attention of this part of the world by the expulsion of the ambassador of New Zealand to Fiji by that country's current leader. The New Zealand High Commissioner, Michael Green, was ordered to leave Fiji by it's military ruler, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama because the latter had believed Green was interfering in Fijian domestic political matters.

Consequently, and understandably, governments across the Pacific have vented their collective spleen upon Bainimarama. One simply cannot go about expelling diplomats left and right. New Zealand and Australia talked of upping the ante with more sanctions, and our Prime Minister declared that Cabinet (which met this morning) would "weigh up it's options." Such is well and good, and Helen Clark is welcome to consider her position all day and well into the night.

In doing so, she would merely be exercising her right to make whatever decisions she likes as the leader of a sovereign and utterly independent country. New Zealand is it's own master: we have cocked snooks before at the United States, and the United Nations, and Australia, and China, and anyone whom we don't particularly wish to kowtow before on such-and-such an issue.

We lose all semblance of having anything approaching the moral high-ground when it is realised that Fiji, like New Zealand, is a sovereign state. Bainimarama's government can expel whomever it pleases, whenever it pleases, entirely upon whim. Clark could do precisely the same for such is what sovereignty allows.

Crawford (in 1979) wrote "Sovereignty does not mean actual equality of rights or competences: the actual competence of a state may be restricted by its constitution, or by treaty or custom. The term sovereignty accurately refers not to the totality of powers which all states have, but to the totality of powers which states may, under international law, have." It doesn't matter whether we approve of Fiji's sovereign actions - we don't need to. We didn't approve of the coup - we didn't need to.

We condemned it, certainly, and we can heap opprobrium and sanctions upon Fiji for the reminder of eternity but it will not diminish in the least the existence of Fijian sovereignty and concordantly the prerogative of Fiji to do whatever it damn well wants within it's own borders. If they want coups galore, so be it: there's nary a thing we can or should do to prevent it. If they want to expel our ambassadors and ignore our entreaties, so be it: we have ignored their demands before.

If New Zealand does succeed in getting it's own way, then we will have proved only one thing. We will have shown that we are merely bullies of the sort we usually disapprove of. We will have refuted the principle that "sovereignty is the ultimate territorial organ which knows no superior." We will have trumped Bodin and his fellows, and will have added our own name to the list of philosophers-of-sovereignty who simply beg to be rebutted.

Interesting enough, the issue of sovereignty was raised last year as reported by Island Business article that, accused Australia of breaching it. Along with ignoring the moral dimensions raised by Journalist Graham Davis in his article.



Club Em Designs