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

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

Announcing release of the final MDG progress report last week, Forum Secretary General Dame Meg Taylor praised Pacific governments for their ‘substantial progress’ in meeting the development goals, and offered a modest excuse for the lack of performance measured in many areas, particularly in poverty reduction, gender equality, and environment improvements: ‘The MDGs were global goals and applying them at the national level was difficult. In addition many of the MDG indicators did not suit the national context.’

I suggest a different way of evaluating lack of progress on MDGs. Juxtapose the Forum’s MDG assessment with the following headlines: ‘Another PNG MP to stand trial for fraud,’ ‘14 Vanuatu MPs heading to jail,’ ‘Eight sacked over government fraud in Solomon Islands,’ ‘Widespread fraud suspected in Marshall Islands government departments,’ ‘Green light for former Cooks minister to be tried,’ and so on.

It starts from the top and rolls down the line of government workers who view ‘government money’ or aid funding as a pot of money to put in their own pockets. Unfortunately, anti-corruption institutions and enforcement systems are weak in most islands such that there are more government leaders and workers focused on manipulating government finance systems for their own benefit than there are people and resources attempting to enforce accountability and rule of law.

Speaking last week about the Marshall Islands’ membership in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Auditor General Junior Patrick confirmed this concern about the reliability of enforcement systems. He said the initial UN review of government systems shows there is a framework in place for preventing corruption. But, he added, he would like to see the UN anti-corruption review go a step further “to see if implementation is effective, what is the time frame for investigations and prosecutions, and what resources are available (for accountability efforts). We have a framework, but is it functional?” For small island countries in particular, where enforcement capability is modest, this is the $100 question.

These same political leaders and personnel in government ministries and agencies—mentioned in the headlines above—were supposedly responsible for delivering performance on the Millennium Development Goals, development plans, and a host of other government services. But when large numbers of government officials are focused on personal instead of national interests, it is obvious their nations are not going to be effectively implementing poverty reduction schemes or gender equality goals.

In an earlier blog in this space, I commented: ‘Corruption comes in many forms: coming late and leaving early but getting fulltime pay, not carrying out the mission of a government office, manipulating tenders and funds for personal interest, and seeing some or all of the above and doing nothing about it.’

From the many corruption investigations, some of which have led to high-profile prosecutions in the region, we now know that leaders in many countries are running government as if it is their personal business. So when people talk about island leaders and saying things such as, ‘Strong political leadership and commitment’ is what is needed to make progress, are we simply kidding ourselves? Political leadership and commitment for what agenda? We simply cannot continue to ignore the fact that widespread corruption is undermining rule of law and slowing progress to a crawl in many countries. The imprisonment of 14 Vanuatu MPs is a landmark anti-corruption development for the Pacific. But over recent past years, penalties in the region for corrupt actions by politicians have been modest to non-existent in many islands, reinforcing a prevailing message, at least at high levels of government, that crime does, indeed, pay.

So eight of the 14 Forum members managed to implement only two or fewer MDGs. In September, all the countries in our region signed onto the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promising to implement these over the next 15 years. We could not manage seven MDGs and now we’ve got 17 SDGs, with 169 targets—who exactly is going to make these 17 SDGs a reality in our islands? This is not to say that public health professionals, doctors, educators, community development specialists, and staff at the Forum Secretariat are not committed to making improvements in their respective islands. The point is that for them to be successful, they have to have the attention and support of political leaders. Yet many of these leaders appear to be more focused on self-interested business deals or embezzling aid funding than they are on implementing national development priorities.

Only two nations—Cook Islands and Niue—met all seven MDG targets, while Palau accomplished six. These nations should be recognized for this laudatory performance and probably the most helpful development for the rest of the Pacific islands would be for this trio to convene a working group to identify and share the ingredients that allowed for their success so that other countries in the region can see if there is anything in the Cook Islands/Niue/Palau models that would work elsewhere. Still, until corruption is minimized and rule of law is emphasized, getting traction on the new SDGs is going to be a challenge in many islands.

Caption: The Vanuatu bribery case has made headlines across the region (pictured here). The Vanuatu Appeal Court will deliver its ruling next Friday on appeals by 14 MPs jailed on bribery convictions.

Three years in the making, the new goals set an ambitious agenda to apply to every country over the next 15 years. Now the hard part – implementing the 17 goals and 169 targets in 193 countries.

The new agenda moves us on from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expire at the end of the year, and which were essentially a tool to focus aid delivery. This time, every country will have to apply the new goals to their own national context. Funding the new agenda will be a mix of domestic resource allocation and new development partnerships.

For small countries it will mean prioritising, without cherry picking, goals. What that means in reality is unclear as we are all charting new territory when it comes to implementing this agenda. What we do know, and the new agenda recognises, is that development is a continuing spectrum – not something that can be achieved by merely copying the practices of others. And history tells us that imposed solutions rarely get traction – no matter how well intentioned or how deep the evidence base may be. So the fact that the new agenda is founded on country stewardship is to be celebrated.

Unlike the eight MDGs, which were conceived behind closed doors, the new agenda is the product of exhaustive intergovernmental negotiations, which included extensive consultations with civil society and business groups. Given the competing national and issue-based interests, it is unsurprising then that the list of new goals is vastly expanded from their predecessors. There were many vibrant debates among UN member states and across civil society about what should and should not be included. Not all ideological differences were settled, and perhaps for the first time the agenda was not dictated by a small group of powerful nations. In fact in some cases, it was a small group of small countries that held sway.

The Pacific bloc in the United Nations (the Pacific Small Island Developing States – PSIDS) championed a goal on oceans, and as part of the Alliance of Small Island States (which was chaired by Nauru throughout the 2014 Open Working Group) led the call for a goal to tackle climate change. For our countries, perhaps more aptly referred to as large ocean states, these two goals are essential elements of sustainable development.

Our regional neighbour, Timor-Leste, defied ardent opposition to be the primary proponent for a goal on peace, justice and strong institutions. Drawing on the reality of building a nation state from scratch, Timor-Leste’s recent experience of peace-building and state-building has demonstrated that without sustained peace there can be no sustainable development. Without capable and accountable institutions we cannot make the leap from goal setting to managing our economies to deliver the services and build the infrastructure our people need. Goal 16 on peaceful, inclusive societies is now widely viewed as being the ‘powerhouse from which all other action will flow’ and underpins the success of the whole agenda. Perhaps not surprising given the state of the world, most recently exemplified by the massive displacement and migration of people from Syria.

Our governments will be the primary custodians of this new agenda, but they cannot operate in isolation of national, regional and international partners. If we are serious about being the first generation to eradicate extreme poverty and the last to suffer the scourge of climate change, then we must hold our leaders to their national and international commitments to properly resource the implementation of this agenda. We will have to track our progress, and share our learning at home and abroad. More than ever, we need an active civil society to be actively engaged in renewed national conversations that will chart our own development pathways.

To start these conversations in the Pacific, PiPP has teamed up with RMIT University to launch a short survey that will tell you about the goals and what they seek to achieve, and give you the chance to rate the relevance of the goals and how your country is fairing against the targets. We aim to continue this survey (both online and offline) over the coming years and to periodically extract information in public reports to national governments and regional organisations. The aim is to get a broad understanding of the goals and how best to prioritise actions in our region, and to provide feedback to our policymakers and implementers on our progress.

We should be very proud of the achievements of our representatives in New York. The contributions from the PSIDS and Timor-Leste were instrumental in ensuring the transformative nature of this agenda. Not only for the inclusion of the goals on peace and institutions, oceans and climate change, but by ushering in a new era of global engagement. By showing that no matter how small and under resourced, small island countries can shape the international agenda.

Now all of us at home need to take the lead and actively shape the means of implementation. Otherwise the hard fought gains will be lost, and it will be back to business as usual – leaving others to determine our fate for us.

It is geostrategic, for instance, since it points to a specific geographical location: the south Pacific in this case, to which ANZ’s specific foreign policy and relevant and commensurate resources are being directed. That can be explained by way of regionality and all its integration impetus, history, migration and resulting diasporic influences. It is geopolitical for the reason that the south Pacifics’ geographical area borders the ANZ countries. Some may even say that ANZ are geographically part of the south Pacific. As such, ‘a stable regional order’ in the area: stability in the broadest sense of security – defense and economic/financial – is critical for peace and stability. Peace and stability in the wider region forms a natural buffer for peace and stability at home. Relevant national, regional and international policies inevitably need to be formulated and resourced.

The region has experienced instability since 1971. The formation of the South Pacific Forum (SPF) in that year was an outcome of instability itself when independent Pacific island countries broke away from the SPC council to form their own forum. ANZ were invited subsequently to join the new forum. Since then the SPF, which later in 2000 became the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) has had to address instability in its member states over the years, resulting in various declarations and activities such as: (i) the Aitutaki Declaration on Regional Security Cooperation (1997); (ii) the Biketawa Declaration (2000); (iii) the Nasonini Declaration on Regional Security (2002); (iv) the RAMSI (2003); (v) the execution of Australia’s ‘Pacific Solution’ for refugees which is raising security concerns in PNG and Nauru; and (vi) Fiji’s case for a reconfiguration of the regional diplomacy architecture to reposition ANZ in the regional structure. There have been other security incidents in Bougainville and Timor Leste in the wider Pacific region. Furthermore, the geopolitical interests of the larger global powers in the region, and the Pacific at large, and the sensitivities and sense of vulnerability and reassessments of political alignments they bring to bear, also provide a constant backdrop to Pacific security and stability.

In the context of all this, can it be said that ‘a stable regional order’, envisioned by ANZ is being achieved? At the outset, it has to be said that a stable regional order is essentially a collective responsibility of all PIF members. For ANZ, however, it is additionally a stated geopolitical interest and as such, their individual or collective efforts aimed at this objective are inevitably subject to greater scrutiny, not only by other PIF members, but also by outside observers. Furthermore, any determination of stability or instability in the region can be realistically graduated in relative terms – relative to security situations in other parts of the world. In this context, one is likely to conclude that the unstable situations in the south Pacific region are only of minor concern by global standards. In any case, the record of PIF as regards its various declarations and other interventions over the years is indicative of the organization’s clear efforts in wanting to be in control of its security situations. ANZ can certainly take some credit for this.

Be that as it may, security continues to be a focus in the region. The history of instability that has dominated the region since inception is instructive. Furthermore, the perception of security is currently fluid – undergoing reconceptualization, as discussed here. Professor Steven Ratuva at the University of Canterbury wrote recently: “The notion of security has undergone transformation over the years as a result of the introduction of new conceptual frameworks such as human security, securitization, gendered security and subaltern security, amongst others, which seek to expand the boundaries of security beyond the traditional notion of ‘hard’ security or emphasize significant dimensions in security thinking.” As such, there is a constant need for monitoring and evaluation of security issues in order to formulate consequential policies and measures for stability to effectively prevail.

Considering all that has been said above, it can be concluded that whilst no direct blame can be directed at ANZ specifically for the instability that has characterized the region, they would necessarily be somewhat alarmed at what has happened over the years, given the efforts and resources expended in addressing the instability; and also given the fact that their best endeavors at ensuring ‘a stable regional order’ have often been frustrated.

The latter is likely to be constantly nagging the minds of the planners both in Canberra and Wellington. The most recent incident of Fiji wanting to reconfigure the regional diplomacy architecture and to reposition ANZ’s position in the regional structure is one that is loudly ringing alarm bells in both capitals. It may not force the issue onto the table where it can be passionately and forcefully debated. This is evident from the outcome of the Sydney meeting last month when the issue of the regional architecture was dropped from the meeting that had been initially convened to address the issue. However, the substance of the matter is such that due consideration should be given it; otherwise it will keep recurring in future.

Notwithstanding any procrastination for a lively discourse on the latest incident to test the region’s stability, the writer believes that this incident is imperative as an urgent prompting for ANZ to return to the drawing board and to reassess this pre-eminent geostrategic priority.

Australia does, for instance, use the opportunity of its White Paper to re-examine its geostrategic and geopolitical interests. Recently, the government of the day has had to reassess its traditional (security) alignment with the US with a balancing of its (economic) interests with China. It has also made a declaration on the significance of India and Indonesia as far as the Pacific region is concerned. I am sure that New Zealand has gone through a similar process. This, suitably, provides the backdrop to the south Pacific’s stability.

What is critical for both ANZ is a specific and analytical focus on the south Pacific region – a ‘repair and maintenance’ approach to their traditional methodology and modality of partnership, particularly on PIF, and to establish a more equal relationship, even to the point of being preferential in order to be equal; a more inclusive, a more compassionate partnership.

Caption: Australian and Fijian troops at a checkpoint during the South Pacific Peacekeeping Force (SPPKF) operation in Bougainville in 1994. Here they screen delegates attending a peace conference to end the war on Bougainville. Photo: Ben Bohane / wakaphotos.com

On behalf of the Executive Director, Chairman & Board of Directors of the Pacific Institute of Public Policy in Port Vila, Vanuatu…

It is with great pride that I take this opportunity to express the views of many people in our dynamic Melanesian sub-region with whom we have close personal relations, professional links and solid ethnic ties. The Pacific Institute of Public Policy is an independent policy research think tank. We pride ourselves on providing a powerful platform and window for public expression and opinion by unpacking core public policy issues relevant to our security, development and livelihoods as Pacific Islanders. As regular and key interlocutors with a diverse range of decision-makers in our sub-region we acknowledge the Melanesian Spearhead Group as a core and strategic asset to our development agendas and the benefits to our people.

I speak as an individual when I say that the economic dynamism of our member states and single territory is changing our political landscape also. You our Melanesian Spearhead Group leaders have achieved consensus where speculation and innuendo could have undermined the historic, mature and inclusive path you have chosen on a range of matters from MSG connectivity to finance and economic issues. Private sector development, law enforcement, sports, social policy, environment, disaster relief, youth, gender and ongoing trade negotiations amongst our member states continues to reveal the uniqueness of our underpinning ethnic ties and cultural values that embolden our political, economic and collective sense of ourselves. Regionally a shift is occurring with ambitious plans to transform the regional architecture to facilitate regional integration and cooperation, much of that will be influenced heavily by the conditions and decisions that emerge from this sub-regional bloc.

The freedoms within that paradigm available to me as a Papua New Guinean, has meant that I can live as a Melanesian in a neighbouring country with certain privileges and rights assisted by improvements in technology and effective transportation routes, customary privilege and language links. Each of these traits and criteria has without a doubt influenced the way we have and will negotiate aid, governance and trade with our development partners. These same features will inform and guide the management of our vast natural and human resources and promote further political and economic links influenced and strengthened by the certainty of our Melanesian ties. Most recently Air Niugini’s direct flights between Vanuatu and PNG has made MSG Connectivity a reality. Those opportunities also provide the timeliness and space for us to contribute meaningfully to international development agendas and strategies with a regional understanding and a clear localized impression of our institutional arrangements, traditional structures and peculiar customary nuance so relevant to how we are measured and discussed globally.

As a Melanesian designing strategies for a regional think tank I have critically examined our individual economic growth and our collective dynamism as a bloc with few opponents and vast human and natural resources. We are regularly criticized, under-estimated and somewhat over-analyzed as Melanesians. Cyclone Pam a recent natural disaster of epic proportions claimed lives and destroyed livelihoods but in true Melanesian spirit, it did not deprive our cousins the ni-Vanuatu of their strong familial and kinship ties that helped the relief effort in ways unimaginable in other parts of the world given capacity and resource constraints. In our sub-region and in my country in particular the transitioning autonomous region of Bougainville has just proudly celebrated the outcome of a successful election that re-installed one of Papua New Guinea’s founding fathers Chief Dr John Momis, as the President-elect of the Autonomous Bougainville Government. Yes peaceful transitions are possible and in fact achievable encased in a solid peace agreement and guided by unwavering political and customary leadership, as we’ve witnessed there – even after a solid decade of conflict amongst our own people. In our sub-region alone extraordinary examples of journeys to self-determination and self-reliance are evident.

My father the Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare may not have foreseen the full economic potential of the diverse country he was leading to political independence 40 years ago in 1975 but he understood the essential nature of human rights and political freedom to genuine democracy and self-determination, on our own terms in our own time. Today with political independence Papua New Guinea continues to rise above its challenges bound by our reconciliatory ways that are undervalued and over-simplified by outsiders – we have not been alone in this predicament. As a sub-regional bloc whose relevance has been questioned in various forms, you as Melanesian leaders have allowed more of our ethnically linked people to share in the value of rights and privileges only available when our history and current political context are truly considered.

Importantly, the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia in the form of its approved Associate Membership to the MSG will allow the opportunity for cooperation and compatibility amongst their culturally diverse society and leadership. Finally, Congratulations on your historic and inclusive deliberations yesterday. You have handed the greatest tool for many sustainable options to our Melanesian cousins in West Papua – you have given them a voice.

Thank you.

No matter how we slice and dice the issue of West Papuan independence, it always comes down to this: Do the indigenous peoples of a distinct and discrete land mass have the democratic right to self-determination or not?

The answer, according to international law and standards, is an unequivocal yes.

Even a cursory examination of history reveals that Indonesia has systematically ignored and subverted the desires of the people who share the island of Papua with their cultural and ethnic brethren and sistren in Papua New Guinea. They have oppressed these people using military force, and their policies in the region have from the beginning been designed to silence the voice of the indigenous people there.

Indonesian president Joko Widodo’s protestations notwithstanding, there is no free press in the Papuan provinces. Police and military continue to claim in the face of incontrovertible evidence that there is no unrest. And still they claim that even advocating for independence is a crime. Attending a peaceful demonstration is considered grounds for arrest and incarceration. Political activity can get you tortured or killed. Virtually all of the independence leaders living in exile have faced systematic persecution extending across borders. After he escaped prison and fled for his life, Benny Wenda faced years of forced immobility because of a flagrantly erroneous Interpol ‘red notice’, which falsely accused Mr Wenda of arson and murder.

Just last month, Mr Wenda was denied entry into the United States following an interview with US Homeland Security personnel. No reason was provided at the time. Presumably, the terrorist watch-list, or a similar international mechanism, is being used to curtail his visibility on the world stage.

It needs to be said that Jokowi, and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono before him, would do more if they could. But the plain truth is that civilian rule of law does not extend to the Papuan provinces. These frontier areas are the under the hegemony of the Indonesian military. The wealth they derive from this island is such that they are content to conduct what has been characterised as a ‘slow-motion genocide’ in order to perpetuate their own prosperity.

It’s despicable, frankly. But nobody seems to have either the power or the political will to end this tyranny. One can argue realpolitik, and claim that Indonesia is moving in the right direction, but it’s clear that politicians in Jakarta allow these depredations to continue on Melanesian peoples even while they take great strides to protect their ethnically Asian populations.

In editorial pages across the region, commentators are writhing and contorting themselves to try to find a dignified, elevated expression of the pending decision: Should the Melanesian Spearhead Group recommend full membership for the United Movement for the Liberation of West Papua? Will they do it?

The answer to each question is agonisingly simple: Yes, they should; and no, they will not.

Indonesia has already won this round. They won on the day that Voreqe Bainimarama reiterated that Indonesia’s territorial integrity was inviolate. They won doubly when he recommended them for associate membership in the MSG, a move that effectively kills the prospect of any dialogue concerning West Papuan independence in this forum.

The MSG operates on consensus. If there is no agreement, there is no action. Given the opposing stances that Vanuatu and Fiji have taken concerning the ULMWP, no compromise—let alone consensus—seems possible. And given the recent rise to power of Sato Kilman, widely considered to be Indonesia’s cats-paw in Vanuatu, membership for Indonesia is not out of the question.

Regional commentators and political figures wax poetic about the need for dialogue and inclusion. They ignore the rather inconvenient fact that West Papua’s MSG bid is a result of the fact that dialogue within Indonesia is not only impossible, it’s frequently fatal to those who attempt it.

It’s frankly infuriating to see the namby-pamby linguistic contortions that some of those involved have engaged in. Solomon Islands prime minister Manasseh Sogavare’s championship-level equivocation, advocating for observer status for the ULMWP and membership for Indonesia, simply closes the coffin and hands the nails to Indonesia. PNG prime minister Peter O’Neill’s ability to swallow his outrage over human rights abuses seems to increase right alongside his ability to attract Indonesian business interests.

But worst of all is Vanuatu’s deputy prime minister Moana Carcasses, who only last year made history with his presentation of West Papua’s plight to the United Nations. Now, he is reportedly professing that the issue is a difficult one, and that understanding and patience need to prevail.

Turned away, again.

The MSG cannot move out of this morass if it won’t speak clearly about the situation. There is a prima facie case for West Papuan membership in the MSG. If the fact that the chair is currently held by the New Caledonian independence movement weren’t evidence enough, then the words of support from MSG founding member Sir Michael Somare should suffice.

But ULMWP membership is unacceptable to Indonesia. And it has played its hand with care. Ensuring that even Australia did not remain on the sidelines, it prodded and pulled at everyone involved, and got the result that it wanted.

If the MSG is to retain even an iota of credibility, the only line that it can honestly take now is to admit that it cannot usefully function as a forum for discussions concerning Melanesian decolonialisation, because it lacks the strength to resist the overwhelming power of its neighbours.

It’s a fact: Melanesia is weak. There’s no shame in saying so. Indonesia is powerful—powerful enough even to give Australia pause. Indonesia has the will and the political and material resources necessary to ensure that West Papuan independence remains merely a dream for years yet to come. Likewise, armed resistance to an utterly ruthless military cannot succeed. The days of the OPM are past—if they ever existed.

The sooner we come to terms with these truths, the sooner ULMWP can begin developing effective tactics to counteract them. Those of us in Melanesia owe them at least that much.

Every week seems to bring a new revelation about un-democratic behavior by its national leadership undermining the rule of law. And despite denials this past week of bribery involving current Nauru government leaders by an Australian company, payoffs to political leaders are hardly a new phenomenon in Nauru, or indeed in the Pacific.

The justification advanced for ordering Digicel, Nauru’s single telecom service, to eliminate access to Facebook is as thin—‘to prevent access to pornography’—as the list of nations that ban Facebook, which includes such notoriously anti-democratic nations as N. Korea, Iran and China.

Should the region shrug this off as something we may not like, but it’s none of our business? After all, Nauru is just 10,000 people on a tiny bit of land in the central Pacific that, save for its now expanding Nauru Airlines, would be one of the most isolated countries in the world. In former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s immortal—if apocryphal—comment about Micronesia, ‘Who gives a damn?’

The Australian and New Zealand governments cared a lot about democracy, or lack thereof, in Fiji by imposing a slew of sanctions after then-Army Chief Frank Bainimarama’s coup in 2006. Many of these remained in effect for eight years until Fiji’s national elections last September. Nauru doesn’t have an army to mount a coup. Still, to date, Nauru’s current government has:

• Arrested and deported Nauru’s Magistrate Peter Law in January 2014 while Law was preparing an inquiry into the death of Justice Minister David Adeang’s wife, who burned to death outside the family home in April 2013. Nauru also cancelled the visa for its Chief Justice Geoffrey Eames to return to work from vacation last year.
• Fired its Australian police commissioner as an investigation into bribery allegations involving Nauru President Baron Waqa and Justice Minister Adeang was in progress.
• Directed Digicel to shut off access to Facebook for the nation and subsequently refused to let the general manager of Digicel back into the country.
• Suspended five opposition senators from the 18-seat parliament chamber over a year ago.
• Revoked the visa of Katy Le Roy, legal counsel to the Nauru parliament and wife of suspended opposition MP Roland Kun, so she cannot enter the country.
• Imposed a non-refundable US$7,000 application fee for any off-island journalist interested to visit Nauru, effectively preventing foreign media from visiting Nauru.

We might well ask, ‘what’s next?’ To date, only the United States government has issued a statement of concern over Nauru’s ban on Facebook.

Why is the Australian government mum on the subject of Nauru? Radio Australia last week quoted Nauru’s former Solicitor General, Australian Steven Bliim, discussing Nauru’s sacking of its previous police commissioner as his investigation into bribery of Nauru leaders by Australian company Getax was advancing. Bliim also briefed Australian government officials after leaving Nauru last year. He was surprised by their lack of interest. “The reaction of the politicians at the time was dismissive, indicating that it was purely an internal Nauruan affair, which seemed at odds with the sort of reaction that was taken, for instance, when the Fiji coups occurred,” Bliim told Radio Australia. “This wasn’t as overt as what happened in Fiji, but the effect of it has been very similar where the country has failed to abide by its own laws and it’s effectively taken steps to make itself not accountable.”

The self-interest of the asylum seekers holding facility on Nauru is clearly the driver of relations between Australia and Nauru now. Nauru is receiving significant funding from Australia for hosting the controversial facility and the Nauru detention center is a key element in Australia’s policy for interdicting refugees aiming for Australia.

The Nauru government has taken to issuing terse statements critical of media reporting as international scrutiny of these issues has expanded. Among these denials includes the assertion this past week that Nauru’s legal system is arguably the most independent, transparent and credible in the Pacific. But this assertion is far from reality. In point of fact, a 2012-2014 governance and transparency assessment of the judiciaries in the 14 independent Pacific nations by the Pacific Judicial Development Programme gives Nauru one of the lowest ratings in the region. The Marshall Islands was at the top in both 2012 and 2014 by meeting all 15 agreed-to indicators for transparency and governance in court operations, and Palau met 14 of these in 2012 and 15 last year. Nauru, however, met only two in 2012 and as of the latest update in April this year, had not filed a report on these indicators for 2014.

A United Nations Special Rapporteur last month raised concerns about recently adopted amendments to Nauru’s Criminal Code, and called on the government to withdraw the legislation restricting freedom of expression. New amendments prohibit use of language that is threatening, abusive or insulting in nature and has the intention to stir up racial, political or religious hatred—which critics say could be used to muzzle political opposition in the lead up to next year’s election.

“Nauru should allow free space for expression without fear of criminal prosecution,” said Special Rapporteur David Kaye. “It should lift all restrictions to access internet and social media, and facilitate access to the media in the country. Nauru should revise its course of action and take measures to fulfill its human rights obligations.”

Unless Nauru’s neighbors, including Australia and New Zealand, get involved in encouraging Nauru to adhere to democratic norms that prevail in this region—including unrestricted debates in parliament, open access to the Internet, and maintaining an independent judiciary—it seems likely the government of Nauru will continue undermining opportunities for its citizens to enjoy freedoms taken for granted in most democracies. This should concern the Pacific Islands Forum, which brings together leaders, governments and island communities over shared goals of democracy, good governance and accountability. Ignoring developments in Nauru undermines the Forum and island leaders’ stated objective of promoting regionalism and raising the quality of life based on the Pacific’s commitment to sustainable development and accountability of governments to their citizens.

Even in the aftermath of cyclone Pam, which directly affected half the population and badly damaged dozens of their islands, Ni Vanuatu people still managed to smile and laugh. I confess that even after a decade living here, I found it astonishing that people would show such grace in the face of adversity.

In the badly affected Malapoa Waetwud neighbourhood, a man calmly described how he and his family would live off fallen fruit for a few days, then they’d dig up whatever hadn’t rotted in the ground; but after that, he wasn’t sure where the next meal was going to come from. On the southern island of Tanna, which was utterly devastated by 230 Kph winds, I sat with a group of mamas in the shade of the only remaining tree trunk in that part of the village, and we laughed and gently teased each other as we passed the time.

And it’s not that they were oblivious. On the contrary. Only half an hour earlier a village elder came up to me, looked me in the eye and spoke with brutal simplicity: ‘I nogat wan samting.’

‘There’s nothing left.’

It took me days—weeks to be honest—to understand how people could remain light-hearted in the face of the loss of everything of value in their lives.

The penny began to drop when I visited Cildo (pronounced SEEL-doe) and his parents in Erangorango, in the foothills overlooking Port Vila. Cildo is a sturdy, plain-spoken, twelve-year-old boy originally from Malekula. His family home had been utterly destroyed by a massive tree which fell at the height of the storm, injuring his father and barely missing Cildo and his mother. I interviewed him for UNICEF, as part of a series of videos taking stock of the effect of the storm on children in Vanuatu.

Cildo was remarkably matter-of-fact:

When the cyclone came we went inside and ate, then we all went into one room. Then a tree fell onto our house, and we all sat in the remaining corner until morning.

That’s it. Plain facts, delivered without inflection or stress. And when I took his photo standing in the ruins, he flashed the brightest smile.

It was only a couple of weeks later, as I was reviewing all the shots I’d taken in the days following the disaster, that I realised his secret: You don’t need a reason to be happy.

Transactionality and causality are so deeply ingrained in the western European psyche that it comes as a revelation that actually, happiness does not need to be pursued. It can be found wherever you happen to be standing.

The rootless and sometimes purposeless nature of consumer societies often stand in the way of such realisations. For my part, I spent the better part of my childhood coping with damage that never should have happened, and spent my young adulthood as a half-formed Angry Young Man. I was ruled by surges of anger, righteousness and cynicism, until circumstances finally forced me to conduct an existential stock-take.

By the time I arrived in Vanuatu in 2003, I was ready to learn. And before eighteen months had passed, I knew that this is a place where I could be happy. I could be happy, not because things are better here; in many ways they’re not. I could be happy because I no longer needed a reason.

Back in 2010, I wrote:

I’ve been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more parasites in more places than anyone really wants to know. I’ve been stung by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I’ve had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

And yet, and yet in spite of it all, I was happy. Further back, in 2008, on the event of the perfectly preventable death of a little boy, I wrote about his funeral:

To an outsider, it’s wildly incongruous to watch the mourners as they approach the deceased’s house, chatting quietly, even laughing amongst themselves as if on some innocuous errand. The only clue about their destination is a cloth draped across one shoulder, to wipe the coming tears.

At the very instant they reach the gate, the wails begin. They are contrived, it’s true, but utterly heartfelt. The display of pain and sorrow at a funeral is more than most people of European descent have ever seen. To hear women moaning and weeping during the vigil and the burial is an uncanny and deeply moving experience. Though ritualised, the depth and sincerity of the emotion is starkly undeniable.

And then, as quickly as it begins, it is done. Life goes on, there’s food to be cooked, children to be tended to, and laundry to be done. The laughter, the scolding and the [conversation] start up again, as they always do.

Everyone in Vanuatu understands the place of things, and the need for everything to be in its place. Respect for public display and private observance of all of life’s events is universal. If someone smiles and jokes with his friends and colleagues just days after his first-born son has died… well, that’s as it should be. The funeral is over, and though there will be other opportunities to look back and mourn over the next hundred days, life goes on, whether one wants it to or not.

But it took a decade—and a cyclone of historical dimensions—for the lesson finally to land: People in Vanuatu are not happy because of anything. They are happy because the alternative doesn’t bear considering. Living as they do in a Least Developed Country with little or no modern technology in village life, with death and disaster around every corner, and people with whom you might or might not get along tucked up nice and cosy next to you (and you’re on an island, remember; they’re not going anywhere)… well, the least you can do is have a laugh now and then.

Vanuatu’s designation as the happiest place on earth was the result of research conducted by the New Economics Foundation, a UK-based think-tank. Their Happy Planet Index actually placed more emphasis on the happiness of the planet than its people. It is a measure of people’s well-being in proportion to environmental footprint. Vanuatu was included in the inaugural 2006 survey, but not in any subsequent studies.

Still, the title endures because it fits. And now, as we face the impact of the developing world’s environmental footprint in the form of rising ocean levels and storms of unprecedented severity, this ability to be happy in the face of adversity will no doubt serve us well.

But don’t for a minute let that lead developing countries to complacence. Just because we smile our way through the hardship doesn’t mean that life is easier here. It’s not easier at all; it’s just better.

And honestly, developed nations would do well to take a lesson from this. Disasters wrought by climate change are inevitable now. The damage is done. The storms will reach you too. You’d better learn to smile through adversity as well, because you might not have much else to smile about.