Epoch of Incredulity 2.0

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

In a follow up from earlier SIFM post, 

Queen Elizabeth will be touring Australia and  among her main list of priorities, is to re-affirm the waning diplomatic standing of the insignificant Commonwealth, in today's multi-polar world of sovereign credit downgrades and euro-zone currency crisis.

Some of the 1 percent will meet in Australia, against the back drop of an increasing number of global protests by individuals against Wall Street crony capitalism, the growing financial divide between the haves and have nots. Another rallying cry, is also an appeal to end the destructive military industrial complex , identify the banks which fund these entities and the wars they create.

Amnesty International UK investigates the role of UK banks in funding the 'booming business' (video below)




Chalmers Johnson speaks on Military Industrial Complex (video below).

Protestors march through the streets of Berlin during a demonstration to support the ' Occupy Wall Street' -movement Saturday Oct. 15, 2011. Protestors gathered at many major European cities Saturday to join in demonstrations against corruption, capitalism and austerity measures. (Maja Hitij)

People take a part in a demostration as they march towards Puerta del Sol square in solidarity action for the worldwide protest dubbed "Occupy the City" in Madrid on Saturday, Oct. 15, 2011. The organizers of the Occupy Wall Street announced on their website that protesters will demonstrate in concert over 951 cities in 82 countries. (Arturo Rodriguez)

Protesters march during a "March of the outraged" in Santiago, Chile, Saturday Oct. 15, 2011. The gathering in the capital of Santiago was one of dozens of global protests launched Saturday in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. (Aliosha Marquez)

Solomon Star Newspaper
"
Documents revealed Mr Castles had refused to obey the then Prime Minister’s orders.
“The failure, negligence and refusal to follow Sir Allen’s directions were because Mr Castles was an ‘AFP appointee’ as such an employee of the Australian government,” documents revealed.
“Therefore, Mr Castles was only answerable to the Australian government although he was the RSIPF police commissioner.”

Mr Castles disobedience to Sir Allen was a breach of section 43 (4) of the country’s Constitution.

Documents revealed RAMSI, the Australian government, and the former police commissioner in this regard has breached the Solomon Islands Constitution as a sovereign country.
"

Readers should be reminded of Australia's role in Libya as pointed out by  SiFM post, and highlighted by a post in the Interpreter . There is growing outrage in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, as addressed in Foreign Policy Journal article:

Critics of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and interventionism in general have long accused international humanitarian action of being a form of imperialism cloaked in humanitarianism. The BRIC/IBSA countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa; hereafter referred to as BRICS) are beginning to unite around this skepticism, countering western enthusiasm [...]

The BRICS countries have determined that humanitarianism should not compromise the sovereignty of individual states and should not restrict the rights of governments over domestic matters. This stance, of course, directly contradicts the new humanitarian basis of American foreign policy.

Land Destroyer post highlighted the Lies Behind the Humantarian Crisis:

[J]ustification for a "humanitarian war" where self-serving foreign interests masquerading as "international institutions" arrange for a disgruntled opposition vying for power whom they are supporting, funding, arming, and whose leaders they are harboring, to manage the perception of a given conflict to provide a predictably slanted pretext for "international intervention.

Color Revolutions post echoed the same sentiments:

Time and again, such indignation, sincere or calculating, has been used to justify or to cover up the crimes of the Western powers: the slave trade, the extermination of indigenous peoples and the systematic stealing of land and resources. This attitude of righteous indignation continues to this day and is at the root of the claim that the West has a “right to intervene” and a “right to protect”, while turning a blind eye to oppressive regimes considered “our friends”, to endless militarization and wars, and to massive exploitation of labor and resources.

The West should learn from its past history. What would that mean concretely? Well, first of all, guaranteeing the strict respect for international law on the part of Western powers, implementing the UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the worldwide US empire of bases as well as NATO, ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of force, lifting unilateral sanctions, in particular the embargo against Cuba, stopping all interference in the internal affairs of other States, in particular all operations of “democracy promotion”, “color” revolutions, and the exploitation of the politics of minorities. This necessary respect for national sovereignty means that the ultimate sovereign of each nation state is the people of that state, whose right to replace unjust governments cannot be taken over by supposedly benevolent outsiders.

Next, we could use our overblown military budgets (NATO countries account for 70 per cent of world military expenses) to implement a form of global Keynesianism: instead of demanding "balanced budgets" in the developing world, we should use the resources wasted on our military to finance massive investments in education, health care and development. If this sounds utopian, it is not more so than the belief that a stable world will emerge from the way our current “war on terror” is being carried out.

There are much similarities in the R2P ideology- its multiple levels of fashionable nonsense, wrapped in diplo-speak of humanitarian bombing and the RAMSI treaty applied in the Solomon Islands, which is closely examined in a recent post by Blak and Black  cross posted here:

Australia in the Solomons: A case study in 21st Century Gunboat Diplomacy

Posted on October 19, 2011 by Bakchos

 

The main purpose of Blak and Black is to attempt to bring to the world’s attention the hypocrisy and racism that inform contemporary Australian society.
While Australia’s treatment of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (“ATSI”) population affords ample testimony to the white supremacist attitudes of Australia’s so-called political, intellectual and cultural elites, a fact that the world community seems happy to ignore, as being nothing more than an Australian ‘domestic’ issue.

Australia’s neo-colonial and racist attitudes to the indigenous peoples of the Pacific cannot continue to be ignored by a world community that claims to aspire to an international society in which racism, bigotry and white supremacist attitudes have no place. It is with this in mind that I offer the following analysis of Australia’s racism and white supremacist attitudes to the indigenous people of the Solomon Islands.

As stated previously, my next post will be about institutional racism and systemic bias in the Australia’s criminal justice system. Something the indigenous peoples of the Pacific can look forward to, unless they stand up to Australia, exporting its systemic racism and corruption to them under the pretext of bring the ‘rule of law’ to the developing nations of the Pacific.

In international politics, gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of military power — implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force.

The term comes from the period of colonial imperialism, where the European powers would intimidate other states into granting trade or other concessions (unequal treaties) through a demonstration of their superior military power. A country negotiating with a European power would notice that a warship or fleet of ships had appeared off its coast. The mere sight of such power almost always had a considerable effect, and it was rarely necessary for such boats to use other measures, such as demonstrations of cannon fire.

Gunboat diplomacy is considered a form of hegemony. As the United States became a military power in the first decade of the 20th century, the Rooseveltian version of gunboat diplomacy, ‘big stick diplomacy’, was partially superseded by ‘dollar diplomacy’: replacing the big stick with the “juicy carrot” of American private investment.

It is this mixture of ‘big stick diplomacy’ combined with ‘dollar diplomacy’ that a racist and white supremacist Australia is using to cajole the increasingly nominally sovereign states of the Pacific into toeing Canberra’s line.
Australia has always maintained the argument that its role in the Solomon Islands is about peace keeping and has nothing to do with power projection, or attempts to influence opinion in a foreign capital, but is purely altruistic in nature and is aimed at restoring peace, order and good government to the people of the Solomon Islands. So what is the reality?

The Facilitation Act 2003

The Facilitation Act (“FA”) is an Agreement between Solomon Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Tonga and was signed on the 24th May 2003. The purpose of the FA was to pave the way for the deployment, by the signatories to the FA, of armed forces, police and other personal to Solomon Islands.

The FA facilitated the formulation of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI).
On 4th July 2003, Sir John Laply the then Governor-General of the Solomon Islands made a formal request for assistance under the provisions of the FA. This then led to the passing of the Facilitation of International Assistance Act 2003 (“FIAA”) (No.1 of 2003). The Agreement signed on the 24th May 2003 was incorporated as part of the Act.

The FIAA sets out the mechanisms under which RAMSI is to operate in the Solomon Islands. Section 6 of the FA gives RAMSI the same powers granted to the Solomon Islands Police under the Police Act. However unlike the Solomon Islands Police, Section 17 of the FIAA grants immune from legal proceedings for RAMSI personnel along with tax exempt status.

The issues of immunity from prosecution and tax exempt status bring into focus the concept of unequal treaties and national sovereignty. National sovereignty has at its heart, accountability.
One of the first national sovereignty issues we encounter when considering the role of RAMSI in the Solomon Islands is that of national or sovereign accountability. Under the FIAA the Participating Police Force (“PPF”) is accountable to the Deputy Police Commissioner who is a senior Australian Police Officer.

The FIAA is silent on whether the Deputy Police Commissioner should resign his/her Australian commission before acceding to the post of Deputy Police Commissioner of the Solomon Islands. If the Deputy Police Commissioner is allowed to accede to that post without first resigning their Australian commission, a parallel line of accountability is created within a sovereign state. Is this constitutionally sound?

This parallel line of accountability in turn gives rise to the question of immunity. Under the Solomon Islands Constitution, an aggrieved party may apply to the High Court for redress for the contravention of his/her fundamental rights. Section 18 (1) provides:

…if any person alleges that any of the [human rights provisions] of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him for, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such contravention in relation to the detained then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may apply to the High Court for redress.

If a situation arises where a member of RAMSI is alleged to have violated the fundamental rights of a citizen of the Solomon Islands, the courts would be powerless to act, unless RAMSI waives its immunity, which in turn raises the question: is the immunity provision in the FIAA consistent with the Solomon Islands Constitution?

Together with the immunity and tax exempt provisions granted to RAMSI under the FIAA it is worth giving some thought to what the legal personality of RAMSI actually is. As discussed in Blak and Black’s article The wisdom of Miles Jordana: Hidden in plain sight, there has been no formal United Nations Security Council endorsement of RAMSI, beyond a media statement in 2003 from the President of the UN Security Council at the time of the initial intervention.
UN Press release SC/7853, 26 August 2003, Press Statement on Solomon Islands by Security Council President Fayssal Mekdad (Syria), reads in part:

“The members of the Security Council welcome warmly the collective action of the countries of the Pacific Islands Forum to support the people of the Solomon Islands in their quest for the restoration of law and order and stability.

The members of the Security Council welcome the leadership exerted by Australia and New Zealand, in close partnership with other countries in the region in this regard. They hope that this important regional initiative will quickly lead to the restoration of normalcy and national harmony in the Solomon Islands and that it will facilitate a peace-building process and economic recovery. They encourage all parties to cooperate in promoting these objectives and to renounce the use of armed force and violence to settle their differences.”

The reality is that RAMSI has no legal personality. In the event that Australian RAMSI personnel are accused of violating the fundamental rights of a citizen of the Solomon Islands it is likely, because of RAMSI’s lack of legal personality that Australia would plead sovereign immunity under international law.

These fundamental legal issues were first raised by Mr Julian Moti QC in his capacity as Attorney-General of the Solomon Islands and eventually became a point of contention between Australia and the Sogavare Government. Ultimately Moti’s views on the constitutional irregularities of RAMSI led to the Australian orchestrated downfall of the Sogavare Government and Moti’s illegal rendition to Australia on what can only be described as trumped-up child sex tourism charges.

The reason Mont’s views have become relevant again is that following the 2006 riots in Honiara RAMSI police arrested and charged two members of the SI Parliament, Charles Dausabea and Nelson Ne’e, both of whom stood trial on charges alleging that they orchestrated the riots in April 2006. Former SI Foreign Minister Alex Bartlett (who had a large number of charges against him) also stood trial. This issues that ultimately lead to the 2006 riots have been more fully explored in my article AFP accused of fabricating evidence, yet again!

During the trial of Bartlett, Dausabea and Ne’e, the Solomon Islands High Court heard about written agreements that the then Solomon Islands Police Commissioner, Shane Castles (an Australian Federal Police officer on secondment to the Solomon Islands Police), made with two crucial prosecution witnesses. Pursuant to these agreements the witnesses received significant financial and other assistance on the condition they kept the agreements secret and gave evidence in Court only in accordance with their police statements.

The agreements were in a form that violated judicial rulings on such matters and attempts to keep them secret clearly violated Solomon Islands law governing disclosure of relevant information to defence lawyers.

Following their acquittal in the criminal cases brought by RAMSI, Bartlett, Dausabea and Ne’e commenced civil actions against the Solomon Islands Government for malicious prosecution. As part of that process lawyers representing the three applicants sought to subpoena records from RAMSI and the Australian Government regarding the 2006 riots. As predicted by Moti when he was Attorney-General for the Solomon Islands, as soon as Australia and RAMSI were called to account by the Solomon Islands High Court for their actions in the Solomon Islands, the Australian Government announced that it was invoking its right to immunity from prosecution pursuant to the provisions found in section 17 of the FIAA.

The implications for the ‘rule of law’ and an individual’s right to justice in the Solomon Islands, following Australian invocation of the immunity provisions of the FIAA are obvious. In response to Australia’s invocation of the immunity provisions of the FIAA, the Lawyer representing Bartlett, Dausabea and Ne’e, Mr Charles Ashley made an application in the Solomon Islands High Court on 14th October challenging the constitutional validity of the FIAA.

S.i.F.M
"Hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry. Australia's hypocrisy with regard to neo-colonialism, hegemonic aspirations in the Pacific has its mirror-like symmetry.

However, those particular lines of symmetry are no longer linear but radial; when one takes into account the global occurrences of the same destructive template by different Western nations, as if acting in concert controlled by a single goal of full spectrum dominance. "

According to documents filed in the Solomon Islands High Court the applicants are seeking the following reliefs against the Australian government as the first defendant and the Special Coordinator of RAMSI as the second defendant:

• The then Police Commissioner Shane Castles was subjected to the direction of the Australian Government and RAMSI and not the Solomon Islands Government which was a breach of subsection (5) of 43 of the Solomon Islands Constitution.

• A declaration that in breaching subsection (5) of section 43, the Australian Government or the Special Coordinator of RAMSI are not entitled to any claim of immunity under the provisions of the Facilitation Act of 2003; and

• A finding that actions by the Australian government and Special Coordinator of RAMSI not to disclose documents to the High Court is in breach of the Claimants right to a fair hearing as provided for under subsection (8) of section 10 of the Solomon Islands Constitution; and

• An order directing the defendants to release the required documents relating to the April Riots to the incumbent Police Commissioner; and

• A declaration by the Facilitation Act does not absolve the Australian Government and RAMSI from liability to pay compensation for contravention of fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals under Chapter 2 of the Constitution;

• A finding that the arrest, detention and prosecution of the three MPs in connection with the riots has breached Claimants rights and freedoms;

• An order damages must be paid by the defendants for breaching the Claimants fundamental rights and freedoms under Chapter 2 of the Constitution; and

• Findings and recommendations of the 2006 April Riots Commission of Inquiry against the defendants must be accepted;

• An order for compensation to be assessed if not agreed

• An order for costs on an indemnity basis; and

• Any further or other orders the court deems fair and just.

As RAMSI lacks a legal personality, it is likely that Australia will plead sovereign immunity at international law. If this happens, the wrong parties will be without any form of legal redress for the wrongs inflicted on them By the Australian Government, the Australian Federal Police and RAMSI.

How is this consistent with Australia’s altruistic claim that it is sole purpose for being in the Solomon Islands is to bring the ‘rule of law’ to one of its struggling neighbours? To my mind, the actions of Australia to date in the Solomon Islands reek of nothing more than the neo-colonial aspirations of an arrogant, white supremacist, neo-colonial, third rate power.
Will you sign the petition calling for a Royal Commission into the Australian Federal Police?

Island Business article reports on 3 Solomon Islands Members of Parliaments (MPs) and their constitutional case.

Former MPs file constitutional case against Australian govt

Three former Solomon Islands Member of Parliaments (MPs) who were wrongly accused for their roles in the 2006 April riots have applied for a constitutional case against the Australian government and RAMSI.

Wed, 19 Oct 2011

HONIARA, Solomon Islands (SOLOMON STAR) ---- Three former Solomon Islands Member of Parliaments (MPs) who were wrongly accused for their roles in the 2006 April riots have applied for a constitutional case against the Australian government and RAMSI.

Lawyer representing the three MPs, Charles Ashley filed the case in the High Court on Friday last week after RAMSI and the Australian government refused to submit documents to court in relation to the April riots.

This is a follow up of the civil case by the three former MPs Alex Bartlett, Charles Dausabea and Nelson Ne’e against the Government for malicious prosecution.

RAMSI and the Australian Government are not parties to the case but were required by the court to produce documents relating to the riot.

However, their legal representative Andrew Radclyffe wrote to the High Court last month claiming immunity that they were not required to answer to the court because they were protected by the Facilitation Act of 2003; which was accepted by the court.

The Facilitation Act states that no law can supersede the Act except the country’s constitution.

Therefore, Ashley wrote to Radclyffe advising them that his clients would be taking on a constitutional case against RAMSI and the Australian government.

The constitutional case involved sections of the constitution in relation to the Police Act, the Commission of Enquiry Act and the Facilitation Act.

The claimants have named the Australian government as the first defendant and the Special Coordinator of RAMSI as the second defendant.

Solomon Star article adds another layer of abuse in Australia's neo-colonial imperial agenda in the Pacific via leaked documents.

Secrets of Australia’s political agenda in SI leaked

Wednesday, 19 October 2011 10:29

TOP secret information has emerged in Honiara outlining the Australian government and RAMSI’s negligence; thus breaching the country’s Constitution which led to the 2006 April Riots.

Documents obtained by The Solomon Star also revealed that the Australian government had in the past appointed several key figures in the Solomon Islands Government sector to facilitate their political agenda in the country.
 
Two key figures that emerged from the report were former police commissioner Shane Castles and former Australian High Commissioner Patrick Cole.

Documents revealed the then Police Commissioner Shane Castles received directions from the Australian government not to dispatch a riot squad to calm the situation during the 2006 April Riots.
It was disclosed this was the Australian government’s way of signalling its opposition to China’s growing influence in the Pacific; and in this instance to allow looting and burning to take place to get rid of the Chinese populace in Honiara.

The documents revealed that Mr Castles appointment as police commissioner was also dictated by the Australian government so that he could work in partnership with then Australia High Commissioner Patrick Cole.

“They were both tasked by the Australian government to successful carry out Canberra’s political agenda in the Solomon Islands,” documents revealed.

“And there are fears the increase number of Australian advisors and appointees in the Government are placed there to carry out Australia’s secret agenda in the Solomon Islands.”
In mid-2004, it was revealed the Australian government through High Commissioner Cole pressured the European Union representative in the Solomon Islands not to commit itself to funding the then police commissioner William Morrell, a British national, when his contracts expired in 2005.

“In March 2005, Morrell’s contract expired and the EU advised then Prime Minister Sir Allen Kemakeza that EU will not be funding Morrell’s Police Commissioner’s post anymore,” documents revealed.

“On the 4th of March, former High Commissioner Cole sat as an interviewing panel member to interview candidates for the new police chief post and advised Sir Allen that Shane Castles was the suitable candidate.” But it was revealed Sir Allen informed the panel that his Government’s choice was Mr Morrell and not Mr Castles.

The Australian government in return threatened not to fund Mr Morrell if he was re-appointed but they would only fund Mr Castles if appointed, it was revealed.
“On the 18th March 2005, Sir Allen advised the Prison and Police Services Commission to appoint Shane Castles as the new police commissioner,” documents highlighted.

The Australian government on April 11 2005 then proposed to the Solomon Islands Government that Mr Castles be appointed under section 40 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 for two years. This was accepted by the former Kemakeza government as Canberra had also proposed to meet the full costs of their new police commissioner candidate.

Therefore, by virtue of section 40 of the Australian Federal Police Act, Mr Castles being an ‘AFP appointee’ must not disobey or fail to carry out directions, instructions or orders given to him by the Australian police commissioner, RAMSI or the Australian government.
Mr Castles must only act on instructions from Australia although he was the police commissioner of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF).

This was a total breach of the Solomon Islands Constitution section 43 (5) which stated that ‘the RSIPF police commissioner, in the exercise of his responsibilities and powers with respect to the use and control of the RSIPF shall not be subjected to the direction or control of any person or authority.

Prior to the 2006 April Riots it was also revealed Sir Allen had given general directions to Mr Castles to make sure police are prepared to maintain public safety and public order during the election of the new Prime Minister.
Documents revealed Mr Castles had refused to obey the then Prime Minister’s orders.
“The failure, negligence and refusal to follow Sir Allen’s directions were because Mr Castles was an ‘AFP appointee’ as such an employee of the Australian government,” documents revealed.
“Therefore, Mr Castles was only answerable to the Australian government although he was the RSIPF police commissioner.”
Mr Castles disobedience to Sir Allen was a breach of section 43 (4) of the country’s Constitution.
Documents revealed RAMSI, the Australian government, and the former police commissioner in this regard has breached the Solomon Islands Constitution as a sovereign country.
“At no time Mr Castles requested for AFP back up although he knew the RSIPF were ill prepared and handicapped to maintain such situations.”

The Australian government and RAMSI were also later claimed to have bribed certain people to fabricate false statements against three former Members of Parliaments as instigators of the riots.
The trio Alex Bartlett, Charles Dausabea and Nelson Ne’e were arrested, detained and prosecuted but later acquitted of all charges.

They are currently applying for a constitutional case against the Australian government and RAMSI and a separate court battle with the National Government for malicious prosecution.

By DOUGLAS MARAU

According to Julie Metz, Hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry. Australia's hypocrisy with regard to neo-colonialism, hegemonic aspirations in the Pacific has its mirror-like symmetry. However, those particular lines of symmetry are no longer linear but radial; when one takes into account the global occurrences of the same destructive template by different Western nations, as if acting in concert controlled by a single goal of full spectrum dominance. 
 

Club Em Designs

The Re-adjustment Bureau 2.0

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

Australia Network program Business Today segment that aired on Oct. 12 2011, interviews Australia's Parliamentary Secretary of the Pacific, Richard Marles, who touted Australia's vaunted big brother role in the Pacific region and Fiji. (Video posted below)



Lowy Interpreter blog post from Jenny Hayward Jones articulates the objectives about the Poll and artfully defends the methodology against the unfounded assertions.

During the interview, Richard Marles played up the rhetoric about Australia's role in the region (as routinely as a sales person pitching a product). However, Marles conveniently glosses over several unmentioned stains on Australian Foreign policy. Such sins of omissions only further illustrates the sincerity of Marles in seeking dissenting opinions on regional affairs, as well as pointing out the glaring holes in his own sentiments and shortcomings of the Government's foreign policy.

Among these sins that are rapidly eroding the image within the region of the RAMSI treaty and its creator, is outlined by a recent Black and Black post.
Another unmentioned area, in the Pacific, that escaped the attention of Marles; was the magnitude of effort and costs between Australia's over extended role in  the foreign wars of Afghanistan and Iraq; when cross compared with regional priorities like the Tuvalu water shortage which is presently unfolding.

The Economist blog post, clarifies the dimensions of the water problem.

Kevin Rudd 

"So how much is this bid costing Australia? Whatever it takes, apparently. Australian Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd stated in an address to the Press Club in June this year: “The government’s view is simple—you’ve got to be in it to win it."

Foreign Policy Journal (FPJ) article: Where America Goes, Australia Goes, especially on Afghanistan- highlighted the mounting costs in the expedition to nowhere:

Military deaths, Afghani deaths, billions of dollars, war-weary constituents, declining public support, and a lack of moral legitimacy means that both Australia and America need to exit Afghanistan now. As we know in Australia, as soon as American gets out, so will we. So why is the exit taking so long?

The answer to question posed by the FPJ article, as  it now appears has been answered equivocally by Australian Defense Minister, Stephen Smith, as reported in The Australian newspaper article:

Mr Smith reiterated that Australian special forces and instructors would stay on after 2014 to continue training and supporting the Afghans. He said it was important to send a message to the region that Afghanistan would not be abandoned and that there was a comprehensive development plan for the future.

NATO, the US and the international community generally must maintain their commitment to a long term strategic partnership with Afghanistan, Mr Smith said.
"Australia has made clear it expects to maintain a presence in Afghanistan after our current training and mentoring mission has concluded, potentially through institutional training, a special forces presence, military advisers, capacity building and development assistance."

With such a lengthy deployment of troops overseas, it is no secret that the costs of maintaining such an exercise, is simply unsustainable.

Hillary Clinton on America's Pacific Century 

"We are also making progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which will bring together economies from across the Pacific -- developed and developing alike -- into a single trading community. Our goal is to create not just more growth, but better growth[...]
And the United States and Australia agreed this year to explore a greater American military presence in Australia to enhance opportunities for more joint training and exercises[...]
How we translate the growing connection between the Indian and Pacific oceans into an operational concept is a question that we need to answer if we are to adapt to new challenges in the region[...]
As those wars wind down, we will need to accelerate efforts to pivot to new global realities.

We know that these new realities require us to innovate, to compete, and to lead in new ways. Rather than pull back from the world, we need to press forward and renew our leadership.

In a time of scarce resources, there's no question that we need to invest them wisely where they will yield the biggest returns, which is why the Asia-Pacific represents such a real 21st-century opportunity for us.
"

Given the recent progress of the Carbon Tax, that just passed in Australia's lower House of Representatives, coupled with the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, are technically supposed to create such  a windfall of taxes for Australia's treasury dept, and ultimately pay for these foreign entanglements.

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, recently opined in Foreign Policy magazine article titled " America's Pacific Century":

 As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters.

In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values.

One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment -- diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise -- in the Asia-Pacific region.

It appears that the opening sentence of Clinton's opinion article, does not exactly mesh with the Australia's Defense Minister's comments about the  draw down in troops.

Three options are on the cards. Either, the U.S and Australia both pack it up. Or the US exits and Australia is holding down the Afghanistan fort. Or both nations (including other coalition members) stay indefinitely.

Odds are heavily on the latter choice, due to the strategic aspects of Afghanistan with respect to Eurasia and the discovery of rare earth mineral deposits in-situ.

One would think, if there was oil or minerals to covet in Tuvalu or other low lying Pacific islands; the water problem among others, would have been solved years ago.

Without a doubt, there is some degree in double speak on Clinton's part, when she points out the regional ambitions for the U.S:

The time has come for the United States to make similar investments as a Pacific power, a strategic course set by President Barack Obama from the outset of his administration and one that is already yielding benefits [...] We are also expanding our alliance with Australia from a Pacific partnership to an Indo-Pacific one, and indeed a global partnership. From cybersecurity to Afghanistan to the Arab Awakening to strengthening regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific, Australia's counsel and commitment have been indispensable.

It is geopolitics and the tools of statecraft that are being utilized in liberal proportions. Susan Merrell's article in October's issue of Island Business under girds such politics used and abused in the Pacific region.

The excerpt of  Susan Merrell's article:


POLITICS: Courting the Pacific for a seat in UNSC Leaders meeting target of lobbying

Susan Merrell


Australia’s engagement with the Pacific is more a matter of national responsibility than national interest, said Lindsay Tanner, former Australian Federal Minister of Finance and Deregulation, during a keynote address in Sydney at an Australian Economic Summit last month. 

The summit, hosted by the Australian public policy network Global Access Partners, included in its delegation senior public servants, members of Australian parliaments both state and federal, and industry captains. Amongst this milieu, no one challenged his statement.
“All of the South Pacific countries can fit into something the size of Brunei,” Tanner explained to justify his ‘our-national-interests’-lie-with-Asia stance’.This was an interesting comment as the summit only marginally post-dated the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting in Auckland.
 
Were you to judge the importance of the Pacific by the stellar international cast assembled for its 40th occurrence you may be forgiven for thinking the Pacific was of considerable interest to most of the world.
There was a 50-member strong delegation from the US; there was the French Minister of State for Foreign and European Affairs, Alain Juppé (seems the Rainbow Warrior incident has been forgotten while maybe not quite forgiven); and Asia was well represented by, amongst others, both China and Taiwan. 

There were new associate members present and more announced for next year and numerous and ever-increasing groups with observer status, including the United Nation—with the icing on the cake being the visit by the Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. This year, more than in previous years, PIF was ‘bigger than Ben Hur’.

Ulterior Motives
 
But ‘national interest encompasses so much more than the economic terms that largely informed Tanner’s comment; like the bid for a seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that the current Australian government is vying for in 2013, in competition with Finland and Luxembourg. (Whether a place on the UNSC is indeed in the ‘national interest’ is a debate that needs to be saved for another time.) 
In the voting, tiny Pacific nations, if a member of the United Nations, have the same weighting as larger, richer, more populous countries in the election of delegates to the UNSC—one member country, one vote.
 
With the advent of PIF, the Pacific nations were conveniently gathered in one place—sitting ducks for a spot of lobbying. (If you’re wondering why Australia is competing with the strangely dissimilar and geographically remote countries of Luxembourg and Finland, it lies in the fact that the entire Pacific falls under the category of Western Europe and Others. 

Lobbying for votes could be why Luxembourg and Finland had their own representatives hovering around the periphery of the Auckland conference. All of this, hijacked and detracted from the core business of the Forum.
 
In this ‘lobbying’, Australia was an unashamed participant. Ban Ki-Moon, for example, was in the region as Australia’s guest. He will be a crucial player in whether Australia is successful with its bid.
The Secretary-General was flown around the Pacific in an RAAF aircraft to visit Kiribati and the Solomon Islands, in the company of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Pacific, Richard Marles, ostensibly to meet with government officials and to observe first-hand the effects of global warming.
 
But more than this, it was an opportunity, not lost, to showcase what Australia is achieving in the Pacific, guided by a chaperone with considerable vested interest. To this end, RAMSI’s headquarters in the Solomon Islands was also visited.

The cost to Australia of strutting the world stage in money and integrity
 
So how much is this bid costing Australia? Whatever it takes, apparently. Australian Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd stated in an address to the Press Club in June this year: “The government’s view is simple—you’ve got to be in it to win it.” 

And, as it will take more than just the votes of the Pacific to win the bid, Australia has been courting African votes too with pledges of aid (for example, an extra $10 million was pledged by Prime Minister Gillard for the Horn of Africa, bringing Australia’s contribution to $100 million, fourth largest in the world.)—or am I just being cynical?
 
The head of the conservative Lowy Institute’s Melanesian programme, Jenny Hayward-Jones in an article titled “Rudd neglects friends in the Pacific” is equally as cynical.
She asks what relevance Luxembourg has to a Melanesian Spearhead Group meeting (to which it was invited last March) and goes on to wonder whether that’s any stranger than Rudd speaking at the African Union? Where’s the interest?
 
It’s all about securing votes. Julian Moti, a constitutional lawyer and controversial former attorney-general of the Solomon Islands who is a strong critic of Australia’s role in the Pacific, seems to be in agreement with the far more conservative Hayward-Jones. Moti told the Fiji Sun: “It is the case of the pot calling the kettle black when Australia condemns the practice of corruption in the Pacific yet resorts to buying votes to secure a seat for itself in the UNSC by dispensing billions of dollars to Africa and the Pacific in aid funds.”
 
Strutting the world stage does have its costs and Australians do not bear them uncritically. While in the Solomon Islands, Marles was presented with a Solomon Sharks footy jumper in appreciation of the Australian government’s commitment to developing sports in Solomon Islands, in particular AFL with its Australian Sports Outreach programme and Australian Volunteer positions. 

This is shaky territory for the Australian government, especially in light of the recent media attention about the failed 2022 bid to host the Soccer World Cup with allegations of improper AusAid involvement, bribery, corruption, and yes, buying of votes.
 
The UNSC lobbying is starting to feel a little like déjà vu. At what stage does lobbying becomes bribery?
“As noble as it [the dispensing of aid] might otherwise appear,” says Moti, “one cannot de-link Australia’s practice of sovereign charity from its national aspirations nor Rudd’s personal ambition to sit where H.V. Evatt once did.”
And all this raw ambition is impacting negatively on the Pacific Islands Forum that is threatening to be overrun by peripheral issues of the powerful.

Has the Forum gone beyond its original remit?
 
The Forum was set up as an offshoot of the South Pacific Commission (SPC) in 1947 to promote trade and development in the colonies. By 1971, the Pacific countries had created PIF, separate from SPC, so that they were able to debate political matters forbidden at SPC by the colonisers. 

It was why, according to Moti, that “…there was an initial resistance to their [Australia and New Zealand’s] inclusion by the Forum’s founders.” They feared the continued domination of the bigger powers.
 
Now in 2011, President Anote Tong of Kiribati has noted the manifestation of this original fear. He told the press: “If you allow yourself to be bullied, then you shall be bullied.”And there is evidence that the less powerful are intimidated by the political might of the Australian and New Zealand delegations, even within the ranks of the influential Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). 

Immediately prior to the Pacific Islands Forum meeting, the MSG met in Nadi, Fiji. Fiji is still an active member of this group although suspended from the Forum. In a show of support for Fiji and solidarity with each other, there was only one member missing from the table and this was the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak Socialiste (FLNKS) of New Caledonia. 

PNG and Solomon Islands sent their Prime Ministers and other government ministers; there were senior government representatives from Vanuatu as well as Commodore Bainimarama. Resolutions were passed including the MSG nomination of Ambassador Kaliopate Tavola of Fiji as the joint MSG candidate for the position of PIF’s next Secretary-General.

Nevertheless, facing New Zealand’s opposition at the Forum, they elected to take the path of least resistance and go with the crowd to unanimously vote in the incumbent, Tuiloma Neroni Slade of Samoa, for a further term.
The big powers had their way as they had with the continued suspension of Fiji. Why the MSG buckled is anyone’s guess—one I’m going to attempt to make.

The Melanesia/Pacific Way
 
In my dealings in Melanesia, I’ve often been frustrated by the locals’ distaste for confrontation. Seemingly unable to say “no”, an agreement is often made that is never intended to be acted upon.
Could this be what’s happening to the 2005 PIF Agreement?Each member of the PIF (16 of them) signed the latest agreement in 2005. However, to-date, only 8 have ratified it.

Ostensibly, the agreement is much the same as the one from 2000 except the ‘Secretariat’ has been replace by ‘Forum’ and the ‘Secretary General’ replaced by the ‘Secretariat’. Also included in the new agreement is that the ‘Forum’ is “established as an international organisation.”

It seems the Forum is becoming more legalistic whereas originally it was a far more loose association.
It may be that some of the members are wondering just who these latest changes benefit and are reluctant to take this final step. I may be wrong, perhaps eight countries have just overlooked the ratification—but for six years?

And while the Pacific Islands Forum leaders have “…reaffirmed their strong and unanimous support for Australia’s candidature for the UNSC for the term 2013-2014…”, maybe their votes are another manifestation of that apparently not unique aforementioned syndrome.
 
For while tallying the promised and possible votes for Australia for the seat on the UNSC, a Sydney Morning Herald opinion columnist warned: “Some of Australia’s existing commitments will undoubtedly fall through,”—“victims of the ‘‘rotten lying bastards’’ syndrome, as Australia’s former UN ambassador Richard Butler once put it. Some countries pledge support simply to avoid the embarrassment of saying no. Others play double-games.” That sounds so Melanesian!


Other related SiFM posts on Pacific geopolitics.

Club Em Designs

Fiji- State Of Independence.

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton conveys message for Fiji Day.

Club Em Designs

X-Post: Croz Walsh's Blog --: The Foreign Media's Coverage of Fiji: Past and Pre...

Croz Walsh's Blog -- Fiji: The Way it Was, Is and Can Be: The Foreign Media's Coverage of Fiji: Past and Pre...: Graham Davis's address to the Fiji Literary Festival, Nadi, October 2 – 9, 2011 Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. Ni sa bula vinaka, nama...

Club Em Designs

Olá Fiji

Cross posted from The Jet Newspaper article 1 and article 2 and corroborated by Radio Fiji and Fiji Village. Excerpt of articles:                                                                                        PM opens embassy in Brazil

(Photo caption: Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and  Brazilian Under Secretary General for Asia Pacific Region, Ms Maria Edileuza Reis cutting the cake to celebrate the opening of Fiji’s embassy in Brasilia, Brazil.)

Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama opened Fiji’s first ever mission in the South American continent today at Brasilia, the capital of Brazil.

The Prime Minister said the opening of the embassy in Brasilia symbolised the new paradigm shift in Fiji.

“My Government believes in engagement with the wider international community,” Commodore Bainimarama told the guests present at the historic event.

“We believe that engagement should not only be confined to those nearest to us. International co-operation and engagement are critical to achieving global understanding and peace.”

Commodore Bainimarama said that working together as a group and enhancing more global integration provided the impetus to address issues such as climate change and peacekeeping among others.

“After all, it is only through appreciating differences and capitalising on diversity can we become rich in mind and matter,” Commodore Bainimarama said. “Thus, international co-operation and engagement will also help us as individual nations to achieve economic growth and economic diversification.”

In the past year, Fiji has opened up resident missions in Indonesia and South Africa. Fiji now has resident missions in all the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) except Russia, which is served by Fiji’s resident mission to Japan.

The opening of the embassy marks another milestone achievement for Fiji as we become the first island nation from the Pacific to be represented in Latin America. Fiji established diplomatic relations with Brazil on February 16, 2006. Brazil is the largest national economy in Latin America, the world’s eighth largest economy at market exchange rates. The economy of Brazil is diverse encompassing agriculture, industry and services.

Fiji’s imports from Brazil include, among others, vegetable products, coffee, prepared food stuff, beverages, spirits, vinegar, tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes, chemicals, plastics, grains, footwear items, glassware, ceramic products, jewelry, iron and steel.

The opening of the embassy in Brazil brings [Fiji's] total number of resident missions overseas to 14.                                         

Brazil To Open Mission in Fiji.

Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama with the Brazilian Secretary General for Asia Pacific Region, Ms Maria Edileuza Reis

The Federative Republic of Brazil has confirmed it will reciprocate Fiji’s opening of a diplomatic mission in Brasilia by establishing its mission in Suva. Brazilian Secretary General for Asia Pacific Region, Ms Maria Edileuza Reis gave an assurance to the Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama today. She expressed Brazil’s intention to open up a resident mission for Brazil in Suva as soon as possible. “Brazil is looking to further develop close cooperation with Pacific island countries and the Fiji mission in Brasilia could be a start in engaging and enhancing cooperation,” Ms Reis said.
“A mechanism for political consultations is being developed between Brazil and Fiji and this is a step forward in further strengthening our bilateral relations. Once in place this will provide a way forward for our two countries in coordinating positions with regards to multilateral issues.” Commodore Bainimarama urged Brazilian companies and the Government that Fiji’s opening of its mission in Brasilia was not only intended for Fiji alone but should be seen as a window for Brazil for more trade and economic opportunities to other Pacific island States.
“Our resident presence here not only provides an opportunity to know and understand Fiji and to gain access to the Fijian market but it also gives Brazil and South Americans an entry to the wider Pacific region,” he said.
“Fiji being the hub of the Pacific small island countries is the conduit for accessing the wider Pacific region. It is for this reason that many countries like USA, and multilateral agencies such as the World Health Organisation and United Nations Development Programme use Fiji as their headquarters to service other Pacific island States.
“I would urge the Brazilian Government to take advantage of this new relationship we have now and consider the establishment of a resident mission of the Brazilian Government in Fiji.”
This mission he said could serve the other Pacific small island countries also. The Fijian Government will work on a mechanism to see that all necessary arrangements are made for the opening of a diplomatic mission for Brazil in Fiji. “The Fijian Government today commits that it will provide all the necessary assistance for the establishment of your Mission in Suva,” the Prime Minister said.
                                                                                                                                                                        

Club Em Designs

Epoch of Incredulity- AFP Sins Of Omission In The Solomon Islands.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) accused of Solomons fraud, this particular case (video posted below) with reoccurring themes deduced by Blak and Black posting on the disturbing series of malfeasance under the banner of Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (“RAMSI”)treaty.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         The excerpt of Blak and Back post (Hat tip) crossed posted here:

The wisdom of Miles Jordana: Hidden in plain sight
Posted on September 12, 2011 by Charon

The following is a modified version of an article which first appeared in the Fiji Sun on 12 September, 2011 and which Blak and Black has linked to since publishing the following article. The Fiji Sun article was subsequently copied and published by the Solomon Star on 14 September 2011. I gratefully acknowledge the Fiji Sun as being the major source for what follows.


Miles Jordana, in focus.

As the High Court of Australia deliberates its decision in the long-running Julian Moti Affair, three high ranking Australian public servants must worry whether they have done themselves a disservice by ruining the career of the former Attorney-General of Solomon Islands and his ascendant Melanesian constituency.

They are Miles Jordana – of “Children Overboard” fame, who became the fall guy for former Australian Prime Minister John Howard; Federal Agent Peter Bond who became the fall guy for former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty; and finally Patrick Cole who became the fall guy for former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

Over the last six months or so I have written and published extensively on the careers of the latter two fall guys – Bond and Cole. However, Miles Jordana has remained in the shadows, a man of mystery hiding in plain if shadowed sight. It is time to correct this oversight.

Blak and Black

"One of the justifications used by European colonial powers when they began colonizing other peoples lands was that they were bringing the ‘rule of law’ to the “savages” of the Southern Hemisphere.
This is the same argument that Australia used when it established RAMSI and when it has intervened in the sovereign affairs of other near neighbors such as Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste. How can a country that so disregards the ‘rule of law’ within its own borders claim to be in a position to export it to others?
"

Jordana has been and remains an important player in the affairs of the Pacific region. He was the architect of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (“RAMSI”) treaty and was the author of the legal advice that facilitated the unlawful removal and rendition to Australia of the former Attorney-General of Solomon Islands, Julian Moti QC.

While ruminating on the fate of these three fall guys, I realised that I have reached that point in my life where the Tanakh takes on a more immediate relevance and so demands a more thorough investigation. As I was reading my Tanakh the other evening I came to the account in 1 Kings 3: the two women plead their case, the sword is suspended over the child, and then Solomon grants the child a last-minute reprieve, resolving the case as he determines the identity of the true mother.

But a tragic loose-end is usually forgotten as the story is remembered today, that being of the second child, who was accidentally smothered by its mother and scarcely acknowledged after its death. This child is largely forgotten partly because our understanding of the story is based on one particular version of the biblical text the Masoretic Bible. The dead child has more of a presence in other ancient versions of the biblical text.

So it is with the wondrous career of Miles Jordana.

When one reads the published curriculum vitae of Jordana one wonders how a man with a largely forgotten background has managed to rise to the dizzying heights of a Deputy Secretary with the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (“AGD”), not a mean feat by any standards. So, in order to shed some much deserved light of the forgotten career of the AGD’s own Miles Jordana I have decided to look beyond the Masoretic Bible of the Australian press to find the real Miles Jordana.

Jordana becomes Howard’s fall guy

“Lord, how this world is given to lying. Quite so, Falstaff, but there is lying and lying.”

Miles Jordana first rose to prominence during the so-called “Children Overboard Affair” when he was point man for Prime Minister John Howard on the issue. Readers will probably recall that day in 2001 when Howard and his team threw truth and the ‘rule of law’ to the wind in favour of political expediency, which is just another term for corruption.

For those who don’t recall the incident let me refresh your memories. In the early afternoon of 6 October 2001, a southbound wooden hulled “Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel” designated SIEV 4, carrying 223 asylum seekers and believed to be operated by “people smugglers”, was intercepted by HMAS Adelaide 100 nautical miles (190 km) north of Christmas Island and then sunk. The next day, which was the day before the issue of writs for the 2001 Australian Federal Election, Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock announced that passengers of SIEV 4 had thrown children overboard. This claim was later repeated by other senior government ministers including Defence Minister Peter Reith and Prime Minister Howard.

Shortly after the rumors about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard began to circulate in the Australian press and almost a month before the 2001 Australian Federal Elections, Miles Jordana was told that photographs purporting to show asylum seekers throwing their children overboard were misrepresented.

Children Overboard misrepresentation – the timeline – compiled after first Senate enquiry

• 8 Oct 2001: Katrina Edwards – first assistant secretary of Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – testifies that Jordana rang her asking for more material on the children who were thrown overboard such as their age and the number who went into the water. Jordana was sent a number of reports. No report ever came from Defence that mentioned children being thrown overboard.

• 10 Oct 2001: Jordana received a copy of the Taskforce “Talking Points” for the 10th October which stated, “15 suspected authorised arrivals either jumped or were thrown overboard by other suspected unauthorised arrivals.” No mention of children.

• 7 Nov 2001: Miles Jordana calls Jenny Bryant on 7th Nov to “refresh” Howard’s memory for National Press Club Address. Bryant says she supplied Jordana with reports from 8th Oct: DFAT SITREP 59. – HDHQ OP GABERDINE/OP RELEX 0800 BRIEF 8 Oct 2001. Jordana later tells Bryant they were not much help to him in preparing for Howard’s speech (probably because neither mentioned children being thrown overboard).

• 7 Nov 2001: Miles Jordana told by PM’s People Smuggling Taskforce chief Jane Halton that she has heard there are doubts about the photos and that they did not represent the children overboard incident. According to Halton, Jordana said that the Prime Minister’s Office already knew about the photos and they had it under control. The next day, The Australian reports that HMAS Adelaide sailors claim no children were thrown overboard. Asked at the Press Club about the claim, Howard dismisses it as hearsay on hearsay. He ignores a question on whether the photos were wrong. He reads from an Office of National Assessments (“ONA”) report that says children were thrown overboard.

• 7 – 8 Nov 2001: ONA report attachment warns Howard that the report he subsequently uses at the Press Club on 8 November 2001 is flawed. Attachment is sent with ONA report to Howard, but Howard claims Miles Jordana separated the two documents, only gave him the reports, and didn’t tell him about its flaws. ONA rings Jordana again on 9 Nov concerned about the way the ONA report is being used in the media. Once again Jordana does nothing to clear the record.

What is certain, is that Jordana was told unequivocally that the photos were of the sinking of the refugee boat on 8 October – the day after the Government said the children overboard incident occurred. What is fact, is that the Government never corrected the misrepresentation or conceded that the event had never happened, until after the 10 November election which returned Howard as Prime Minister for a third term.

The account of Jordana’s role shows that one of Howard’s closest confidants was aware of serious misgivings almost a month earlier, although it remains unclear whether this was passed on to the Prime Minister.

What is most revealing about the Children Overboard Affair is the fragility of the public service in the face of both ministers and more perniciously, ministerial staffers, which leads to clear failings in accountability structures and mechanisms.

Howard refused to allow Jordana to give evidence at either of the two Senate Enquiries into the Children Overboard Affair; the Australian public has never been given the opportunity to test the veracity of Howard’s statements. If Howard is correct and Jordana failed to properly brief him, this would be negligence of a high order. So what became of Jordana who so negligently advised Howard?

Jordana directs Australia’s national security

After so negligently advising Howard on the Children Overboard Affair, Jordana was appointed head of the National Security Division of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (“DPMC”), which was responsible for providing whole-of-government advice to the Prime Minister and his office on national security issues and on defence and intelligence matters. In addition, the division provided secretariat and policy support to the National Counter-Terrorism Committee and the Australian Government Counter-Terrorism Policy Committee.

In his role overseeing the National Security Division of DPMC, Jordana became the architect of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (“RAMSI”) and the Pooh-Bah (my apologies to Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan for so desecrating the Mikado) of Australia’s neo-colonial expansion into the Asia-Pacific region.

RAMSI was created under the Agreement between the Solomon Islands, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and Tonga concerning the operations and status of the police and armed forces and other personnel deployed to Solomon Islands to assist in the restoration of law and order and security. It came into force in Australia on 24 July 2003, following an agreement executed in Townsville on the same day. The Agreement continues indefinitely, with Australian financial support reportedly exceeding one billion dollars during the first five years of RAMSI’s operations.

The legal status of RAMSI was and remains problematic, which has been an issue of contention between the Solomon Islands Government (“SIG”) and the major donor countries Australia and New Zealand on several occasions, most notably when Manasseh Sogavare was the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands and Julian Moti QC, the SIG’s Attorney General.

On the issue of legality, there has been no formal United Nations Security Council endorsement of RAMSI, beyond a media statement in 2003 from the President of the UN Security Council at the time of the initial intervention.

According to the Press Statement on Solomon Islands by Security Council President Fayssal Mekdad (Syria), UN Press release SC/7853, 26 August 2003:

“The members of the Security Council welcome warmly the collective action of the countries of the Pacific Islands Forum to support the people of the Solomon Islands in their quest for the restoration of law and order and stability. The members of the Security Council welcome the leadership exerted by Australia and New Zealand, in close partnership with other countries in the region in this regard. They hope that this important regional initiative will quickly lead to the restoration of normalcy and national harmony in the Solomon Islands and that it will facilitate a peace-building process and economic recovery. They encourage all parties to cooperate in promoting these objectives and to renounce the use of armed force and violence to settle their differences.”

It was the lack of formal United Nations endorsement and perceived Australian self-interest, in the form of ‘boomerang aid’, that was at the heart of the friction between the Sogavare Government and Australia. Sogavare had expressed his determination to replace foreign officials in the SIG with nationals, as a way of promoting homegrown nation building.

This friction came to a head when Sogavare decided to appoint Fiji-born Australian lawyer Julian Moti QC as the SIG’s Attorney-General. From the moment of his appointment as Attorney-General Australia had desired to ‘rid’ the Solomons of Moti, because he was seen to be an impediment to the proper workings of the RAMSI Agreement and for other reasons they wanted him out. Australia saw him as an impediment to Australia’s neo-colonial interests, so the long-dead and buried prosecution in Vanuatu was revived to discredit Moti and obstruct his access to the office of the Attorney-General of the Solomon Islands. That was the subject of careful and considered thought by Australia from 2004 to 2007. There was a segment of the Solomon Islands parliament who held the same view and when a change of government came about in 2007, that is when the plans to deport him were hatched and executed.


Jordana targets Moti

Jordana came from obscurity and rose to prominence riding the wave of the Children Overboard Affair, an affair – scandal is perhaps a more appropriate word – in which he became Howard’s fall guy and was rewarded with the Pooh-Bah of national security for his sacrifice.

What Moti meant for Jordana was the premature end of RAMSI as well as the prospect of mainland China’s encroachment into the Australian-protected territory of Solomon Islands which was being quietly charted by Moti. The premature end of RAMSI would also oblige Australia to pay out certain RAMSI related contracts, an obligation that over the remaining six years from June 2007 to June 2013 could run into many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. A scandal of that magnitude would require a head and not just any head; it would claim the head of none other than the Pooh-Bah himself.

How to save the Pooh-Bah’s head? Depose the Attorney-General and it would be business as usual. From the time Moti was nominated by Sogavare to be the SIG’s Attorney-General his days were numbered as he potentially stood between Jordana and his next promotion. Perhaps more concerning for Howard, Moti became a bigger and bigger obstacle to Australia’s neo-colonial ambitions as his ideological influence grew in Melanesia.

A major issue impacting on Jordana’s plans was that the SIG’s Solicitor-General at that time was none other than the RAMSI-appointed Melbourne silk Nathan Moshinsky, who seems to have been professionally troubled about the legalities of extraditing Moti to Australia. His concerns stemmed from two core issues that rendered Moti non-prosecutable and therefore, non-extraditable: dual criminality and the Solomon Islands statute of limitations. Australia then removed all the stops in an effort to change Moshinsky’s mind.

At this point it is worth considering the exchange between Moti’s barrister Ian Barker QC and the bench during the hearing of Moti’s appeal in the High Court of Australiaon 3 – 4 August:

“Also my friend has said several times, and it is in the submissions, that it would have been improper for the Australians to have given advice to the Solomon Islands and that they had to go along without the benefit of Australian advice, it would have amounted to meddling in their affairs, but the evidence is quite to the contrary because when Mr Moshinski [sic], the Solomon Islands Solicitor-General, advised that the extradition could not succeed, Australia did its best to talk him out of it. I will take you, if I may, to volume 2, page 730, the last paragraph of that letter. It is again to Mr Bond and it is dated 16 October 2006:

Urgent advice is now required from AGD – that is the Attorney-General’s Department, of course – that may influence Mr Moshinsky’s position. I request that a copy of the aforementioned Cable be obtained – Then if we go to page 732, the last paragraph in that passage:

We were preparing a written response to the Acting Attorney-General of the Solomons indicating that we do not agree with his interpretation of Solomon Islands extradition law and its application –

Again, that is referred to at pages 882 and 883 of the same volume. Page 883, just below line 10:

23 Oct 06 –Australian Attorney-General forwarded a letter to Mr Moschinsky [sic] suggesting a more persuasive alternative interpretation that could be considered. (My emphasis)

Jordana’s “more persuasive alternative interpretation”

The more persuasive alternative interpretation referred to above was actually signed off by none other than Miles Jordana. At that time Jordana was a Deputy Secretary in the Australian Attorney-General’s Department and head of the National Security and Criminal Justice Group. What is interesting about the choice of person to sign the more persuasive alternative interpretation is that at the time Jordana signed this advice, both the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions (“CDPP”) in the person of Patricia Summerell and the AGD’s in the person of Joanne Blackburn had officers who specialized in extradition. Why didn’t either of these officers sign the more persuasive alternative interpretation?

While I’m prepared to accept that in a public service that had become increasingly politicized under Howard a fall guy could still achieve the dizzying heights of a Deputy Secretary responsible for National Security and Criminal Justice, I wonder what expertise a non-practising, non-academic and non-specialist lawyer could possibly offer as a more persuasive alternative interpretation to the Solicitor-General of a sovereign state on a matter beyond the scope of his portfolio? For someone who had no standing and qualifications to express any legal opinion on Solomon Islands law, how Jordana could even venture a more persuasive alternative interpretation of that law is astonishing.

What is of even more interest and concern is the covering e-mail that accompanied the more persuasive alternative interpretation sent to Moshinsky. The e-mail reads:

“For file, Miles Jordana only wanted to send the Moshinsky letter he signed if senior officers in DFAT, and the Minister were happy for it to go. As you can see from the file notes, a FAS [First Assistant Secretary ]in DFAT approved the letter, but it was not ultimately sent because Greg Mole did not want it to go.”

That e-mail was followed later in the day by one advising a number of interested parties that the letter containing the more persuasive alternative interpretation was going to be sent. It was sent by Anthony Seebach, Director Extradition, International Crime Cooperation Branch and reads:

I just wanted to confirm that the letter signed by Miles Jordana on Friday evening will be sent to Mr Nathan Moshinsky, Acting Attorney of Solomon Islands, this afternoon. The letter responds to Mr Moshinsky’s concerns about the application of Solomon Islands extradition law to the Moti case. That is, based on his interpretation of the legislation, the Solomon Islands may not be able to act on Australia’s provisional arrest request. The letter from Miles suggests there is a persuasive alternative interpretation that could be considered.

Greg Mole, the Chief of Staff for the Australian Attorney-General probably didn’t know that Nathan Moshinsky was not the Acting Attorney General of Solomon Islands but merely its Solicitor -General.Even so, he wasn’t comfortable about sending the letter, the FAS in DFAT who approved the letter wouldn’t sign it, the signatures of the officers in the CDPP and AGD who specialized in extradition law and practice don’t appear anywhere on the letter, but it was signed by Miles Jordana. Why? I have asked this question in the form of a Freedom of Information (“FOI”) request to the AGD. I’m still waiting for a response!

Jordana’s opinion: food for thought

What appears to have happened is that the more persuasive alternative interpretation became a hot potato that nobody wanted to sign, because there were concerns about the accuracy and impartiality of Jordana’s approach.

Why was the more persuasive alternative interpretation eventually signed by a Deputy Secretary with no specialist qualifications who headed an unrelated branch within AGD? Why was that opinion on a sensitive matter of national sovereignty for SIG to remain confidential only to Moshinsky, an Australian-funded official and not supposed to be distributed to his erstwhile employer, the SIG? The official answer to these questions will have to wait until I receive a response to my FOI request, however as a preliminary it is worth considering the implications for Jordana if Moti remained Attorney-General.

Moti had publicly stated his intention of lawfully terminating RAMSI’s unlawful occupation of the Solomons. This created a number of issues for Howard and Jordana. Howard didn’t want his Deputy Sheriff’s badge tarnished by being forced to back down on RAMSI, while Jordana didn’t want to be seen as the bureaucrat who wasted hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayer’s money to compensate for contractual breaches.

More importantly, if there was to be an investigation into why so much Australian taxpayer money had been paid to RAMSI-related companies in compensation for early termination, questions might be raised about the actual structure of those companies and where the real fruits of Australia’s ‘boomerang aid’ to the Solomons was really going. The potential political fallout from such an enquiry, coming on the back of the Children Overboard Affair, would have been disastrous for both Howard and Jordana. So Jordana became Howard’s fall guy once again.

Oil for Food

On 11 April 2006 John Howard made a statement to the Inquiry into certain Australian Companies in relation to the UN Oil-for-Food Programme. In that statement he identified Miles Jordana as being his Senior Advisor International from 12 April 2001 until July 2003. The issue in contention was not dissimilar to the issue in contention in the Children Overboard Affair:was Howard as Prime Minister of Australia aware of certain pertinent facts? As in the Children Overboard Affair, Howard denied all knowledge, he relied on his advisers. In this case it was his Senior Adviser International upon whom he relied.

Specifically, Howard was asked if he had read 21 cables written by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (“DFAT”) identified by the solicitor assisting the inquiry. The period the inquiry was particularly interested in was from 1999 to 2003. Jordana was Howard’s Senior Advisor International for three of the five years in question. Howard advised the inquiry that he did not read any of the aforementioned cables, because they were not provided to him by his Senior Advisor International.

While I’m prepared to accept that it is mere coincidence that Howard relied on the same defence, with the same alibi in both the Children Overboard Affair and the oil-for-food scandal, the defence starts to rub a bit thin by the third attempt, but that’s what public servants are useful for, aren’t they?

Weapons of Mass Destruction (“WMD”)

In late 2002, the Bush administration began soliciting support for war in Iraq using the political slogan “coalition of the willing” to refer to what later became the Multinational Force – Iraq. To back up its claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that administration referred to intelligence from Italy, Britain, and France detailing interactions between Saddam Hussein and the governments of Niger, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Specifically, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet and United States Secretary of State Colin Powell both cited attempts by Hussein to obtain uranium from Niger in their September testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that time, using information derived from the same source, the UK government also publicly reported an attempted purchase from an (unnamed) “African country”. In December, the United States Department of State issued a fact sheet listing the alleged Niger yellowcake affair in a report entitled “Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council”.

The classified documents detailing an Iraqi approach to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger were considered dubious by some analysts in U.S. intelligence, according to news accounts. By early 2002, separate investigations by both the CIA and the US State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced serious doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council, judging them counterfeit.

In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” This single sentence is known now as “Sixteen Words”. The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, “These sixteen words should never have been included.” The administration attributed the error to the CIA.

Most people now accept that there were no WMD’s in Iraq and the whole thing was a fairy-tale dreamed up by politicians and their spin doctors in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. In Australia we had the same crew peddling the same spin about WMD’s as we did about Oil-for-Food, Children Overboard and Moti – Howard and Jordana.

Like the fable that is King Solomons Mines, those caverns of untold wealth hiding somewhere in Africa, the African uranium story was equally mythical, but leads to the invasion of a sovereign state – Iraq – the destruction of its regime which was antithetical to western interests and the plundering of its resources for the benefit of the invaders.

How is this injustice justified? In the same way that the Children Overboard Affair and the AWB scandal have been justified – ignorance!

Imagine for a moment that you are a defender in a criminal trial, standing in the dock, responding to questions from the prosecution and you claim ignorance of every fact presented to you. What do you think is going to happen? You’re going to be convicted. Yet, Howard and Jordana have done just that on more than one occasion and guess what, they have gotten away with it. Is this justice?

Now here’s the story, an allegation which had been debunked in public months before Howard used it as one of the justifications for going to war in Iraq. How could he possibly not have known that there was no substance to that allegation? He relied on his Senior Advisor International, who at that time was none other than one Miles Jordana!

AUSTRAC

Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) is an Australian government agency, established in 1989 under the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (“FTRA”) and continued under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (AML/CTF Act). Certain classes of designated services must be reported to AUSTRAC, in particular bank cash transactions (i.e. notes and coins) of $10,000 or more. AUSTRAC passes information on to other government agencies to help them act against tax evasion, organised crime, money laundering, and welfare fraud.

AUSTRAC is the last aspect of Miles Jordana’s career that I will rescue from the vagaries of the Masoretic Bible and restore to its proper place in his curriculum vitae. As Deputy Secretary National Security and Criminal Justice Group, Jordana has overall executive responsibility for AUSTRAC.

While I’m prepared to accept that Jordana did not move into the role of Deputy Secretary National Security and Criminal Justice Group until after the events that I will detail below occurred, he still has an ongoing responsibility to fully investigate the issues, which hasn’t been done, because they are politically sensitive.

In 2003 a former Commissioner for ACT Revenue reported to AUSTRAC that he had found evidence of possible illegal money transfers from the ACT Department of Treasury that potentially breached certain provisions of the FTRA. Nothing was done about this complaint or subsequent follow up complaints. It is almost inconceivable that in this age of heightened concerns about organised crime and terror, the very organisation tasked with tracing and monitoring potential criminal activity failed to act on information provided by a senior bureaucrat in another Australian jurisdiction.

The ‘rule of law’

One of the justifications used by European colonial powers when they began colonizing other peoples lands was that they were bringing the ‘rule of law’ to the “savages” of the Southern Hemisphere. This is the same argument that Australia used when it established RAMSI and when it has intervened in the sovereign affairs of other near neighbors such as Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste. How can a country that so disregards the ‘rule of law’ within its own borders claim to be in a position to export it to others?

While there is lying and lying, any lies by senior bureaucrats, whether directly or by omission, which serve to mislead the public in order to protect their political masters or their own jobs is unacceptable. Any country that allows its bureaucrats to indulge in this type of deception cannot claim to be operating within the ‘rule of law’. More to the point, any country that allows its senior bureaucrats or politicians to engage in deception for political or personal gain should not be rewarded with the public recognition that comes with appointments to United Nations bodies, such as the Security Council.

While Miles Jordana’s career is significant because of his role as a fall guy for his political masters and the rewards he reaped by being such, he is not unique in Australia’s modern public service. Are these the standards that the developing nations of the Asia-Pacific should be asked to aspire to, or do the indigenous people of the region deserve better? I suggest that all the indigenous people of the region, including Indigenous Australians deserve better. Say no to corruption – say no to Australian interference in our traditions.

Club Em Designs

The Re-adjustment Bureau - Upsetting the Anglosphere Applecart In The Pacific.

Chinese Vice Premier to make transit stop-over in Fiji
By Online Editor
5:25 pm GMT+12, 23/09/2011, Fiji

Chinese Vice Premier, Hui Lingyu

Chinese Vice Premier of the State Council of the People's Republic of China, Hui Liangyu will be transiting through Fiji next week, according to the Fijian ministry of information.

Hui is expected to inspect a guard of honour by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces when he arrives on Wednesday 28 September.

A traditional ceremony of welcome will be accorded to Vice Premier Hui who will be accompanied by six ministers and other top level officials.

During a visit to China by Fiji’s President, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau last year, Hui expressed his country's commitment to seeing the relationship with Fiji grow adding that with frequent high-level exchanges, China and Fiji had established important cooperative partnership, and cooperation in such fields as trade, agriculture, culture, education and tourism had gradually expanded.

Vice premier Hui had also stressed to President Nailatikau that the Chinese Government attaches great importance to developing relations between the two countries and respects people's choice to development path.

The vice premier spent the early part of his career in Jilin Province, directing agricultural affairs and Party work before working his way up as vice-governor of Jilin Province. He later held various positions in high offices within the Chinese Government before taking up the post of Vice Premier in 2003.

The high level delegation is expected to depart Thursday morning.

SOURCE:MINFO/PACNEWS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

China plays own game for ‘constructive’ Pacific aid

20:26 September 22, 2011 0 comments

Chinese aid in Pacific follows its own Beijing rules. Photo: Chinhdangvu News

China made it clear during recent talks with Pacific Islands Forum leaders that it does not want to participate in coordinated aid efforts in the Pacific. This has ruffled some feathers, but is China’s growing involvement and influence in the Pacific really a cause for concern?
Pacific Scoop:Report – By Sarah Robson
China doesn’t want to be bound by the rules and regulations of regional institutions in how it delivers aid to the Pacific.
And as a sovereign state, China is quite entitled to turn down invitations to participate in coordinated aid efforts in the Pacific.
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, incoming chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, said the Chinese delegation in Auckland earlier this month for talks with Forum leaders made it clear they did not want to be bound by the Cairns Compact, an agreement for better coordination and information sharing about aid programmes, the New Zealand Herald has reported.
Key is not concerned about China’s involvement in the Pacific, and has emphasised New Zealand’s own constructive relationship with China.
Key’s view is shared by New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully, who says New Zealand is one of the Pacific countries best placed to embark on joint projects with China in the Pacific – if not now, then in the future.
In an interview with the Lowy Institute as the Forum got underway, McCully said China was attempting to play a constructive role within the region.
“The challenge is to try and translate that into more partnerships, greater transparency, greater cooperation,” he said.
“It’s a work in progress, but I take the view that China is doing in the Pacific what it is doing everywhere else in the world. It’s looking for resources that it needs to access, it’s looking to make sure that its interests are understood as a global player. We need to meet them halfway and turn that into a more cooperative effort in the region.”
 China’s vision
China sees itself as a friend and cooperative partner of Pacific Island countries.
Vice-Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai, who headed the Chinese delegation at the post-Forum dialogue, says China will “continue to be a positive and constructive force in the region”.
At the talks, Cui outlined how China is going to help Pacific Island countries achieve sustainable economic and social development.'
Cui emphasised initiatives to provide more support for tourism in the region, as well as support for the development of the energy and fishery sectors.
China’s assistance to the Pacific will include more high-level visits, more educational scholarships, more infrastructure projects, forums to facilitate closer business ties, debt write-offs and a US$400,000 contribution to the China-Pacific Island Forum Cooperation Fund to be used for agreed projects.
Cui described China’s aid to the Pacific as “mutual assistance” between developing countries, as opposed to official development aid that is provided by the likes of Australia and New Zealand.
“For many years, China has been extending economic and technical assistance to Pacific Island countries and regional organisations, despite the fact it is not a rich country itself,” he says.
“As China’s economy continues to develop, China will gradually increase its aid to other countries as its ability permits, explore new ways and areas of cooperation with all Pacific Island countries and further expand economic and technical cooperation.”
Cui also signalled that China is ready to learn from the experiences of other aid-giving countries and will begin to look at cooperative initiatives, as long as certain conditions are met.
“Under the principle of adopting a step-by-step approach and starting with easier issues, China is ready to discuss trilateral cooperation on aid with relevant counties and organisations, on the condition that the will of recipient countries are respected with no political strings.”
Pacific partner
China’s involvement in the Pacific is part of its wider global strategy.
“China does see itself as a leading power in Asia principally, but it also has aspirations for itself in a global sense, and not just in an Asian sense, but in a wider Asia Pacific sense,” says Professor Robert Ayson, director of the Centre of Strategic Studies at Victoria University of Wellington.
“At the very least, it sees itself as one of a series of major powers in Asia, but there’s a debate going on as to whether China sees itself as potentially the preeminent power, in a sense displacing the United States in the Asia Pacific.”
However, Professor Ayson says the importance of the Pacific region to China should not be overstated.
“For China, the South Pacific is not a leading priority, it’s not the thing that keeps Chinese leaders awake at night,” he explains.
“But I think China does want to be seen as an active part of the Asia-Pacific, I think it sees the South Pacific as part of the wider region where it would like to have some influence and some presence.”
Dr Marc Lanteigne, a senior lecturer in the School of Political Science and International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington, says that for a long time, Chinese investment in the Pacific could be traced back to its diplomatic competition with Taiwan.
A truce between China and Taiwan came into force in 2008, but since then, China has widened and deepened its investment in the Pacific.
Dr Lanteigne says there are a variety of reasons for this.
“There are some resources which China is interested in, primarily fishing, and in Papua New Guinea, oil, gas and minerals. In other cases though, China is looking to the future for when the civilian and military vessels start operating in the South Pacific.”
Some commentators have interpreted China’s actions in the Pacific as being part of a strategy to push the United States and its allies from the western Pacific.
“I don’t subscribe to anything quite that draconian,” Dr Lanteigne says.
“China is really trying to underscore that it’s not similar to previous powers in the region, such as the US and France and Britain. They’re really playing up the idea that they are a partner, they are not interested in big state-small state economic cooperation, they are simply a partner.”
Cooperation prospects
Although China is within its rights to say no to participating in coordinated aid efforts in the Pacific, Dr Lanteigne says its reluctance to do so is unfortunate.
“It has been argued, especially by groups such as the Lowy Institute, that for China to enter into more conjoint development projects with some of the other major players, it would be beneficial,” he says.
“It would mean money better spent, plus it would allow for greater coordination of aid in the region.”
One of the issues for China is that, unlike most major players in the Pacific, it has no central aid agency like NZAid or AusAID.
“Aid money comes from a variety of different quarters, some of which are much less transparent than, say, AusAID and that has not done much to fuel speculation that some of this aid is politically motivated more than anything else,” Dr Lanteigne said.
It may just take time to bring China into the fold of Pacific aid initiatives.
“China is still very much a newcomer to the region and it is still trying to solidify its own South Pacific agenda. There might be still a bit of lingering mistrust for China to join various other joint aid initiatives until it feels that its own aid policies have matured, but it’s very tough to tell.”
But as China’s global power grows, Professor Ayson says it is inevitable China would have more of an aid presence in the Pacific.
“I think it’s a matter of rather than being fearful about it, it’s about seeking to try to work with China and to make sure that, like other countries and other external presences in the region, their presence is as helpful and responsible as possible and that they are not in a position of any sort of monopoly position.”                                                                                                                                                        
Sarah Robson is a Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies student journalist on the Asia-Pacific Journalism course at AUT University.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Other sources on China diplomacy:                                                                                                                                                                            

•  (China Daily- USA) FM deflects Clinton's comments on Pacific Islands

•  (International Affairs) The Yuan's Role In The Global Financial System.

• (Strategic Culture )Insight: Looming U.S. decision on Taiwan arms risks China rift.

•  (Foreign Policy) Do we still care about the Taiwan Relations Act.

• (Xinchua) Chinese FM meets African Union Commission chief, leading foreign diplomats

•  (East Asia Forum) Chinese nationalism and where it might lead

•  (SiFM post) Islanders With A Dragon Tattoo
  

Club Em Designs