The Islanders With A Dragon Tattoo - China's Rising Influence In The South Pacific. (Updated)

Following up on an earlier post titled "Trans-Tasman Reflexivity In South Pacific Geopolitics".

Regarding the issue of geopolitics of energy, a 2008 lecture hosted by Standford University by Michael Klare outlines the new dimensions in that particular arena. (Video posted below).





With regards to the geopolitics of energy as postulated by Klare, the recent and unfathomable effects of the global financial crisis had major implications on geo-political relationships; which was addressed in keynote address by Paul Krugman at the Center for International Security Study's second annual symposium and was held on May 13-14, 2010. (Video posted below)





Coupled with Paul Krugman's ideas, the inability of the U.S to pay its debts (by borrowing more) will have major and irreversible damages to their relationships with other countries including in the Pacific region, and most importantly how the Washington consensus is perceived.

As of this posting, news reports indicate that the U.S Congress had not passed a legislative Bill to raise the debt ceiling and a Bloomberg article highlighted that Australia also seeks to her own debt ceiling maneuver as well. Both countries are currently involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and have spent a considerable amount of treasury and lives in the two-front, open ended conflict.

Australian think tank, Lowy Institute, whose recent blog posting also raised serious concerns about the sacrifices involved. Neither the U.S, Australia nor New Zealand's influence in the Pacific had progressed significantly due to their past, present and  projected war footing; one might even argue that the ANZUS trio's grass roots perception in the region, had taken an un-remediable dramatic turn for the worse.

Undoubtedly, the perceived implications derived from the global financial crisis (GFC) is clearly demonstrated in, the intuition and reactions of the South Pacific region nations and its inhabitants, that have long recognized the incurable symptoms of a life-threatening ailment. The spheres of influence and their competition within the region, are moving from the rather nuanced level, to a more defined and overt manner- like prospective suitors wooing their brides.

Several commentators and publications have outlined that particular seismic shift in the Pacific rim area, in terms of the diminishing American Lake versus China's growing influence, including Cleo Paskal whose Nov. 2010 article-"Why the West is Losing the Pacific To China, the Arab League and Just About Everyone Else" highlighted the friend option (in a social media analogy), which many South Pacific nations including Fiji, have systematically used:

Geopolitics as it is -- Looking for new friends 

The problem is these sphere-of-influence policies are a based on a Cold War-era model, in which the traditional allies are the only game in town and so can decide policy in a relative geopolitical vacuum. 

Those days are long gone. In an increasingly multipolar world, all sorts of new foreign policy options are available, especially as the enormous value of the island nations of the Pacific becomes increasingly clear.
From a geopolitical perspective, the nations of the Pacific offer (among other things):

• Sea-lanes and ports in relatively calm waters (increasingly important as China, in particular, increases trade with South America);

• Access
 to fisheries (something increasingly important as the Atlantic is fished out);

• Agricultural exports (especially important as concerns over food security increase in countries such as China);

• Unknown but potentially valuable underwater resources;

• Geostrategic military basing sites;

• Crucial votes in international fora (Pacific Island countries represent around a dozen votes in the UN - a substantial voting block).

Given what is at stake, other nations are understandably keen to take advantage of discontent with traditional partners in order to advance their own position in the Pacific.

Steven Ratuva, somewhat echoed  and seemingly repeated the sentiments of Cleo Paskal, in a May 2011 article that appeared in a NZ centric magazine- Steve Ratuva's opinion article in "The Listener.

The excerpt of the Ratuva's article:

The Chinese lake 

By STEVEN RATUVA | Published on May 7, 2011 | Issue 3704 
| Tags: China, Feature 
PrintEmailShare

As China’s expanding influence in the Pacific rekindles Cold War rhetoric and America’s fears play out, do we have good cause to be afraid? 

Getty Images

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was blunt: “We are in a competition for influence with China. Let’s put aside the humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in. Let’s just talk straight realpolitik. We are in competition with China.”

Steven Ratuva On China's Growing Influence

"Fiji is now fully entrenched in the Chinese camp, cemented by millions of dollars of aid, intensified military exchanges, increased investment and trade, and enhanced political and diplomatic links. What Clinton fears is already happening.
One of the grave concerns is that China might set up a military base or even a minor military establishment in Fiji. This would redefine the regional strategic balance of power in a significant way, since Fiji is the regional hub and crossroad for South Pacific nations."

Clinton then added, “We have a lot of support in the Pacific Ocean region. A lot of those small countries have voted with us in the United Nations. They are stalwart American allies, they embrace our values.” 

In her speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, Clinton was not only drawing a “them” versus “us” line of demarcation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but making claims to political and ideological support on her side of the line. This is classical Cold War political psychology and a sign we may be witnessing a rebirth of this type of rhetoric as the US and China vie for influence in the Pacific.
Her recent visit to the area was partly to reconsolidate the US-Australian-New Zealand strategic links, which the three countries are keen to maintain following the demise of the old Australia New Zealand United States defence alliance, Anzus. 

The increasing acceptance of the Chinese by the Pacific Island states is not because of any ideological preference but rather a response to the growing demand for development aid by the poor Pacific economies. Despite Australian and New Zealand aid over the years, Pacific economies have continued to decline and policy planners have started looking for alternatives. 

Australian aid in particular has been singled out as the most problematic because it is based on the paternalistic assumption that it is possible to replicate Canberra-based models of governance and ethics around the Pacific by sending out “experts” to change institutions and associated modes of behaviour. This social-engineering-type approach has provoked charges of cultural insensitivity, neo-imperialism and self-serving economics. 

More than 70% of the “boomerang” aid goes back to Australia and very little benefit trickles down to its “backyard”, a term used often by Australian leaders to refer to the Pacific. Recent revelations about fraudulent practices within the Australian aid regime have made a mockery of its own professed philosophy of aid for “good governance”.
Furthermore, Australia’s policy towards the Pacific has provoked unease. The Pacific Islands Forum has been seen as too biased towards Australia (most directors of programmes are Australians), causing leaders of small Pacific Island countries to seek an independent adviser for regional free trade under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (Pacer plus). They are also thinking of taking the advisory role for the Economic Partnership Agreement with the European Union away from the Pacific Islands Forum for the same reason. 

Perhaps one of the most significant developments was Fiji’s chairmanship of the intergovernmental Melanesian Spearhead Group, despite Australia’s attempt to thwart this; of interest is how Fiji – considered the “pariah state” of the Pacific – might use this new-found power to get back at Australia.
Worse still, Fiji is now fully entrenched in the Chinese camp, cemented by millions of dollars of aid, intensified military exchanges, increased investment and trade, and enhanced political and diplomatic links. What Clinton fears is already happening.
One of the grave concerns is that China might set up a military base or even a minor military establishment in Fiji. This would redefine the regional strategic balance of power in a significant way, since Fiji is the regional hub and crossroad for South Pacific nations. If this happened, it would certainly vindicate Australia’s naval expansion in recent years to counter increasing Chinese naval presence.
So far, China has made aid commitments of about US$600 million for infrastructure, technology and agriculture to the Pacific. According to a report by ANZ Bank, trade between China and the Pacific Islands has risen from US$180 million in 2001 to US$1.5 billion in 2010. 

There are many sides to the growing international interest in the Pacific. Economic opportunities abound from the growth in land and sea mining in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Fiji. In Papua New Guinea, US oil giant ExxonMobil has started a US$15 billion natural gas project, and Australian and Chinese companies are scrambling for a share of the country’s abundant minerals. A Chinese company has been granted a bauxite mining licence in Fiji, and more are queuing up to take advantage of any future mining boom there. 

The Pacific Ocean holds the world’s largest seabed mining potential, with countries like Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Cook Islands, Fiji and Kiribati eager to provide prospecting licences to potential investors. In addition, Pacific Island states collectively own the world’s largest exclusive economic zone per land area, a big attraction for fishing nations such as China, Japan, Korea, the US, Canada and Russia.

The Pacific Island states also own an important political asset – their votes in the United Nations and other inter­national forums. China and Taiwan have been competing over this for years; recently, the Arab League and others have made either bilateral or multi­lateral approaches hoping to secure voting allies among the Pacific states. Clinton’s speech raised concerns that the US might lose these votes. For Australia, a few votes may have already been lost – China stands to be a winner.

Although China may consider it’s making forays into the Pacific basically for economic reasons, this is not how the West sees it. China is viewed through dual – and, in fact, hypocritical – lenses. On one hand, the US sees it as an economic saviour for propping up the economy with US bond purchases and preventing a collapse, Australia sees it as its biggest market and New Zealand sees it as its third-largest trading partner. On the other hand, China is viewed with suspicion because of its huge military spending for no articulated purpose, and because it is seen as a sometimes difficult, vicious and conspiratorial competitor whose infectious influence on small Pacific Island states should be curbed.

Getty Images/Listener photo illustration

As in the Cold War, the view often held by the US, Australia and New Zealand is that small Pacific states are too timid and unsophisticated to deal with the big bad Chinese dragon, which has taken the place of the big bad Soviet bear.

Australian politicians, think tanks and scholars have taken turns condemning Chinese aid in an array of moralistic denunciations: “non-transparent”, “corrupting” and “debt-generating”. This was a typical Cold War technique meant to confer the moral high ground on the West while painting the adversary as morally corrupt.

The anti-Soviet propaganda may have worked during the Cold War but the anti-China rhetoric is definitely not working today, as Pacific Island states realise they need to move on as mature global citizens and look for alternative alliances outside their immediate post-colonial circle controlled by Australia and New Zealand. Country after Pacific Island country – Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea – have accepted Chinese aid with open arms.

This is transforming the future developmental and political trajectory and reshaping the regional geopolitical architecture of the Pacific in a significant way.

Unlike in the Pacific Cold War, when the line of demarcation was clear, today the line is blurred, except in the rhetoric. What we have is a hodgepodge of interests by a variety of actors, some more powerful than others. The US and China are just two of those actors, although the most powerful economically. They depend on each other: the US provides the market for Chinese goods, and China’s economic surplus helps pay for US debt. For the Pacific Island states, China is not really the big bad dragon with fiery nostrils but, rather, a golden panda whose Midas touch is most welcome. Australia and New Zealand also welcome China’s ­foreign investment, but both are wary.

China’s emergence as a major power, just as American influence appears to be on the wane, has significantly changed Pacific geopolitics in recent years. The South Pacific is rarely central to major international affairs, but at the height of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the US, the Pacific was not spared ideological brinksmanship and manoeuvring.

The Pacific was used as testing ground for nuclear weapons and the US had military bases, spy installations and communication posts dotted around the ocean. To reinforce this strategic architecture, the Anzus alliance was formed, based on the “strategic denial” doctrine to keep the Soviet influence out of the “American lake”, a term often used in the 1980s to refer to the Pacific Ocean. New Zealand, as a result of its anti-nuclear policies, withdrew from Anzus in the mid-1980s.

Part of the strategic denial approach was to ensure that small Pacific Island states were to be kept away from Soviet influence through the three countries providing aid. The paternalistic perception, which still persists, was that only the big powers could deal with the ­Soviets effectively.

At the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, Soviet power in the Pacific diminished and no longer posed any threat to US hegemony. As a consequence, the Pacific lost its strategic value. The US closed down it USAid office in Fiji, and the UK withdrew from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and closed its High Commissions in Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Tonga. The Pacific became a forgotten “backyard”.

Responsibility for the Pacific was left to Australia and New Zealand, which liked to imagine themselves as mini-imperial regional powers of sorts. During the period of the “war on terror” (in which New Zealand once again withdrew support from the US-led coalition of the willing), Australia – as Washington’s “sheriff” – used the Pacific as a buffer for its own national security. One way of doing this was to cast the Pacific as an “arc of instability” consisting of “failed states” that needed to be fixed, as they were potential breeding grounds for terrorists.

Then suddenly, as a result of China’s intensive involvement, interest in the Pacific began to increase. China is not as ideologically or politically imposing as the Soviet Union was, but its expanding economic influence, at the cost of the old Anzus allies, means the Pacific is living, as the old Chinese proverb suggests, in interesting times.

Steven Ratuva is a political sociologist and a senior lecturer in Pacific studies at the University of Auckland.

Although, the interesting times in the Pacific as alluded to by Ratuva, has become much more acute amid the new mania to mine the seabed; this situation has created an awareness among the various Pacific island nations to re-look, re-define, reclaim interest with their economic exclusive zones (EEZ) with much vigor, but unfortunately viewed through the prism of a dollar sign, at the very expense of environmental concerns and community consultations, as pointed out by NGO's in a Fiji Times article.

The excerpt of the Fiji Times article:

Mining problems appear in Pacific

By IOANE BURESE
Thursday, June 02, 2011

PACIFIC rights groups have called for a moratorium on deep-sea mining until individual nations have decided where they stand on the controversial new activity.

According to AAP South Pacific correspondent Tamara McLean, the call comes ahead of a regional meeting in Fiji next week to map out the future of ocean mineral mining, a potentially lucrative but as yet unexplored industry.

The PNG government granted the world's first commercial lease for deep-sea mining in January to Canadian-based Nautilus Minerals, which is set to extract gold and copper from the sea floor 50km off PNG's north coast.

About eight Pacific nations have been granted licences for the new industry, however, there are few regulation guidelines to manage it.

The Deep Sea Minerals Project, funded by the EU and administered by the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission, aims to fill that void.

The project's team leader, Akuila Tawake, said the Fiji meeting would provide a much-needed framework which would take shape over the next four years.

"The purpose of the workshop is to help representatives of those countries participating in the project to better understand issues related to seabed minerals and mining," Mr Tawake said in a statement.

However, an advocacy group has spoken out strongly against the meeting.

Maureen Penjueli, coordinator of Fiji-based Pacific Network on Globalisation, said individual governments needed to consult their citizens about ocean mining before the discussion went regional.

"It doesn't seem right to be having regional talks when countries haven't had the discussion with their people," Ms Penjueli told AAP.

"The public perception among educated people is that we really don't know what we're getting ourselves into.

"We've had a terrible time with land-based mining so people are very weary.

"Jumping ahead with a framework for how to do it suggests we've already said we're happy about it, but we most certainly haven't."

She said the issue had to be very carefully managed as multi-million dollar leases were a "terrible temptation" for relatively poor Pacific governments.

"It would be easy for the environmental and cultural concerns to be overlooked due to the huge economic interests," Ms Penjueli said.

She called for a moratorium on activity and regional talks "until the basic issues are dealt with".

Fifteen Pacific nations will be involved in the meeting, to be held in Nadi from June 6.

Australia and New Zealand will be represented and 15 of the world's leading industry experts will be present.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

A Tale of Two chiefs: Mara, the Father and Mara, the Son

From Whale Oil Beef Hooked.

Guest Post — A Tale of two chiefs: Mara, the father and Mara, the son 

by WHALEOIL on MAY 27, 2011  

This com­men­tary, through his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tives, analy­ses the flight of Bainimarama’s for­mer right hand man, Ratu Ului Mara to Tonga and the dis­ap­point­ing role of media.

As the Air Pacific’s French built turbo prop ATR 42 glided into Apia’s Fale­olo Inter­na­tional Air­port, I was over­joyed with the prospect of vis­it­ing Nukualofa.
The year was 1988, in the after­math of Sitiveni Rabuka’s coup in Fiji which had an interim gov­ern­ment. I was an inter­nal audi­tor with the Car­pen­ter Group of Com­pa­nies which owned Mor­ris Hed­strom (MH) stores in Fiji, Apia (Molesi), and Nukualofa. I, together with my fel­low audi­tor Chat­tur Singh was sched­uled to audit MH Nukualofa after the Apia stop. 

T. R Singh On NZ Govt. Policy

"New Zealand Gov­ern­ment and John Key should take heed of this rev­e­la­tion. They have been warned not to bend rules to wel­come Ratu Ului, who still has con­nec­tions with the Mil­i­tary per­son­nel in Fiji, thus fur­ther dis­tanc­ing and pro­vok­ing Fiji."

How­ever, this dream of vis­it­ing Tonga was dashed when Tonga imposed a racially dis­crim­i­na­tory rule that Indo Fijians from Fiji were pro­hib­ited from enter­ing the King­dom. Then, Fiji’s interim Prime Min­is­ter was Ratu Ului’s father, Ratu Sir Kamis­ese Mara who was defeated in 1987 Fiji’s elec­tions by Dr Tim­oci Bavadra’s Fiji Labour Party. Bavadra’s gov­ern­ment was over­thrown on 14 May, 1987 in a coup exe­cuted by Rabuka just after a month in power. 

It had been widely spec­u­lated and also exposed by Rabuka that Ratu Sir Kamis­ese Mara was aware of the coup and had given his bless­ings for the rape of democ­racy in favour of indige­nous supe­ri­or­ity and ethno nation­al­ism. Mara Senior claimed he accepted the posi­tion of Fiji’s Interim Prime Min­is­ter because he could not stand by and watch his house burning.Ratu Sir Kamis­ese remained silent and failed to raise any objec­tion against this bla­tant racism by his cousins in Tonga against half of his sub­jects in Fiji. It there­fore should not now come as a sur­prise at accu­sa­tions that the Ton­gan gov­ern­ment aided and abet­ted the escape of Ratu Ului to Tonga by breach­ing Fiji waters, sup­pos­edly in a sea res­cue mis­sion. 

The evi­dence from the murky waters sug­gests that Ratu Ului may be less than hon­est about his escapade. His check­ing into a hotel under a false name, hid­ing his iden­tity, the cus­tom­ary pro­to­cols of fish­ing alone by a chief, and the fail­ure of respec­tive New Zealand and Fiji navies to detect any dis­tress sig­nals indi­cate that the truth is some­where out there.This case also exposed New Zealand main­stream media’s blind depen­dency on a polit­i­cal blogsite, Coup Four Point Five, which hardly resem­bles a respectable, free and inde­pen­dent media. This site has anony­mous and face­less pub­lish­ers and edi­tors whose cred­i­bil­ity has been under scrutiny by var­i­ous aca­d­e­mics and this author because of their selec­tive, unsub­stan­ti­ated and unbal­anced news-postings. 

This is Qarase’s SDL Party site tasked with get­ting the racist régime back into power under the sham of democ­racy. It is such ques­tion­able blogsite that the main­stream New Zealand media, includ­ing NZ Her­ald and TVNZ, have relied upon as a source.The Indo-Fijian bash­ing angle is used once again. With Tonga’s his­tory of racially humil­i­at­ing Indo-Fijians in 1988 with ban on entry, it is no won­der Ratu Ului had a field day in using the race card as well, where he said that Aiyaz Saiyed Khaiyum, Fiji’s Indo-Fijian Attor­ney Gen­eral was solely call­ing the shots in Fiji. 

What a gullible media fails to realise is that Fiji’s mil­i­tary is 99.95 per cent indige­nous Fijians. Of the 21 Per­ma­nent Sec­re­taries, only three are Indo-Fijians, only two min­is­ters are Indo-Fijians and other top ech­e­lons of the civil ser­vice com­prise of some 80 per cent indige­nous Fijians. Yet, Ratu Ului, sup­ported by NZ media, wishes us to believe that one Indo-Fijian had Frank Bain­i­marama in a trance. Ratu Ului is degrad­ing and sham­ing his own race by say­ing that Khaiyum single-handedly manip­u­lates Fiji’s admin­is­tra­tive, polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary machin­ery dom­i­nated by indige­nous peo­ple. This is the biggest insult hurled on indige­nous Fijians since the uncer­e­mo­ni­ous flight of Ratu Ului’s’ father from the Gov­ern­ment house.Ratu Ului’s defence of the Great Coun­cil of Chiefs (GCC) and the Methodist Church as sav­iours of democ­racy is highly laugh­able. 

These two insti­tu­tions have been the biggest threat to democ­racy, human rights and social jus­tice in Fiji. I still remem­ber, how in 1987 after Rabuka’s coup, the church­go­ers from the Methodist Church used to go and man the road­blocks which were put in place to per­se­cute non-Christians. Dur­ing 2001 Fiji elec­tions, the Assem­bly of Churches, led by the Methodist Church, took out paid adver­tise­ments, urg­ing indige­nous Fijians not to vote the hea­thens and non-believer Indo-Fijians into the lead­er­ship of the nation. Is this the Methodist Church which is now iden­ti­fied as the defender of democ­racy? The Chiefs were so immensely engrossed in pol­i­tics, sup­port­ing ethno-nationalism of George Speight that the non elected GCC lost all its cred­i­bil­ity, respectabil­ity and neu­tral advi­sory sta­tus. The GCC which had been an ini­tia­tive and legacy of the British colonists had been ban­ished by Bain­i­marama after 2006. 

Its absence had hardly been felt by the rank and file indige­nous peo­ple in the last five years.Ratu Sir Kamisese’s son, now absconded to Tonga, appears to suf­fer from mem­ory loss. In 2000, the GCC and the Methodist Church hier­ar­chy fully backed George Speight in cru­elly remov­ing his esteemed father, Ratu Sir Kamis­ese Mara as Pres­i­dent of Fiji. 

In a hugely undig­ni­fied man­ner, Ratu Sir Kamis­ese had to flee in the night, fear­ing for his life. He was trans­ported by navy boat to the safety of his home in the Lau Group, never to recover from this humil­i­a­tion. He died a very sad, bit­ter and lonely man.  What Mara’s son Ratu Ului for­gets is that this was the unkind­est act of betrayal by the Fijian chiefs against one of their great­est chiefs. 

Today, for con­ve­nience and expe­di­ency, Ratu Tevita Mara has heaped insult to the mem­ory of Ratu Sir Kamis­ese by embrac­ing and prais­ing those who had dis­graced, humil­i­ated and indi­rectly exter­mi­nated Fiji’s great­est polit­i­cal leader– his own father.Nowhere in the NZ media has there been any reports that other promi­nent busi­ness­men, bureau­crats, civil ser­vants and chiefs have gone through Fiji’s jus­tice sys­tem, so what was par­tic­u­lar about Ratu Ulai who absconded. There is hardly any men­tion of inves­ti­ga­tions and alleged fraud of $3 mil­lion from Fiji Pine Commission. 

New Zealand Gov­ern­ment and John Key should take heed of this rev­e­la­tion. They have been warned not to bend rules to wel­come Ratu Ului, who still has con­nec­tions with the Mil­i­tary per­son­nel in Fiji, thus fur­ther dis­tanc­ing and pro­vok­ing Fiji. Any such action less than six months before the Rugby World Cup, in which Fiji plays, and the gen­eral elec­tions, are not advis­able. With a siz­able Indo-Fijian pop­u­la­tion and Indi­ans and Asians sym­pa­thetic to Fiji’s cause of self deter­mi­na­tion, Key needs to play his cards wisely, before offi­ciously embroil­ing in a domes­tic squab­ble of Pacific relations. 

NZ needs to be reminded that despite his­tory bestow­ing him with this hon­our, Ratu Sir Kamis­ese Mara had not really been that last bas­tion of mul­tira­cial­ism and social jus­tice in Fiji. Nei­ther is his son Ratu Ului Mara. 

(E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz] 

(Thakur Ran­jit Singh is a polit­i­cal com­men­ta­tor and had been through Rabuka’s and Speight’s coups. Dur­ing the lat­ter, he was the pub­lisher of Fiji’s Daily Post news­pa­per, which has since been closed because of past gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence. He was AUT/PIMA Pasi­fika post­grad­u­ate scholar in 2009/10).

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Lines Of Demarcation- The Dispute Over Minerva.

In a follow up to an earlier SiFM post titled "The Rush To Mine The Seabed- A Fiji Perspective" is worth revisiting, more so after an online article from Pacific Scoop, that quotes from Tonga Chief Secretary regarding the removal of a beacon by the Fiji Navy.

Deputy Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Sila Balawa
"Fiji’s ownership of the reef has been re-asserted time and again - through the United Nations Law of the Sea and the Minerva reef is located within Fiji’s exclusive economic zone. Fiji says its claim to the reef – is based on UN laws and history. "

The excerpt of the Pacific Scoop article:

Tonga Accuses Fiji of Vandalism of Innocent Minerva Reef Beacon.
May 25th 2011
Pacific Scoop:
Report – By Alex Perrottet of Pacific Media Watch

Tonga’s Chief Secretary Busby Kautoke has hit back at Fijian allegations of a breach of sovereignty, accusing the Fiji Navy of “vandalism” of a navigation beacon on the disputed Minerva Reef.

Kautoke today responded to initial comments from Fiji’s military-backed regime leader Voreqe Bainimarama that the presence of the Tongan patrol boat Savea in Fijian waters was a breach of Fiji’s sovereignty.

Bainimarama has called fugitive colonel Ratu Tevita Mara’s “fishing incident” a calculated plan and an “illegal extraction”.

In response, Kautoke maintained that the rescue earlier this month was a “humanitarian act” and accused Fiji of vandalising a Tongan navigational beacon in the Minerva Reef.

“At this lonely outpost, a perfectly innocent navigational beacon, erected on the wishes of our Late King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV for the benefit and safety of mariners, was officially vandalised,” he said.

“Such an act, for example, cannot be elevated to the status of a legal argument and there is strong evidence to suggest that the full might of Fijian sea power, on the instructions of the military regime, was deployed to attack a defenceless and inanimate object.”

The Minerva Reef, also known as the islands of Telekitonga and Telekitokelau, is about 490km south-west of Tonga.

The Chief Secretary said Bainimarama’s comments would have been best left to official communications between the countries. “Sovereignty should be considered separately as the subject of bilateral engagement between the Fiji regime and Tongan diplomats,” he said.

Alex Perrottet is contributing editor of the Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch.

However, the issue of Minerva reef and its ownership was a subject simmering beneath the diplomatic niceties for awhile, until Kautoke's ill-advised remarks considering the current bilateral tensions, forced the issue towards the front and center.

Kautoke maintained that the rescue earlier this month was a “humanitarian act” and accused Fiji of vandalising a Tongan navigational beacon in the Minerva Reef.
“At this lonely outpost, a perfectly innocent navigational beacon, erected on the wishes of our Late King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV for the benefit and safety of mariners, was officially vandalised".

The dispute over the Minerva reefs has resurfaced in the wake of the fugitive saga involving Tevita Uluilakeba Mara and the Tongan Government, which had been reported to have violated Fiji's sovereign territory, as well  as illegally removing a person from the country.

It would be ideal to separate the alleged humanitarian act from the breach of sovereignty, as advocated by Tonga’s Chief Secretary Busby Kautoke. Unfortunately, the latter acts are the most worrying. These documented violations of International Law should not be swept under the proverbial rug by any honest broker and most probably will be addressed in due course, by the relevant authorities in Fiji.

Fiji Foreign Affairs official responded to the allegations, as reported by a Radio Fiji article.

The excerpt of Radio Fiji article:

Fiji to protect territorial integrity of Minerva reef

Thursday, May 26, 2011 

Fiji had told the Tongan government last year it reserved the right to take any appropriate necessary action to protect the integrity of its territory by removing structures built by Tonga at the Minerva reef. 

FBC News has sighted a letter sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Tongan government dated 23rd September 2010, notifying them that they were building the structures on Fiji’s territory.

Fiji’s Deputy Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Sila Balawa says Fiji received a report late last year that Tonga was constructing two structures on the reef, namely a lighthouse. 

Fiji authorities confirm the two structures were removed last year – however Fiji and Tonga are continuing discussions on the issue – led by their ambassadors at the United Nations.

Balawa says Fiji’s ownership of the reef has been re-asserted time and again - through the United Nations Law of the Sea and the Minerva reef is located within Fiji’s exclusive economic zone.

Fiji says its claim to the reef – is based on UN laws and history. 

Tonga has criticised the removal of their structures by what it describes as the “full might of Fijian sea power.” Balawa told FBC News in February that Tonga is one of Fiji’s closest friends and they hope to resolve the issue through peaceful dialogue.

Fiji's Maritime claims have been documented in a 1984 report "Limits In The Seas- Fiji's Maritime Claims" compiled by the US State Department.

The above mentioned report also highlights the contentious issue of Minerva reef ownership and does reinforce Fiji's claim to the atoll located in the southern Lau group, stating that the atoll lies within Fiji's economic exclusive zone (EEZ).

Excerpt of Page 6 & 7 of the report:

Maritime Boundaries 

In claiming its economic zone, Fiji is able to extend fully to 200 nautical miles only to the south and to the northwest. Similar or potential claims to extended maritime jurisdiction by its neighbors will create six maritime boundary situations for Fiji. Boundaries will be required with Tonga to the east and southeast, Tuvalu to the north, the Solomon Islands west of Rotuma, Vanuatu to the west, and France to the northeast (Wallis and Futuna) and southwest (New Caledonia). 

In 1983 Fiji and France signed an agreement delimiting the boundary between the economic zones claimed by the two states. The line between Fiji and New Caledonia is an apparent equidistant line, about 300 nautical miles in length, using as controlling basepoints Ceva-i-Ra for Fiji and Hunter Island for France. A sovereignty claim to Hunter Island has been made by Vanuatu and it is unclear what impact this dispute may have on the Fiji-France agreement. The other four boundaries remain to be negotiated. 

Tonga's claim to the Minerva Reefs, situated south of Fiji's archipelago, may complicate Tongan-Fijian maritime boundary negotiations. Although Fiji acknowledges Tonga's claim to these reefs (as noted on its Chart 81/3), Fiji's economic zone limits enclose the reefs. North and South Minerva Reef are about 18 nautical miles apart and more than 165 nautical miles from the nearest Tongan island. The Tongan Government has built an artificial island and installed navigation beacons on each. 

If indeed the reefs themselves are only low-tide elevations, they would not have a territorial sea (LOS Convention, Article 13(2)). Tonga's rights, under the LOS Convention, to construct, operate, and use an artificial island, such as North or South Minerva Reef, within its economic zone, may be complicated by the fact that these reefs, under Fiji's claims, are situated in the Fiji EEZ.

4 The area of the exclusive economic zone was measured from Fiji Marine Spaces Chart 81/3.

Fiji's claim that the Minerva's reef lies within its EEZ is based on the distance from the baseline of Ono island.
According to the Page 2 of the Fiji Maritime Limits report:

Fiji's legislation establishes two different types of baselines. Archipelagic baselines join most of the country's islands to form the Fiji Archipelago; seaward of those baselines is the territorial sea and high seas, landward of them are archipelagic waters and internal waters.

The other type of baseline delimits the internal waters from archipelagic waters (if situated inside archipelagic baselines) or from the territorial sea (as in the Rotuma Island area).

The image (posted below) from Google earth reinforces that claim of Minerva being within 200 nautical miles of Ono island, Lau. In actual fact, Minerva lies 178 odd nautical miles south of Ono.

In comparison, Minerva reef according to Google Earth image (posted below). Minerva is 240 nautical miles South West from Tongatapu island, where the Tongan capital is located.

From the preceding facts, it is would be difficult to place any credence on Tonga's claim to the disputed atoll.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs