In the peaceful north Pacific, a different type of migration has been continuing steadily to the United States for two decades. Visa-free access to the United States enjoyed by citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau has dramatically impacted islanders from these three north Pacific nations in ways both positive and negative. This provision in the Compact of Free Associations with these countries—that gives Washington control of the defense of this vast region, as well as access to an important military installation in the Marshall Islands—has worked as a safety valve for island economies and governments that do not have the ability to provide jobs, education and health care opportunities to meet population growth.

Most of the ‘conversation’ about migration from the islands to the U.S. has focused on the out-bound for obvious reasons: There are estimates that upwards of 40 percent of all Micronesians and Marshallese now reside in the United States and its territories, such as Guam. There is a lot of negative, particularly in Guam and Hawaii where high costs of housing have fueled homelessness, and the large concentrations of islanders in these relatively small populations have in recent years resulted in their being a target of racism and discrimination. Yet, a similar demographic on the mainland U.S.—in Northwest Arkansas, where an estimated 10,000 Marshall Islanders reside in a tri-city area—has been largely positive, with islanders being actively recruited by huge poultry packing companies. Meanwhile, in the western state of Oregon, which has thousands of Micronesians, Marshallese and Palauans scattered in various cities, the island community formed the Compact Action National Network, which has successfully gained Oregon State Legislature adoption of important legislation for resident islanders.

Islanders living in the U.S. mainland do better economically, no doubt because of the lower cost of living in many locations in which islanders have chosen to settle. A small percentage of these out-bound migrants run afoul of the law in the U.S., illegal behavior that often results in deportation and a red-flag status preventing them from returning to the U.S. Deportations have escalated, mirroring the increase in the number of citizens of these three nations living in the U.S. While the number of deportees was generally single digit annually in the early- and mid-2000s, it has risen significantly. In 2015, 70 Micronesians, 23 Marshallese and 11 Palauans were deported from the U.S. Since 2003, the Marshall Islands is averaging 16 deportations annually, with a spike in 2013 to 37. While these numbers are small on a global scale, they are big for small island populations, and have had some negative consequences at home.

An editorial in the October 2, 2015 edition of the Marshall Islands Journal commented on an assault by two attackers that sent a young man to the hospital with a broken jaw and other injuries. ‘The two gentlemen administering the jaw-busting were…deported from the United States for engaging in unbecoming activities,’ the editorial noted. This incident offered ‘a view of the dark side of Marshallese easy visa-free access to the U.S. It is as though we take large groups of our citizenry and transport them off to the States and then, after a period of time, the bad actors are weeded out and returned to Marshall Islands: American employers are beneficiaries of good Marshallese labor while Marshallese citizens here are “beneficiaries” of bashed-in jaws. Is there something wrong with this picture?’

But the in-migration is by no means entirely negative. The Compacts with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands that came into effect in 1986 (and in Palau in 1994) allow islanders to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. For many young islanders, the U.S. military is their ticket off the island and opens opportunities for post-service education. In fact, by the 2000s, recruitment on a per capita basis from the Compact nations (as well as American Samoa) greatly out-paced enlistment rates of Americans.

An increasing number of U.S. military veterans are returning to Majuro to work. During the past year, we’ve seen demonstrations of what Marshallese veterans with 20 or more years of service bring to the table when they are put into positions of authority. Robson Almen, a ‘lifer’ with over 20 years in the military, retired several years ago, applied for and was hired as the Marshall Islands Chief Electoral Officer in 2014. He established a plan with a timetable and proceeded to implement it in the lead up to the November 2015 national election. It was one of the smoothest-run elections in decades that contrasted sharply with the chaos of the 2007 vote. An editorial in a December edition of the Marshall Islands Journal praised Chief Electoral Officer Almen and Electoral Administration ‘for an efficiently managed national election. In contrast to some past elections, there were very few problems associated with the recently concluded vote.’

In the November national election, Majuro voters elected Kalani Kaneko to serve in the 33-seat parliament. Kaneko retired in 2015 after 20 years of service in the U.S. Army. After President Hilda Heine was elected in late January, she named Kaneko as the minister of health. Solving long-standing problems at the ministry, and in particular Majuro hospital—which suffers from chronic doctor, nurse, medicine and supply shortages—is a Herculean task. Kaneko does not have a health background. What he brings to the table is 20 years experience working in the U.S. Army that inculcated an appreciation of leadership, accountability, systems, and time management. These are the mostly missing ingredients at the Ministry of Health that Kaneko is now working to develop.

The point is, both Almen and Kaneko have an understanding of accountability and systems management from their tenure in the Army, and because of their decades of experience in the military system, they do not seem to have difficulty implementing requirements that lead to improved services to the public while relegating family relationships to a backseat in government service. While opportunities for jobs, health care and education have been the main motivating factors pushing Marshallese and Micronesians to leave to the U.S., in recent years the decline in service by a corruption-riddled government workforce is negatively impacting quality of life for many island residents, and increases motivation to migrate.

President Heine in her inaugural address to parliament in February this year emphasized the need for government workers to improve services for the public. Kaneko, Almen and other U.S. military veterans who have returned to the Marshall Islands are showing how direction, purpose and motivation can be used to engage government workers to deliver services at a higher level.

All of this emphasizes that as dramatic as these north Pacific nations’ experience is with out-migration, it is not a one-dimensional situation of people simply fleeing their islands for greener pastures. It is changing lives of many islanders who have moved to the United States, many for the better, some for worse. But it is also beginning to bring back people with decades of experience that they are putting to work for the benefit of the public.

Caption: Marshall Islands Chief Election Officer Robson Almen (second from left during tabulation of votes from the November 2015 national election) is one of a number of U.S. military veterans who have been returning after years of service in the military to work in key positions in government.

We must not forget that the same laws will apply in the same national parliament and provincial houses of assembly. In the same national and district courtrooms, case law will grow and precedents will continue to be set in the absence of the hard questions that may never get asked about the blatant breaches in our society and adopted system of government.

From 2017 our leaders will (more than ever before) need the knowledge, political will, grace and patience to restore integrity, democracy and the rule of law as a national emergency in order for all else to be rebuilt without exception. The truth is a new government in 2017 will inherit inter-generational debt, a massive deficit and redundant parliamentary rules/standing orders governing important decision-making processes. Not to mention the crumbling sanctity of the National Executive Council (NEC) or cabinet.

They will realise that legislation set up in principle to provide robust governance mechanisms have been misunderstood or ignored by their predecessors. In 2017 a newly elected parliament will discover an exhausted public service, a manipulated police force, an angry defence force, and many broken Papua New Guineans with drought and income starved families and disrupted livelihoods.

Those elected Members of Parliament will find very drained state-owned enterprises, institutions and agencies incapable of operating with only a steady trickle of public funds to deliver wages, health & education or district support according to policies and promises of the past and present. They will find that the much promised revenues from oil and gas have been committed to paying off the current government’s unilateral decisions and therefore debt for unauthorised loans for generations.

New leaders in 2017 will need to navigate a global economic downturn of epic proportions with PNGs development and economic interests at heart. Our new leaders will discover that our broken service delivery system and our overheated economy will need more than elected candidates with tunnel vision.

Those elected will need to be legislators, not aspiring millionaires or public finance managers. Newly elected leaders will require an understanding of serious fiscal discipline, tax and industrial relations reform and economic modelling that reflect PNG’s economic conditions and our revenue-earning potential in sectors other than petroleum and energy.

PNG will need MPs who are humble yet extraordinary thinkers to guide monetary/fiscal, social, cultural and development policy simultaneously to aid a new-look holistic reconstruction strategy focused on understanding that our vast natural resources should never again be left to a single individual who knows no institutional, spiritual, executive or national boundaries. Those new MPs should be held to the universal promise that candidates seek election (and re-election) to be servants to their people not master manipulators of their resources.

All the hopes in online commentary revert to a single assumption that PNG will inevitably have free and fair elections next year. If all we do is dare to dream it’s no longer enough because we will inevitably get what we vote for yet again.

Photo: Sepik Wewak Urban Local Government facebook group

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 appointment process is rather opaque, with an unwritten convention that the post will be rotated through the regions. It’s the Caribbean’s turn, but their vote is split between two candidates. Africa has also put forward a candidate, so the field is wide open.

It is an interesting time for the Commonwealth, teetering as it does on the brink of irrelevance or renewal. Its main value has been as a force of liberal democracy and a platform for small states, but it has never really lived up to its potential, leading some commentators to write it off completely.

Lack of strong leadership is one of the reasons that the Commonwealth has struggled to fulfil its charter and the selection of a new Secretary General is an opportunity remedy this.

Among this group, both of the female candidates stand out.

Dominica’s candidate, Baroness Scotland, has a personal narrative that resonates and inspires.

Born in Dominica, Baroness Scotland migrated to the UK as a child, worked hard, became a QC, and then rose to be Britain’s first female Attorney General, having previously served as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Her politics are progressive, and she seems to be genuinely passionate about winning the post of Secretary General.

As Secretary General, I would immediately seek to build consensus on a revitalised Commonwealth that is focused on tangible and expanded delivery on its twin goals of democracy and development. Recognising that the Commonwealth isn’t simply about member States, but the people of those States, its work will always be deeply rooted on delivering cost-effective and measurable positive impact on the lives of the people of the Commonwealth.

Baroness Scotland’s main rival is Sir Ronald Sanders, currently Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador ‘Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary’ to the United States. He has the backing of a handful of Caribbean countries and was part of an eminent persons group in 2010 that reviewed the Commonwealth. However his campaign has been tainted by a report that he received $1.4m from an alleged fraud against Antigua’s government.

Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba, the third candidate, may be able to capitalise of the split in the Caribbean, by building on a base of support from African countries. She has served at the ministerial level and did two terms as Deputy Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat from 2008-2014, so would bring relevant experience to the job.

How will the selection play out?

Caribbean countries are conscious that they have a golden opportunity to win the selection. However their failure so far to unite behind a single candidate has compromised their campaign. In the final hours, they will also need to secure support from other member countries, and this is where the Pacific could play a critical role. The pragmatic approach for the Caribbean would be to unite behind the candidate that can attract sufficient support from other regions. The pragmatic approach for the Pacific would be to support the candidate that best reflects the interests of small island states.

In the event that there is no consensus, the process allows for last minute candidates to be put forward. In recent weeks Australia’s ex Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been touted by the right-wing press as a ‘compromise’ candidate. Whether he is suitable and would garner sufficient support is debatable. He has a mixed record when it comes to the Pacific, and is not without his controversies. There are of course opportunities for further candidates to emerge.

From a Pacific perspective, Baroness Scotland would be a good Secretary General. She understands the needs and issues facing small island states – recently calling for a 1.5 degree target on climate change. Moreover she has the ability to lobby on our behalf, and would be a welcome and capable first female Secretary General of the Commonwealth.

Whoever emerges as Secretary General, they will face the challenging job of rebuilding the organisation’s relevance in our region and across the world.

Photo caption: Baroness Scotland – a contender for Secretary General of the Commonwealth

But the Pacific has never had a voice here.

Despite being UN members, no Pacific island nation has ever served on the UNSC in its 70-year history. Why is this? Is it something Pacific nations should aim for?

So far only Fiji began the process for selection, but withdrew its bid in 2011. The Solomon islands is currently exploring a bid for 2032-2033. To be a member of the UNSC you have to put your name down on the Asia Pacific Group candidature chart and so far APG countries have put their names down until 2042-2043 (Qatar). This suggests that it will be up to the next generation to decide. However if the Solomon is elected unopposed by the General Assembly then it will be a role model for other Pacific island countries to follow suit.

For decades now, there have been growing calls for reform of the UN system and in particular the UNSC. The question often asked is whether the 5 permanent members of the UNSC adequately reflect our changing times. At a time when nations like India, Brazil and Germany have become economic and political powerhouses, why are they not permanent members of the UNSC? Why is Africa, South America and the Islamic world not represented at all? Many would argue that the US, China and Russia remain the most powerful nations in the world, thus their presence is undisputed. But Britain and France?

The realpolitik view is that the current permanent members (known as the P5) would never willingly give up their seats, so the only way forward is to add to the P5, perhaps to have 9 permanent members which better reflect the many centres of power and population in today’s world. This may improve “inclusiveness” but may not make the UNSC more effective. Since each permanent member has the power of veto, which is often exercised, the idea of having a P9 with their own interests could mean even more use of the veto, thus paralyzing UN action on key issues. So far, reform in this area has been glacial and there is little room for the Pacific to wield much influence on the permanent members.

However, there is nothing stopping Pacific island countries from having a go for a non-permanent seat. But to do this requires concerted diplomat efforts and deep pockets since nations must campaign and convince others to vote for them when the seats become available. An additional problem is the way the Pacific is lumped in with Asia. Rules for membership of the UNSC state that one member from each regional block is appointed each year. According to the UN website, the Pacific is not even mentioned by name here – it is considered part of Asia:

Each year the General Assembly elects five non-permanent members (out of 10 in total) for a two-year term. In accordance with the General Assembly resolution 1991 (XVIII) of 17 December 1963, the 10 non-permanent seats are distributed on a regional basis as follows: five for African and Asian States; one for Eastern European States; two for the Latin American and Caribbean States; and two for Western European and other States.

For some time there have been calls to decouple “Pacific” from “Asia-Pacific” as they are in fact different regions and Asian countries usually dominate the process. If there was enough will, Pacific diplomats could take up this issue with the P5 members and the UN Secretary General and seek to create a distinct “Pacific” category, like Africa, which would certainly enable Pacific nations to have permanent representation. Then the only lobbying they need to do is among themselves.

Realistically, no country in the Pacific could wage a campaign on its own under the current rules. But there is nothing to stop Pacific nations from coming together to all get behind one candidate, pool resources and aim for the top. Some have suggested that the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) grouping would be the best group to help get behind such a bid.

Right now, the world is focused on climate change ahead of the Paris COP21 summit. There has never been a more urgent time for Pacific nations to have a voice at the global table to highlight their concerns and demand action to keep global temperature rise from under 2 degrees Celsius. We have eloquent leaders such as Kiribati’s President Anote Tong who have a high international profile and whose concerns for his country also reflect the concerns of all Pacific nations. Why not get all the Pacific nations behind Kiribati – or another climate-vulnerable nation – to ensure our concerns are not just heard but acted on. Climate change has become a global security issue and to have a Pacific voice at the UNSC for a one year term would give some leverage to improve the awareness of our issues and be part of a process that demands compliance to agreed resolutions.

There is frustration that financial pledges from developed countries to those most vulnerable often don’t materialize. A voice on the UNSC can add pressure to make sure climate change financing – including pledges of $100 billion by 2020 – actually happen. The key for PICs to be in the UNSC is to ensure that climate change and the special vulnerabilities of Small Island Developing States (SIDs) become an integral part of the security agenda. This is opposed to the current view of security meaning ‘boots on the ground’.

And it is not just climate change – increasingly global security issues involving war, peacekeeping operations, refugees and tax avoidance by multinationals also affect the Pacific and we have every right to have input into the way the UN decides on its course of action.

What would be involved if a Pacific nation tried to bid for a seat? What are the challenges?

To begin with, it would require most of the nations’ diplomatic resources to be devoted to UNSC work, which means less on other UN work, such as sustainable development goal (SDG) efforts. It would be a strain on capacity since the government would have to deploy their best diplomats, which may mean important bi-lateral relationships could suffer along the way.

Like many small states, our current disadvantage is that most Pacific UN missions are very small and lack depth of experience in UN matters. Furthermore most of our diplomats are politically employed and when their contracts end they are not retained by the civil service – so experience is lost.

Another factor that counts against island nations is political instability – we need our vision and policies to be stable. Regular changes of government does not allow us to strategically reposition ourselves and maintain long term stability of purpose in the UN arena.

It is fair to question whether there is any real value in bidding for a UNSC seat given the time and expense involved, and to what meaningfully could be achieved by having such a term. Yet many will recognize the need for reform within the UN system and the need for the Pacific to have a greater – and more united – voice in this global institution, and have a stake in the process of reform underway there. In terms of long term vision, PSIDs governments need to reposition themselves strategically in global affairs. This can be done.

A point to remember is that it is not only the concern of the Pacific, but more broadly the SIDS too – including Caribbean and Africa and Indian small oceans states because their development issues are very similar. This could be addressed by the current debate on UNSC reforms – advocating for SIDs non-permanent seats. After all, SIDs issues are global issues (i.e. climate change) but they need to be seen from a SIDs lens, so a seat for SIDs could help.

Australia and New Zealand have both served terms on the UNSC and invariably get the support of Pacific nations to do so. Perhaps it is time to enlist their help in backing a Pacific nation for a change. At the very least, it may be worth exploring the idea of challenging the UN to create a distinct “Pacific” region for UNSC membership so that Pacific nations would have a permanent voice there and the only lobbying they need do is among themselves.

The Pacific is being courted by all the P5 members in various ways and is mostly unaligned – that is, it is friend to all. Enlisting support from the P5 to reform the UNSC and allow for a permanent, rotating Pacific member is one strategy to get our voices heard in the most powerful room in the world.

Photo credit: UN

Thus it is also an honour to be sharing the event with Monsieur Michel Djokovic, the Ambassador of France, given how important French aid has been for this programme.

France and the Ecole Supérieure de Journalisme de Lille (ESJ) played a critically important role in helping establish the journalism degree programme at USP in 1994, with the French government funding the inaugural senior lecturer, François Turmel, and providing a substantial media resources grant to lay the foundations.

I arrived in Fiji four years later in 1998 as Head of Journalism from Papua New Guinea and what a pleasure it was working with the French Embassy on a number of journalism projects at that time, including an annual scholarship to France for journalism excellence.

These USP awards this year take place during challenging times for the media industry with fundamental questions confronting us as journalism educators about what careers we are actually educating journalists for.

When I embarked on a journalism career in the 1960s, the future was clear-cut and one tended to specialise in print, radio or television. I had a fairly heady early career being the editor at the age of 24 of an Australian national weekly newspaper, the Sunday Observer, owned by an idealistic billionaire, and we were campaigning against the Vietnam War.

Our chief foreign correspondent then was a famous journalist, Wilfred Burchett, who at the end of the Second World War 70 years ago reported on the Hiroshima nuclear bombing as a “warning to the world”.

By 1970, I was chief subeditor of the Rand Daily Mail in South Africa, the best newspaper I ever worked on and where I learned much about human rights and social justice, which has shaped my journalism and education values ever since.

I travelled overland for a year across Africa as a freelance journalist, working for agencies such as Gemini, and crossed the Sahara Desert in a Kombi van. It was critically risky even then, but doubly dangerous today.

Eventually I ended up with Agence France-Presse as an editor in Paris and worked there for several years. In fact, it was while working with AFP in Europe that I took a “back door” interest in the Pacific and that’s where my career took another trajectory when I joined the Auckland Star and became foreign news editor.

The point of me giving you some brief moments of my career in a nutshell is to stress how portable journalism was as a career in my time. But now it is a huge challenge for you young graduates going out into the marketplace.

You don’t even know whether you’re going to be called a “journalist”, or a “content provider” or a “curator” of news – or something beyond being a “news aggregator” – such is the pace of change with the digital revolution. And the loss of jobs in the media industry continues at a relentless pace.
Fortunately, in Fiji, the global industry rationalisations and pressures haven’t quite hit home locally yet. However, on the other hand you have very real immediate concerns with the Media Industry Development Decree and the “chilling’ impact that it has on the media regardless of the glossy mirage the government spin doctors like to put on it.

We had a very talented young student journalist here in Fiji a few weeks ago, Niklas Pedersen, from Denmark, on internship with local media, thanks to USP and Republika’s support. He remarked about his experience:

“I have previously tried to do stories in Denmark and New Zealand – two countries that are both in the top 10 on the RSF World Press Freedom Index, so I was a bit nervous before travelling to a country that is number 93 and doing stories there ….

“Fiji proved just as big a challenge as I had expected. The first day I reported for duty … I tried to pitch a lot of my story ideas, but almost all of them got shut down with the explanation that it was impossible to get a comment from the government on the issue.

“And therefore the story was never going to be able to get published.

“At first this stunned me, but I soon understood that it was just another challenge faced daily by Fiji journalists.”

This was a nice piece of storytelling on climate change on an issue that barely got covered in New Zealand legacy media.

Australia and New Zealand shouldn’t get too smug about media freedom in relation to Fiji, especially with Australia sliding down the world rankings over asylum seekers for example.

New Zealand also shouldn’t get carried away over its own media freedom situation. Three court cases this year demonstrate the health of the media and freedom of information in this digital era is in a bad way.

• Investigative journalist Jon Stephenson this month finally won undisclosed damages from the NZ Defence Ministry for defamation after trying to gag him over an article he wrote for Metro magazine which implicated the SAS in the US torture rendition regime in Afghanistan.

• Law professor Jane Kelsey at the University of Auckland filed a lawsuit against Trade Minister Tim Groser over secrecy about the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership (the judgment ruled the minister had disregarded the law);

• Investigative journalist Nicky Hager and author of Dirty Politics sought a judicial review after police raided his home last October, seizing documents, computers and other materials. Hager is known in the Pacific for his revelations about NZ spying on its neighbours.

Also, the New Zealand legacy media has consistently failed to report well on two of the biggest issues of our times in the Pacific – climate change and the fate of West Papua.

One of the ironies of the digital revolution is that there is an illusion of growing freedom of expression and information in the world, when in fact the reverse is true.

These are bleak times with growing numbers of journalists being murdered with impunity, from the Philippines to Somalia and Syria.

The world’s worst mass killing of journalists was the so-called Maguindanao, or Ampatuan massacre (named after the town whose dynastic family ordered the killings), when 32 journalists were brutally murdered in the Philippines in November 2009.

But increasingly savage slayings of media workers in the name of terrorism are becoming the norm, such as the outrageous attack on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris in January. Two masked gunmen assassinated 12 media workers – including five of France’s most talented cartoonists – at the satirical magazine and a responding policeman.

In early August this year, five masked jihadists armed with machetes entered the Dhaka home of a secularist blogger in Bangladesh and hacked off his head and hands while his wife was forced into a nearby room.

According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists in figures released this year, 506 journalists were killed in the decade between 2002 and 2012, almost double the 390 slain in the previous decade. (Both Reporters Sans Frontières and Freedom House have also reported escalating death tolls and declines in media freedom.)

(To be continued next week…)

Caption: French Ambassador Michel Djokovic (third from left), Head of USP Journalism Dr Shailendra Singh (fourth from left) and Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie (fifth from right) with the prizewinners at the University of the South Pacific journalism awards. Image: Lowen Sei/USP

He gave a speech affirming the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) over the past 15 years and also called for commitments and cooperation in the adopting and implementation of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

“We should take it as a new starting point to work out a course of equitable, open, all-round and innovation-driven development in the interest of common development of all countries,” he said.

President Xi’s call for the international community to focus on implementation was clear and uncompromising.

He said: “The post-2015 development agenda is a high standard list of deliverables that carries with it our solemn commitment. It is often said that the worth of any plan is in its implementation. I therefore call on the international community to redouble their collective efforts for the joint implementation of the post-2015 development agenda in the interest of cooperation.”

Toward the end of his speech, President Xi stated that China is ready to work with “relevant parties to move forward” the implementation of the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative.

President Xi reiterated that China has basically realized the MDGs by lifting 439 million people out of poverty and making remarkable progress in areas of education, health and women’s welfare.

“China’s development has not only improved the well-being of the 1.3 billion-plus Chinese people, but also given a strong boost to the global cause of development,” President Xi said.

Since his speech at the United Nations, President Xi has gone on an official visit of the United Kingdom, not only engaging in trade and investment talks with the British government but also warmly welcomed by the pomp and ceremony of British royalty.

The media heralded President Xi as the most significant and most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping.

The Belt and Road initiative

China has released a vision for peaceful cooperative development based on a two thousand year old trade route known as the Silk Road in which there were social and cultural exchanges linking the major civilizations of Asia, Europe, and Africa.

But what is different about the Belt and Road initiative and activities from that of the creation of another regional trade block with China as leader?

In early October, the Chinese Communist Party hosted in Beijing over 60 political party leaders and representatives from the Asia-Africa-European region, accompanied also by a media forum of journalists and media practitioners from the region.

The summit was called the Asian Political Parties’ Special Conference on the Silk Road. The theme of the summit was the Silk Road trade and development co-operation concept.

The Belt and Road initiative proposed in Beijing 2015 was endorsed and adopted by the political leaders of the countries that met and consulted together in Beijing.

The Silk Road was a trade route that linked China and its immediate neighbors with the countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It is China’s pro-active attempt to build a Eurasian economic belt, and extend the Silk Road to the rest of the world, over land and sea.

But ‘Belt and Road’ is not just a proposal for cooperative economic partnership and development. China is already engaged in building infrastructure, creating a ‘Belt and Road’ fund and investment bank, creating many development projects, and more importantly establishing a consensus among the countries of Asia, Africa, and Europe, that Belt and Road is the pathway to the future.

With over 60 countries with political parties endorsing and adopting the Belt and Road Beijing initiative, the maritime ‘road’ that links to the Pacific islands is very much a part of this massive global plan for economic and social cooperative development.

The Belt and Road initiative is not confined to economic cooperative development but extends also to the social and cultural exchanges that would advance peace in a new world order.

Speaking in support of China’s efforts, Yong Rui, famed host of CCTV’s English Dialogue Program remarked in Beijing: “China is not just a major economic power. It is also a major civilization.”

The point is, economic development does not happen in a vacuum, but also allows parties to work together for the common good of their respective societies in every area of development ranging from sports and entertainment, cultural exchanges, as well as the advancing of common values that are part of social development.

Trade in the past two millennia was in silk, spices, porcelain, paper, noodles, and other things. But the Chinese have taken this concept and framed it into the Belt and Road initiative which will link not only the former regions of the Silk Road but all the countries of the world through the 21st century Maritime Silk Road linkages.

And even though the Chinese economy has slowed down from double-digit figures to a stable 6.5% growth, it is still the fastest growing economy, and is just behind the United States as the second largest economy in the world.

The Chinese still speak optimistically about this slowdown as a “cooling off” period to allow its economy to consolidate.

The Chinese insist that the Belt and Road initiative is not just another Chinese project but rather a peaceful cooperative development effort with other countries, working at a ‘win-win’ outcome.

As for what the Pacific region offers, we bring into the Belt and Road vision and partnership the world’s largest ocean, the world’s biggest tuna stocks, multi-billion dollar reserves of oil, gas and sea-bed minerals. And that is before we start to speak of tourism in one of the most beautiful and relaxing destinations in the world.

China and its larger development partners are also very aware of the fact there is marine wealth in the Pacific as well as something that money cannot buy – the relatively peaceful co-existence and relationships that are ever present in the Pacific region.

Each Pacific island nation will need to determine what and how to participate in the partnership, but there is also the need for collective dialogue and cooperation with China.

There is a lot that could be done to achieve a favorable outcome and due to the geopolitical power shifts taking place in our world today, our future may end up being defined by our partnership with China.

Caption: “Build friendship”: a Chinese naval ship displays a friendly banner during a port call in Port Vila, Vanuatu 2010. Photo by Ben Bohane/wakaphotos.com

The United States Multilateral Fisheries Treaty with the Pacific Island Parties was effected in 1987. The United States government uses this multilateral agreement as the only channel to which US assistance in the form of aid is directed to the Pacific parties. In that era Pacific island states had just gained independence and this source of funding has been essential to their economy to meet public services and other state matters.

Given the access provided for by the Treaty in its early years, the United States dominates the rich fishing grounds of the Pacific islands, more specifically the Central Western Pacific waters. They enjoy enormous profits recorded in catch compared to the operational cost and the access fees paid to the Pacific islands resources owners.

The Treaty was extended twice to 2003 and later to 2013 after its initial five-year period lapsed before the re-negotiations process was done. It shows that parties see benefits from these ocean tuna resources, however the question of fairness and parity were never ever seriously considered. For the Pacific islands parties, the rationale behind the connotation of regionalism was the issue, and the conditions for equity based on resource ownership and the equation of appropriate sharing was not considered. The Treaty was therefore to the advantage of the United States, in that it established a sphere of influence which grips the region for the purpose of economic assistance in return for fishing dominance.

Therefore from analysis, the scenario we get is one that is awkward towards Pacific states when realizing that few of them which are rich in tuna resources must give up their resources to the Treaty so that other fellow sister Pacific states will also benefit from the economic assistance associated with the Treaty. Pacific Parties are therefore pad-locked with the concept of regionalism under the dictation of this multilateral arrangement.

The enforcement of the PNA Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) becomes the most outstanding leverage that balances the US monopoly in the fishing industry under the Multilateral Treaty. The eight Parties to the Nauru Agreement own more than fifty percent of global Skip Jack Tuna stock, and the other valuable Tuna species such as Big Eye and the Pacific Blue and Yellow Fin. And as the CEO of PNA Dr. Transform Aqorau once mentioned, “The PNA group is the single most influential grouping that has shaped International fisheries”. This is how we now define the new authority over resources in the PNA waters.

PNA therefore answers the issue of equity which was displaced prior to the enforcement of the VDS, however the diplomacy of the Treaty will centre much around the prospect of exerting influence on the uncertainty of regional solidarity if the Treaty was to be abolished, meaning the question of regionalism through resource management will have to be compromised without the economic assistance provided for under the multilateral arrangement. And that would be the last bargaining chip for the US towards the Pacific parties as a regional grouping. If it goes to that extent, other Pacific parties will have no choice but prepare to accept the removal of the economic assistance they have benefitted from over the past years.

Such a scenario can happen, but on the condition that it does not destabilize regional integration. If the United States prepares to unplug the Treaty, non-VDS Pacific parties must prepare to take another approach to substitute the economic assistance they receive from the Treaty. PNA members on the other hand will use its authority to determine the course of fishing activities in its rich waters, meaning the United States dominance of the fishery will fall short to an avenue where competition (among other Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) to maximize profits will go alongside sustainable fisheries that ensures win-win returns between resource owners and the industries/government of the DWFN including the United States. Fisheries can become a foreign policy not only for DWFN to Pacific islands parties but also the other way around, a situation where resource owners will no longer be spectators in the exploitation of the resources they own.

The complexity arises from two factors:

• The People’s Republic of China (mainland) maintains a “one-China” policy that does not recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a separate nation or accept ties with any nations that recognize Taiwan.
• Several Pacific islands have flip-flopped between the PRC and the ROC over the years.

Fortunately, the competition for diplomatic partners died down after current Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou took office in 2008 and pursued closer ties with the mainland. But there could be more behind-the-scenes machinations looming. In recent times we’ve seen Solomon Islands leaders courting Chinese investment with political overtones, and in the Marshall Islands leaders making unannounced visits to China that lead to speculation about stability of the relationship.

The relationship for Pacific countries that have alternated diplomatic recognition between PRC and ROC is akin to a man who has divorced his wife in favor of a new one. When he goes to meet the ex-wife without mentioning it to the current wife, tension results as can be seen over the years in any of the islands that have changed diplomatic ties with the ROC and PRC.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, island leaders angled to see which of the two would offer “the best deal” for diplomatic ties. The practice of checkbook diplomacy was chiseled into our consciousness. And with it, so-called “good governance” largely went out the window as political leaders bartered diplomatic recognition for benefits. As various media reports showed, the “benefits” often were in the form of “constituent funds” that provided large amounts of money to political leaders to use as they wanted, with no accountability attached. The Australian newspaper The Age, for example, reported in 2011 that Nauru politicians received thousands of dollars monthly in exchange for ties with Taiwan, while China distributed tens of thousands of dollars prior to an election in 2007.

Because of the diplomatic competition, both PRC and ROC are in a constant state of edginess about their island ties to the point of overbearing scrutiny of the tiniest nuance in word or deed of island leaders. In some islands, leaders have not hesitated to use this as an opportunity to seek more money from one or the other. But it is one of the clearest examples of corrupt practices in government, because “getting more” often simply means more for political leaders.

Instability that results from uncertainty in development aid or diplomatic partnerships causes interruptions in program and service delivery by government representatives whose work depends on or is supported by aid and technical support from one of these countries, and can tarnish the reputation of governments when, for example, auditors say they can not verify that the amount deposited to the government treasury was the actual amount received from a donor — which happened in an audit issued this year in the Marshall Islands. 

This diplomatic game makes it difficult for either PRC or ROC to enforce accountability in donor aid relations with their diplomatic partners. In the heyday of the checkbook diplomacy period in the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the word “accountability” in relation to Taiwan or PRC aid wasn’t in the vocabulary. Islands received their funding or soft loans with little-to-no performance requirement — which suits political leaders focused on their own interests over national development interests.

Since 2008 when Ma took office in Taiwan, this changed to a degree in ROC partner countries. Over the past several years, we’ve seen ROC Embassies and their Foreign Ministry requiring progress reports prior to release of funding — which has, on occasion, resulted in funds being held up because the governments, unaccustomed to having to show any results from donor aid or simply not having any results to show, have been late to produce reports. This last point is important to emphasize: Some Taiwan aid has been earmarked for such things as “outer island projects” or “new infrastructure” or some other purported development. But funds have actually either gone to pay for government workers’ salaries — not the projects stated — or been diverted by political leaders to something entirely different. One example of this is in the Marshall Islands, where Taiwan quarterly budget allocations listed hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new prison in Majuro over a several year period. Despite this being the case for many years, no new prison has been built.

The problem, however, is that if the PRC-ROC diplomatic competition swings back into gear, even these modest efforts at ensuring performance in regards to donor funding will likely be scrapped, since the overriding goal, particularly for Taiwan, is the diplomatic partnership. With the number of nations that recognize Taiwan now at 22, suffice to say Taiwan pays close attention to and honors its relations with these nations, six of which are in the Pacific (Nauru, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Palau).

China’s recent muscle flexing for territory in Asia is ruffling relations with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines and the United States. It’s hard to believe that the resource-rich Pacific — with oil, forests, mines, fish and deep sea nodules — won’t soon be seeing greater interest from China given its current expansionist policy. ‘Greater interest’ will likely result in a resumption of the diplomatic dueling. Couple this with next year’s national election in Taiwan that current indications suggest is likely to result in President Ma’s party losing the executive branch and the environment may be primed for a resumption of the bad old days of competition for diplomatic partners in the Pacific region.

Caption: A Taiwan Navy marching band performing in the Marshall Islands, one of six islands with ties to the Republic of China.

It was the first time for the two Pacific leaders to meet as prime ministers. They established a warm friendship that ensured cordial and frank discussions on a number of issues concerning the two neighboring countries.

Both leaders have embraced change as the way to move their countries forward in terms of development. But the reforms they sought have not been easy to implement, particularly when they touch socio-religious features of society.

Mr Bainimarama had effectively altered Fijian Society from a historical orientation to one that safeguards the rights of the indigenous people and their interests, and moved Fiji to the current realities of a multicultural society. But he is far from reaching his goal, as his main opposition in Parliament is the indigenously driven Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) led by the fiery Chief of Rewa, Ro Teimumu Kepa.

The dismantling of the Council of Chiefs by Prime Minister Bainimarama and the restrictions he placed on the Methodist Church Conference were two actions the indigenous people of Fiji had objected to, but the Commodore insisted he had to remove the political power of the Chiefs, along with the political influence of the Methodist Church, so that Fiji could move forward as a multicultural society. Both were institutions that strongly backed the interests and the rights of the Indigenous Fijian.

There is one thing though that most Fijians have accepted irrespective of their political persuasion: they are on a pathway of change, and that pathway seeks the transformation of Fiji into a multicultural society.

To keep constructing Fiji against this on-the-ground reality of multiculturalism will only multiply socio-political problems, and the past decades have proven this to be so.

Some have reasoned that Fiji is on a pathway that is irreversible in spite of the fact that they still have much to contend with in terms of sorting out indigenous issues, especially land ownership and a special place in the political architecture of Fiji.

Prime Minister Pohiva returned to Tonga feeling encouraged that he had established a fresh relationship with the Fijian leader, and that he had effectively shifted the Tonga-Fiji regional diplomatic relationship to a new level.

Prime Minister Pohiva has been the major force in Tonga over the past three decades after leading a movement that called for the democratization of the Tongan society – a society whose political and social powers had been dominated by the royal family and nobility for centuries.

But change, or at least the call for it, has become the new normal in Tonga. Tonga’s ruling elite is not as resistant to change, and people are generally in support of it, especially when it comes to the way Tonga is being reconstructed into a more equitable and vibrant development movement. One of the major features of this emerging social construct is the recognition and engagement of women whose participation is needed if any social movement is to be successful.

What became apparent at the Pohiva-Bainimarama discourse is the setting of a new course in the way Pacific countries are willing to carry out diplomatic relations. They are applying the Pacific Way in which leaders can talanoa – talk, discuss, dialogue, exchange ideas – without necessarily highlighting opposition on matters they differ on.

A good example is the way Tonga and Fiji have each made a stand on the West Papua issue: Mr Pohiva strongly supports a Free West Papua. Mr Bainimarama takes the position that West Papua is part of Indonesia, and Fiji maintains a close relationship with Indonesia.

The president of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, has visited Fiji on a couple of occasions. Likewise, Mr Bainimarama is keeping close ties with Indonesia. It is reported that Mr Widodo may be sympathetic towards the West Papua plight, more so compared with previous presidents. This was demonstrated in the recent releasing of West Papuan political prisoners, almost at the same time that executions were carried out on Australian drug dealers in Indonesia.

Obviously the West Papua situation has not been discussed in the Pohiva-Bainimarama dialogue, although their meeting was conducted at the venue of the Pacific Leaders Regional Green Growth summit, where most of the Melanesian delegates have been very vocal in their support of a free West Papua.

The traditional conduct of diplomacy in the Pacific has been bent on Western ways of doing business – open negotiation, frank to the point of being oppositional if there are differences, and seeking to achieve immediate results.

Tonga is embarking on a whole new direction in foreign policy. Previous administrations have treaded the familiar pathway of building a foreign policy that follows a Western architecture in which Australia and New Zealand, Great Britain, Europe and the United States have become the focus of engagement.

But in recent decades, Tonga has established development partnership with Asian countries such as China, Japan, India, and South Korea. This ‘new partnership’ is faring well for Tonga, especially in terms of a lot of Chinese grants and loans for development.

Tonga will continue to tread the same traditional pathway of doing foreign affairs, and will become more and more engaged with Asian countries, but a new direction in doing foreign relations is being embraced to run parallel with the more traditional and well-beaten path of diplomatic relations of previous decades.

The Pohiva Government has chosen this new pathway to build regional diplomatic relations that would lead to the doors of Pacific neighbors – and especially to Melanesian countries – Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji.

On his return to Tonga, Pohiva also spoke of a possible visit to Tahiti, and also to Samoa, in his quest to establish close ties with his Polynesian neighbours. The Pacific engagement – Pacific way, is the pathway of the future for Tonga’s foreign affairs.

But what does Tonga expect to benefit from its new policy on foreign affairs?

What does solidarity with other Pacific countries mean for Tonga, as well as the countries of the Pacific?

And isn’t there solidarity already as most, if not all Pacific Island countries belong to Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)?

Does the formation and presence of the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) speak maybe of the lack of solidarity there is in PIF among Pacific Island states? Or is it just an extension of the growing need for Pacific nations to determine what and how they want to develop their economies?

Obviously there is more to diplomatic relations than just a warm Pacific good will towards each other. Tonga’s move to be closer to Fiji and to Papua New Guinea has economic implications.

PNG’s emerging new leadership, represented by Oro provincial governor Gary Juffa, a Member of Parliament and Governor for Northern Province, uttered to Tonga’s Prime Minister in Fiji, as a matter of fact, that if PNG’s wealth is properly managed, all the Pacific Islands should be beneficiaries in its rich resources of gas, petroleum, and forestry products.

Those who are members of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) believe this to be possible, and they intend to carry out cooperative efforts among their nations to develop their ‘rich natural resources’ into a resource bank for all Pacific Island Countries.

If this is not the Pacific way, then what? Maybe other leaders might want to follow the Bainimarama-Pohiva model of diplomacy. It may have its benefits.