The audience and esteemed panel of adjudicators were impressed by the high standard of debate, especially considering participants only had one day to prepare for the grand final topic. Jonathan Guyant of Vanuatu was particularly persuasive, putting a personal face to the topic and what it means to be ‘successful’ in Melanesia. He was awarded Best Speaker for the grand final debate.

Below is the transcript of his presentation.

—

The affirmative team quote Kofi Annan, and praise the effects globalisation may have on countries all around the world.

Now I could say I disagree – but don’t take my humble student word for this. Take this quote from the Nobel prize winning economist – yes an economist, we are talking about the economy here – and he states that ‘globalisation as it is, is not a force for good. People should govern markets – markets should not govern people. Globalisation and its drawbacks have led us to cross roads and it’s high time we changed direction’.

Distinguished guests, adjudicators, chairman, members of the opposing team, dear audience, a very good morning to you all. We would firstly like to thank PiPP for organising this debate competition. The motion for today’s final is that Melanesia must globalise to succeed.

My team and I find fault in this. We believe the Melanesian countries do not necessarily need to globalise in order to succeed.

do you wish to preserve the identity of your beloved Melanesia? Or do you want to be just another random face on the ever-expanding international body of this globalised world?

My name is Jonathan. I will define the key terms in the motion, introduce our team and the points we have come up with. I will also present our first point, concerning the economic setbacks that globalisation could bring to our Melanesian nations. Kali, our second speaker, will offer a rebuttal on the points given by the opposing side. She will look into the environmental impacts that accompany globalisation and will elaborate upon the fact that globalisation will be a threat to Melanesian culture and it’s custom. Aleesha, our third and final speaker will be the one to summarise all the points raised by our team and conclude our argumentation.

Jonathan Guyant presents his statement at the Grand Final of the 2015 Melanesian School Debate

Now let us take a closer look at the key terms in our motion. We feel that the affirmative team has overlooked these key terms in the motion; must, globalise and succeed. So starting with must. Must has a number of definitions, but the one that seems the most relevant to the motion, and most pertinent to us was the one stating that must describes an imperative need or duty that you are commanded to carry out. This would imply that globalisation is an imperative need or duty for Melanesia. But is it really?

Let us all reflect on Melanesia’s current status in different fields. Starting with the economy. We may refer to Melanesia’s economy as a ‘traditional economy’. This means that our countries suffer little from global financial crises’ that conversely greatly affect the wealthier globalised nations. Here in Vanuatu, 80% of the population live in rural areas. In the Solomon Islands, 78% live in rural areas. In Papua New Guinea the number goes up to 87%. And finally Fiji – yes Fiji – still has 47% of its population living in rural areas.

Ladies and gentlemen, this means that over half the population in Melanesia live in rural areas and rely on this traditional economy.

The next term is globalisation. The Financial Times define this as a process by which national and regional economies, societies and cultures have become integrated through the global network of trade, communication, immigration and transportation. This signifies that all of those things are facilitated though the opening of borders between countries. At first glance, one might think that it holds the answers to many of the worlds needs. But we would just like to clarify that the way you phrase a sentence can have different meaning and influence any given person’s opinion. What I mean by that is, opinions vary form one person to another, sometimes very drastically. It all depends on your perspective.

For instance, if you look at globalisation from the eyes of a money-crazed giant, trampling the forest beneath its feet, searching for ways to enrich itself at the expense of poorer countries, all the while totally disregarding their local culture and customs. Then of course you’ll jump on the globalisation bandwagon. What could the consequences possibly be? If you’re the giant that is.

What I’m trying to say is – globalisation is located in the giant superpowers of this world. The US, Western Europe and increasing emerging countries like China who are all main actors in this race to the bottom.

Consider what huge economic setbacks globalisation could bring to Melanesia. One of them is free trade. It’s supposed to eliminate unfair bias to newcomers and raise the economy in both developed and developing countries. But does it really do so?

Maybe for rich countries, just maybe. But not for us. Let us instead consider fair trade. When we open up markets without regulations our own key industries and businesses may suffer, for example sugar cane, copra or garment industries. Our livelihoods will suffer at the profit of a multi billion-dollar corporation. Also this lack of regulation leads to substandard working conditions and low pay. People, this happens when you cut costs at the expense of human rights.

The recent Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement and PACER-Plus are suppose to offer an opportunity to help Pacific countries benefit from enhanced regional trade and economic integration. But do they do this for Melanesia? They encourage competitiveness yes, but do not create a level playing field for the countries that are involved. These economic policies can also lead to labor migration. When there are fewer employment opportunities at home, people will move away in search of jobs. This decreases the labor force and can also lead to a brain drain of our young educated and talented people.

The third and final term that I will define is success. Once again, success can be defined in many ways. But success cannot be measured – you cannot rate success in any way shape or form. This term is defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary as the correct or desired result of an attempt. Now see we disagree. Others may say that success is the absence of failure. Again we disagree. Today, my team and I want to win. If we loose will we have failed? I don’t know yet, because success is a feeling. Success is the love that you see in your family and friends eyes, and the love that you give back. Success is the smile on your lips as you shrug off the defeat. Success my dear friends is anything you want it to be, and is discarding Melanesian ways, customs and traditions the path to success? Do you think that in the future you will be able to buy success at the next KFC or Adidas store they open in town? Do you really want to sacrifice your Melanesian identify just for the sake of globalisation.

To conclude my team and I believe that Melanesia must not resort to globalisation. But ladies and gentleman, what do you think? Do you wish to preserve the identity of your beloved Melanesia? Or do you want to be just another random face on the ever-expanding international body of this globalised world.

Photo credit: National Geographic

The SPC-EU project states on its website that it is ‘helping Pacific Island countries to improve the governance and management of their deep-sea minerals resources in accordance with international law, with particular attention to the protection of the marine environment and securing equitable financial arrangements for Pacific island countries and their people.’

The goal is laudable. The question is, can a donor that represents countries with mining interests protect and advocate for the rights of Pacific islands? It sounds like a serious conflict of interest, much as the PACER (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations) negotiations are, with Australian funding providing training to Forum island officials, paying for island officials to attend PACER negotiations, and financing an Office of the Chief Trade Advisor. All of this creates its own industry, a legion of trade officials who have a vested interest in promoting trade negotiations, whether or not they are, in fact, in the interests of the different island nations.

Face the facts: Deep-sea mining potentially offers a serious economic opportunity for the islands, but one that by its nature is not sustainable for the long-term and comes with possibly serious environmental consequences. In addition, experience with onshore mining is limited to a few Melanesian countries, while deep-sea mining experience and legislation is embryonic, at best.

Why keep reinventing the wheel when we have experience and examples of regional cooperation that works? The best of these are in fisheries. The Forum Fisheries Agency is a good example of a regional body that has provided solid management, monitoring and surveillance for the Pacific tuna fishery that has worked for the interests of the islands. But the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) is probably the body that is the most relevant for deep-sea mining.

Instead of going it alone, with each country establishing its own legislation and negotiating deals with mining companies individually, why not use the PNA formula that shows how rights can be managed and, through a unified effort, maximized for all parties.

What should be happening at the regional level is discussion aimed at establishing regional or sub-regional agreements so that island nations can agree to minimum terms and conditions for deep-sea mining. Drawing on the experience with the Pacific tuna fishery, the region could be working to set minimum terms and conditions that could be enacted through implementing arrangements to ensure national legislation is not undermined and small island economies are not played off against each other and exploited inequitably. This is exactly what PNA is now doing with the tuna industry.

Given that the International Seabed Authority, which was established by the United Nations to regulate these activities and develop a mining code for management and monitoring of deep-sea mining, is already reported to be issuing licenses for the Pacific, the islands need to get a better grip on what is potentially a multi-billion dollar industry, with significant side effects. Do the islands get a decent return and find ways to successfully manage environmental problems?

It seems so obvious that what is needed is a Forum Leaders declaration to address deep-sea mining at the regional level, where agreed-to regional strategies can ensure fair returns for the islands.

The ability of PNA’s eight members to maintain unity in setting minimum prices for fishing days and enforce management measures for the tuna fishery has resulted in the PNA skipjack fishery holding the highest global certification for sustainability through the Marine Stewardship Council, setting a minimum price for access to fish, controlling fishing effort, establishing compulsory satellite-based surveillance, enforcing 100 percent observer coverage of purse seiners, and implementing other requirements. Of even more relevance to deep-sea mining is PNA’s restriction limiting the transshipment of catch to export carrier vessels in designated ports, where species composition and harvest tonnage are checked and verified. This also provides significant additional direct and indirect economic benefits to the island ports. Similar transshipment requirements should apply to deep-sea mining ore carriers so independent inspectors can monitor and verify volumes and types of ores being exported.

This is unlikely to happen in the absence of a regional approach to mining. Instead of continuing down the path of individual islands negotiating their own separate deep-sea mining arrangements with all the poor governance opportunities this presents, what does the Forum region have to lose by convening a meeting with the goal of establishing a regional deep-sea mining agreement? Member countries through PNA have experience in developing successful regional agreements that establish rules and minimum standards for resource management and exploitation — to the great benefit of their members. Let’s use this experience for the benefit of all the islands in the area of deep-sea mining.

With the Forum summit in Papua New Guinea just six weeks away, this is an initiative that needs the leaders attention and action.

Photo caption: The Parties to the Nauru Agreement management of the Pacific skipjack tuna industry has resulted in a five-fold increase in revenue to its eight members since 2010.

PiPP is pleased to say that all its staff are safe and well. Our office was only lightly damaged. We now have power and internet back on and we will endeavour to keep our regional audience updated with this rolling situation as it unfolds. PiPP staff have been busy helping the recovery effort in many ways, from helping international media provide accurate coverage to assisting local charities and the Vanuatu government. We are working through the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO), which is co-ordinating the emergency response around the country.

It is too early to make a detailed analysis of the full impact of the cyclone and the various responses to it, but that will come. What we can say is that the community in Port Vila and beyond has shown remarkable resilience and rallied together in the face of this incredibly destructive storm. Also we can report remarkable efforts restoring essential infrastructure, including phone, power, roads, bridges and internet.

Special kudos to Pro Medical too; a local paramedic charity that does valuable first-response medical work. Pro Medical have made a big difference with their emergency response team, involved in clearing debris from around the airfield on day two, which allowed the arrival of aid flights to get on the ground quickly. Commercial flights have resumed.

Although the casualty rate is thankfully small, the reality is that tens of thousands of people have lost their homes and possessions, and many more are at significant risk as their food, water and medical supplies run out. There is an urgent need for basic humanitarian assistance to flow through to many of the islands, particularly in SHEFA and TAFEA provinces. There is concern about diseases such as dengue appearing, since there has been so much water on the ground following the cyclone.

Vanuatu has survived the initial impact, but now needs to survive the outcome of this unprecedented weather event. We are facing a situation in which tens of thousands of Ni Vanuatu on dozens of islands will require ongoing food, water and shelter assistance for not less than six months in order to avoid a humanitarian disaster.

As a UNICEF official put it, ‘We no longer have a medical emergency; we have moved on to a public health emergency.’

Another area of urgent need is to help kids get back to school. Many schools have been seriously damaged; lost roofs, spoiled water tanks and destroyed text books. It has been heartening to see many school kids themselves involved in the cleanup and keen to get back to learning. We believe special priority should be given to making sure school children can be back learning as soon as possible so their lives and ability to learn are not disrupted more than necessary.

Over the next week or so, PiPP will resume its operation and in the meantime we apologise for the interruption to our regular analysis and commentary.

This is a trying time for everyone here in Vanuatu but there is real determination to get back on our feet and make the best of it.

Our thoughts are with the many people who are struggling to get through this and rebuild their lives, but our island spirit is strong. With Vanuatu government leadership and a well-coordinated international aid response, the community can be supported to get through this disaster.