In 2015 cyclone Pam devastated Vanuatu, with Tanna being one of the worst-hit islands. Women bore the brunt of the devastation, forcing them to seek out new ways to survive. A realisation began to dawn that it was time for them to stand up and speak for themselves. After numerous meetings with women groups, the first ever Tanna Women’s Forum was held in October 2015. Over 1,200 attended the meeting where women demanded change to a political system that held them down, tied them in poverty, and gave them no opportunity to speak out. It was a breakthrough moment as many of these women have lived under threat all of their lives.

The women put their heads together and agreed it was time someone took the lead. I was nominated. The women agreed that I would contest the next general election scheduled for late 2016. Just days later the government announced a snap election, effectively wiping out our time to put together an election campaign. We moved ahead anyway with membership numbers now standing at 3,700. We had much confidence that we would secure one of the seven seats in the Tanna open constituency.

With very little time to prepare, I took on the challenge with much confidence. That as a solid membership of women we could succeed, and that even if we failed to win a seat, we would learn valuable lessons from the snap election experience that would better prepare us for the next general elections in 2020. I had so much confidence. I wasn’t thinking of losing; our hopes based on the registration figures signed by women across the island.

Crossing controversial territory

The first obstacle was informing community leaders of our decision to field our own candidate – a woman. Working with a chief that I have close ties to, a community meeting was arranged whereby I would declare and launch my candidacy. No one uttered a word, except a female friend who stood up, and much to my surprise, said ‘I am not in support of women being electoral representatives in parliament, and I am also against the policy of reserving seats for women’. I took this understandably as coming from someone speaking from her heart, but it also confirmed that the notion that women ‘do not belong in parliament’ were not held by men alone.

With no financial backing (other than two small personal contributions totalling 15,000 vatu) I had to dig into my own pockets to fund the campaign. I must say the election process is very expensive, with transportation in Tanna costing 20,000 vatu per day. We hired six public transport vehicles for the campaign.

We managed to visit (and revisit in some cases) 19 communities, speaking with roughly 700 men and women. Our slogan was Hemi Taem! (It is time!).

Taking centre stage during the campaigns was the most challenging. The questions and comments raised by communities were not difficult to answer, but there were also tricky ones coming from those who perceived us to be defying kastom.

‘You have not killed a fly or an ant, how can you prove that you can work like men in parliament. You are nothing but a woman.’

‘Our custom and culture perfectly points out your place – which is to look after the children, and mine (male speaking) is to do the talking. Where is your respect for this kastom? Are you from Australia that you don’t know our kastom? Who has given you this right to contest?’

‘Maybe we can vote for you in the provincial council election, but not to parliament.’

‘Our fear right now is the domestic violence law; we do not want our women to take those laws into their own hands.’

‘We don’t want to vote for women, because we don’t want women to have the right over us men.’

‘We don’t want our women to vote for women. If they do, we will divorce them.’

In a lot of places, prior to our campaign meetings, there would be community meetings most held in the nakamal where ‘consensus’ was often reached for all community members to vote for a particular candidate. In some cases, I wasn’t allowed to go and campaign – even to speak to just the women. In one case, some women called me and said, ‘Mary, please don’t come to our community as you will not be allowed to speak here’.

Discrimination and the threat of violence

The campaign revealed that culture is a main contributor to the limitation of woman’s influence in politics. I’ve seen how a lot of people are reluctant to vote for a woman. We did not receive discrimination from men alone, but women also. The discrimination we received was more on emotional violence. Discrimination against women in the society was very obvious at the time of campaigning and we observed how discrimination was somewhat based on a woman’s age, her marital status, her level of education and economic status. And as such, a woman may not be considered to be valuable or worthwhile if she does not fit the collective representation of both men and women.

Personally, I was able to endure a male-dominated political campaign period, but stories of threats of violence experienced by some women have just been unbearable. There are many of such accounts, ones that I share with a sad heart. This is one woman’s account of the threat she received from her partner the night before the poll.

I was already in bed pretending I had fallen asleep for some hours, but my husband came up and woke me up. He held a knife to my throat and demanded that I tell him who I was going to vote for. I was so afraid, I did not speak. He told me to speak or else he would beat me. I started crying. I was short of breath and was shaking. I cried out, “please help me … someone listening outside, please help me!” But nobody came to my rescue because they were afraid of my husband. He pushed me down, punched me again on my stomach and head, and said he was giving me a chance to speak or else he would beat me up. He knew of my intention to support women in this election. I begged him to let go of my throat or I was going to die, and I promised him that I was going to vote for the candidate of his choosing.

Another woman also had a similar story.

I saw you talking with those women, but I have stated clearly stated my rules and you have to follow them. We are going to vote for a male candidate and not for any woman. If you fail my words and I find out the numbers at our polling station, I will make you pay for it.

Other women were reportedly threatened by their partners to show candidate photos after they had casted their votes to prove they voted for a particular candidate. In some polling station, men threatened to divorce or physically torture their wives if results showed a significant number of women’s votes from that particular polling station.

A way forward

Political parties, as we know, are the most important institutions affecting women’s political participation. Even though our group knew we could have more support (moral and financial) from political parties if we ran under one of them, we still made the hard choice of running as an independent candidate. We had a few reasons for this, with the main one being that bigger political parties filed their candidates in advance, leaving no space for women to contest under their ticket. Secondly, women still have a long way to learn about the processes and lobbying involved in politics.

In spite of the challenges women continue to face, I see a new generation of powerful women flourishing in Tanna. Women with a strong sense of identity and power. Through our journey, many have come to understand that participation in the electoral processes involves much more than just voting. It is time to exercise the democratic rights that have either been ignored or violated over the last 36 years. Through our journey in politics, many have come to appreciate that through political participation women can have the freedom to speak out for the first time in the island’s history, which they’ve done through campaigning, assembling, associating and participating.

I have seen the power of ordinary women who have stood up against injustices to say they are tired. I have seen the faces of those who shed tears because of so much ill-dealing and threatening within their homes and communities. We have started a journey where we will continue to celebrate the united power of women who have taken the first steps to uncovering the multiple forms of discrimination and injustices. We shall continue to seek the empowerment of women to a level where they can think and speak for themselves.

We have been in this situation before

In the mid-nineties the nation had a similar problem with the runway at Bauerfield airport. In the end the government corporatised the airport (it used to be a department) and created Airport Vanuatu Limited (AVL). The idea was that a corporatised AVL would not suffer the same political problems as the former government department. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was also created to provide regulatory oversight of the industry.

The government also borrowed money from the European Investment Bank to fix the runway – in theory this loan was to be paid back by the new AVL, which (if run properly) should be profit-making. In reality, however, AVL remained political, was poorly run (in a financial sense) and never re-paid the loan. As a result the government had to reduce the available budget for critical services (e.g. health and education) and infrastructure maintenance to service this and other loans.

There have been sensible solutions on the table before

By about 2008 the developing problems with the management of the airport were well known to technical officials, and a series of solutions were discussed. The most relevant one being to look at combining three critical elements:

• Improve runway maintenance
• Look at a longer term solution for the runway and associated infrastructure required to meet ICAO standards
• Further privatise the AVL via some sort of PPP modality.

A lot of technical work and funding was organised for this via the Ministry of Public Works and by about 2010 funding was available through the IFC, AusAID and others for a combination of grants and, if necessary, a small loan for this program of works.

In the short term the problem is not financial – it is to do with maintenance of the airstrip

If the current airstrip can be shown to be properly maintained it should be enough for all of the current carriers to resume flights – however – for this to happen there will need to be evidence of a proper long term solution. This does not require any sort of a loan, fundamentally, it requires proof of better management. There are some small urgent repairs required on the more heavily used parts of the runway but it should be possible to quickly do this in the short term within existing resources.

A longer term solution does not need to bankrupt the country

There is plenty of evidence that clearly shows Vanuatu cannot expect to service even the current portfolio of external loans, let alone take on more borrowing. So there is little or no sense in borrowing enormous sums that cannot be paid back as all this means is that the future budgets for maintenance, health, education will be cut and so it will only mean the problem gets worse.

However, the most important works are remedial and can be done for a cost of under a few million dollars using concessional financing. More importantly, these funds can then be used to leverage grants (that don’t have to be paid back) to support the long-term management of the airport.

In the medium term a 150 meter buffer zone in the runway strip might also be cheaper than a brand new runway. This will cost some money and need landowner talks, however, it may be the cheapest option that allows for an “instrument approach” which will certainly alleviate many of the concerns of the airlines.

So given all of this is there any way forward?

The immediate priority must be to get a sensible runway maintenance program in place such that airlines can fly into Port Vila. Then the original IFC proposal for further privatisation of AVL should be re-looked at. This is likely to involve a financial restructure of AVL, and this is where the World Bank and others such as IFC could help within the scope of what they have already agreed to do with the government. Rather than lending impossibly large sums to the state they could provide targeted financial and managerial support to the new privately run AVL.

Recent history also shows that the level of representation has decreased alarmingly, with the total vote of winning candidates dropping to a low of 36 per cent in 2012. This figure rebounded slightly this year (41%) partly because fewer candidates ran. However, it still means more people voted for candidates who did not get elected than those who did.

Vanuatu election timeline 1979-2016

With the number of parties contesting the 2016 election (35) at an all time high, it is interesting to note that since independence a total of 33 political groupings (plus independents) have been represented in the national legislature. Of those, 19 have been represented in two or more parliaments. Previous analysis has shown remarkable similarities in the policy platforms of parties, especially those that formed as break away factions of the established independence-era parties.

Share of parliamentary seats

Democracy in Vanuatu is seemingly delivering a kind of micro federalisation. While this is reflective of the reality on the ground, it does not bode well for nation building and presents a significant challenge for parties to consolidate or grow their share of the popular vote. In the most recent election, only four parties secured over five per cent of the popular vote (i.e. total vote for all of their candidates) and most saw their vote share decline from the previous election. Some countries set a minimum threshold of five percent for a party to take a seat in parliament.

Share of popular vote

There seems to be widespread acceptance that the electoral roll is inaccurate and needs updating. The state of the roll means the turn out figures are unreliable. However, when we look at the number of votes cast compared to the last election, it is evident that voter numbers were down across the board.

Votes by constituency

Throughout the campaign we heard many candidates and voters alike discuss the need for political reform. There is a clear need to re-set the system to address the representation and stability issues, and to give the government of the day a mandate to get on with the task of governing the country. The challenge for the political actors is to connect with what the people want, while building a national debate about the development needs of the country – and then for the parties to respond to these needs.

In the meantime, the country awaits the parliamentary vote next week to find out who will be the next prime minister.

Vanuatu Prime Ministers 1980-2016

The prevalence of corruption is the direct cause of pervasive poverty in our region. Some may contend that poverty is the cause of corruption. I hold a contrary view. I come from a country richly endowed with natural resources, yet the majority of our people live in abject poverty. Corruption is the direct cause of poverty in my country and the same goes for many Pacific island countries. The failure to meet most of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is a testament to that.

The excess effects of corrut to that.

The excess effects of corruption does spread beyond the borders. They take the form of refugees, money laundering and other illicit activities. The digital world has changed the dynamics of the world map so that today, transactions can be conducted at the click of a keyboard or the tap of an iPhone. Our jurisdictional differences are becoming less of a barrier for those wishing to conduct illicit financial transactions.

Today, we are witnessing a growing trend, though not uncommon, whereby those in power use that power to enrich themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people. And when the anti-corruption institutions hold them to account, they refuse to submit. They use their powers and state resources to subjugate anti-corruption measures and avoid scrutiny. Most recently some of the most telling examples of threats to the rule of law, democracy, security and prosperity in our region include:

• The extraordinary efforts to obliterate anti-corruption forces to protect one person in Papua New Guinea;
• The acting President of Vanuatu pardoning himself and 13 other members of parliament after being convicted of bribery, even when the matter is pending sentencing; and
• The bribery scandal involving the Nauruan prime minister, his justice minister and an Australian phosphate company and the alleged actions by the Nauru Government to terminate the visa of the Chief Justice.

We have seen examples of how corruption transcends national borders, for example:

• The forgotten case of Australian companies and advisors implicated in diverting K100 million of PNG Motor Vehicle Insurance Ltd funds;
• The revelations by Australian authorities that at least AUD200 million of PNG corruption proceeds are laundered or invested in Australia every year;
• The recent findings of the Financial Action Task-Force that Australia is becoming a hotspot destination for property investment using illicit funds, mostly coming from Asia-Pacific countries;
• The recent revelations by SBS Dateline program of how Australian lawyers are involved in laundering corruption proceeds into Australia; and
• The recent revelations by Sydney Morning Herald of an Australian oil company, the Australian branch of an international bank and Australian lawyers involved in structuring a predatory loan arrangement.

Many of these examples have highlighted how the people who have been exposed in these corruption scandals have no trouble transferring and living off their ill-gotten gains. With access to Australia, for example, many have access to quality health care and education whilst at home the robbed majority continue to suffer in abysmal conditions.

In saying this, I am also conscious of the fact that in most developing countries, apart from simple survival corruption, most of the high-level corruption are facilitated by and benefit those in power. If corruption-free and good governance are the values and standards we want to see reflected in our neighbourhood, we should live for and fight for their worth. Although it may come at a price. Few may not like it, but the victimised majority will appreciate our efforts. Based on my personal experience, I can vouch for this.

Australia, as member of the G20 and the OECD among others, has obligations under various international treaties, memberships and agreements. Most countries in the Pacific have adopted the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). While progress has been made to establish an APEC Network of Anti-Corruption Authorities and Law Enforcement Agencies, I am unaware of a regional framework in the Pacific Islands Forum to combat corruption and money laundering. Perhaps that may be an agenda for the next forum leaders discussions?

So the question is, when does corruption in one country really become a matter for regional leaders?

One can trumpet the robustness of its own domestic mechanisms but if that ‘robust’ system is not detecting and combating corruption and money laundering more widely, then that system is a problem in itself. Or is it just a case of lacking political will to act?

This is an extract of Mr. Sam Koim’s presentation to the Voices for Justice conference held at Parliament House, Canberra on 13 October 2015.

Accepting to step into his father’s shoes suggests he is prepared to launch his own political career at a young age of 33. And according to reports, he is standing despite his late father’s advice not to follow in his footsteps.

An IT worker with Telco powerhouse, Digicel, young Natapei will pit his wits against the likes of Union of Moderate Parties’ Georgie Calo, Jocelyn Mete, Attorney General Ishmael Kalsakau and a couple others. Both Kalsakau and Mete are known VP supporters, which tells a lot about the political wrangling that has plagued the party since 1989.

However, Natapei junior’s candidacy reflects an increasingly common trend of dynasty politics in Vanuatu where the baton of leadership is often passed on to a next of kin or a close family member, particularly when a leader vacates his/her seat by death.

As a result, it is becoming increasingly hard not to recognise a familiar name after an election: a re-electionist, or relatives of incumbent or former politicians after a major election. I touched on this in 2013, when I recounted some of our own history regarding dynasty politics, demonstrated so clearly when Fr. Lini died, and then in 2013 after the passing of former VP renegade, Harry Iauko, in 2012.

Much of it is to do with local voting behaviour, which does not necessarily consider policy platforms, or what a leader can bring to the national agenda as factors influencing one’s decision.

Rather, local politics is more about personalities and patronage. Kastom often dictates these voting patterns, which means a ni-Vanuatu will place more value on his/her relationship with a certain candidate, regardless of whether or not they are politically adept. Consequently, the tendency has been that voters will vote out of their hearts, rather than their minds particularly during by-elections. Culturally it might be understandable as in some islands, it is quite normal to look to the eldest son as replacement of his father, not necessarily for political reasons, but as far as community organisation goes.

The pattern however, prompts a very important discussion the Vanuatu voting population should be having, because it has a lot of bearing on our democracy and the values we all aspire to achieve: peace, security, justice and socio-economic wellbeing.

While in principle, there might be nothing wrong with dynasty politics, it has the potential of snuffing life out of our democracy, which is supposed to be representative and yet it excludes many, and can create an uneven playing field.

Following in the footsteps of one’s parents is not unacceptable but it can be a barrier because voters do not get to choose based on a candidate’s political aptitude, leadership skills, or policy platforms. Instead their choices are made out of respect, or in certain cases, for political expediency.

The purpose of holding a democratic election, one assumes, is so that voters can exercise their democratic rights of choosing their representatives to parliament. As such, winners are supposed to be those who have earned the trust and confidence of their constituents to represent them in the national legislature because of the values they stand for, or are willing to advocate on their constituent’s behalf despite their own beliefs; and their ability to lead and articulate their people’s interests. It means on election, the onus will be on them to deliver on those basic principles, or face the consequences come the next election. It seems this has not been the case since 1980.

The thinking behind this discussion is: if we are to allow this pattern to continue, then perhaps legislative adjustments are needed to formalise it, rather than institutionalise what is essentially supposed to be a democratic process.

There have been some suggestions in the past that maybe an idea would be for the Electoral Commission to declare the next candidate with the next highest tally, as the natural successor in the event of death, or when someone vacates his or her seat. Or, even better, if political parties can agree to bloc-vote like what they have done in the past – and could do again next month; where parties in power cast their votes for a certain candidate and vice versa, the Opposition for another. Wouldn’t it be more cost-effective if these were provided for within the legislation? This way the country saves money spent on by-elections (with predictable outcomes) and uses those funds more effectively by delivering services to the people.

The way it is, elitist rule could be easily legitimized through current processes — giving the impression that the public has voted, when in reality, electable candidates are seriously limited to a set of individuals and personalities. Often the result becomes obvious sooner or later when key institutions are filled by family members and people with familiar surnames. For countries like Vanuatu that have weak institutions, dynasty politics could very easily lead to cronyism and corruption, which then defeats the whole purpose of an election process.

In addition, an argument could be made that to accept political dynasties means remaining oblivious to an obvious abuse of a weak democratic process that could be easily fixed.

The key point is: Why go through an expensive process when the outcome, as seen with past elections, is a foregone conclusion?

If it is any consolation, political dynasties are not unique to Vanuatu. The USA, for instance, has a well-documented history of it in the last 100 years or so.

Certainly more needs to be done to bring about real political reform that better reflects the country’s social realities and delivers optimum outcomes rather than what the public has witnessed in the last 20 years or so. Until there is some maturity on the part of the country’s leadership to push forward with any political reforms, Port Vila will go about its business as usual on polling day come October 15th.

Late Natapei’s political career was sustained over the course of 32 years because of his leadership skills, humility, strong faith in God, and a nice-guy image rarely seen in a field where most of his competitors would come out swinging. Young Natapei’s challenge would be making those big shoes fit. May the best candidate win!

Although many of the big Hollywood stars were there, including Johnny Depp, some of the biggest audience cheers were saved for the five actors from Yakel village on Tanna whose custom dance on the red carpet provided a slightly incongruous sight compared to the sleek Dior and Channel-dressed stars gliding amidst the barrage of photography flashes. Photos of the exuberant cast ran front page on big Italian daily newspapers and film magazines – great publicity for post cyclone Vanuatu.

The film – shot in Vanuatu using an entirely local cast – had its world premier at the festival and took home two awards – the Audience Award and Best Cinematographer for Bentley Dean, who shot and co-directed the film with Martin Butler. Both Dean and Butler are known for their acclaimed documentaries and television current affairs for ABC and SBS television in Australia.

Dean first came to Vanuatu in 2003 to work with me on an SBS Dateline story about the John Frum movement on Tanna and the breakaway Unity movement led by the prophet Fred. He was immediately entranced by the place and spoke back then of returning to film something more substantial. It took him a few years but in 2013 he returned with his young family to spend seven months living in Yakel village developing the film.

‘I wanted to do a feature film based on a local story and at the same time give my young children an experience living in the village that would wire their brains differently, so there was a bit of social engineering at work’ he laughs now. He had been somewhat inspired by the Rolf de Heers’ Ten Canoes film, set in a pre-contact Aboriginal community in Arnhemland, which also focused on a entirely Aboriginal cast and local story.

‘I arrived in Tanna with no script and no set story, I just wanted to develop something in collaboration with the Yakel people. For the first three months we didn’t shoot anything, we just talked and negotiated and developed some story lines. But they were keen to participate and in the end they took control of the process. We consulted at every point and showed them the rough cut and final cut for their approval. Perhaps the best compliment they could pay me in the end was when they said “Bentley, this is our film now”.’

The film is a kind of Romeo-and-Juliet love story that focuses on a young couple caught in a local tribal war and traditions of arranged marriage. It is based loosely on several true stories of suicide by young lovers unwilling to submit to custom marriages and which prompted chiefs to begin allowing love marriages.

Tanna is beautifully shot, making good use of the Yasur volcano on Tanna island, and with natural performances from a village of people who had reputedly never even seen a film, let alone acted in one. The story also shows the complexity of those living kastom lives as christianity and modern influences begin to pervade the rest of the island.

The film has universal values, emotional range and subtly avoids exoticising its cast and setting. With more tributes yet to come, Tanna will put Pacific film-making further on the map. There are positive reviews from the Sydney Morning Herald here and the influential trade magazine Variety here.

But all credit must be accorded to Port Vila MP and Finance Minister Willie Jimmy for entering an early guilty plea yesterday, which no doubt will count for much in his favour in the final analysis. It is a smart decision on his part, although this must have been a shock to the other 16 defendants. Trial is now set for Monday 7 September.

On Thursday last week, Vanuatu Supreme Court judge Mary Sey made a landmark ruling that all 16 parliamentarians facing corruption charges would stand trial both under the Penal Code and the Leadership Code Act. No public figure in Vanuatu has ever been tried under the Leadership Code Act since its enactment in 1998.

Last week’s ruling means an eventual outcome against the accused MPs could prove damaging as far as the leaders’ political careers are concerned; and catastrophic, as far as the life of the present government goes.

At least five of the accused are cabinet ministers: Deputy Prime Minister Moana Carcasses Kalosil, Finance Minister Willie Jimmy, Public Utilities Minister Tony Nari, Foreign Affairs Minister Serge Vohor, and Lands Minister Paul Telukluk. Among them are the Speaker of Parliament, Marcellino Pipite and Parliamentary Secretaries Silas Yatan and Steven Kalsakau.

Starting next week, Justice Sey will preside over arguably the biggest corruption case ever in Vanuatu. The case concerns 16 parliamentarians – all from the government side – a prominent businessman, eight defence lawyers, and 48 prosecution witnesses.

In 35 years of Vanuatu’s political history, only Ati George Sokomanu, the country’s first president, felt obligated to step down from his leadership duties, when he was reprimanded for a simple road traffic offence some 27 years or so ago. Apart from that, no one else has done it, regardless of allegations levelled against them.

The public in Port Vila are eagerly waiting to see the outcome of the current case, which seems bound to open a new chapter in the country’s political history.

Despite the seriousness of the matter at hand, Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Kilman appears unflinching, nor does he appear to be making any moves to consider the alternatives, among them the opposition’s suggestion that his government voluntarily step aside.

Chances were slim from the beginning that Mr Kilman would consider this option. Cultural norms and history suggest that he may not contemplate resigning for fear of losing face and of the political backlash, especially when elections are less than 18 months or so away. Obviously he would want to continue leading as prime minister into next year’s polls.

Many political hopefuls for the 2016 election fear this option because they are not prepared to be on the campaign trails too soon.

For Mr Kilman, the second option seems to make more sense. Not only would he gain politically by keeping his position as prime minister, but he could also save himself from being accused of watching his own government fall from grace. In any case, he certainly has some tough calls to make as events unfold.

With the trial commencing next week, at the very least three likely scenarios may also unfold.

Firstly, as anticipated, the government, through Electoral Commission has set October 15th as the date for Port Vila to find a replacement for former Prime Minister and Vanua’aku Pati leader, Edward Nipake Natapei who died suddenly last month. But it is also possible that more than just the one seat left vacant by the late leader could be up for grabs, which then throws up further questions over the announcement by the Electoral Commission. Could they have waited a little longer, while monitoring the progress of current events in court? Chances are that at the stroke of Justice Sey’s pen, a completely new scenario might also unfold and authorities would then need to revisit the decision whether or not it makes more sense to conduct separate by-elections, or even declare a snap election, in the event of a dissolution of parliament.

However, even for dissolution to take place, Constitutional provisions require that the president make this call, in ‘consultation’ with the office of the prime minister. In such a scenario, a different issue also arises: in the event of the coalition not being able to hold water, could the prime minister still function in the interim and work with the president on dissolving parliament?

In 1989, during the tumultuous years when the Vanua’aku Pati was beginning to disintegrate, this was exactly the point of the government then led by Fr. Walter Lini, during the infamous sedition case involving Barak Sope and Sokomanu as the former president. Sokomanu had unilaterally decided to dissolve parliament for which Fr. Lini took him to task before Solomon Islands Chief Justice Gordon Ward — flown in as a neutral person to help out in the crisis.

Whatever the result, there’s no doubt that current events have the potential to change irreversibly the complexion of the political landscape here in Vanuatu.

— This article was first published in the Vanuatu Daily Post on 3 September 2015 —

Natapei was Prime Minister twice and Opposition leader several times during the course of his 32 year parliamentary career. He first entered parliament in 1983 as an MP for TAFEA outer islands. He later became an MP for the Port Vila constituency and has held his seat ever since.

He will be remembered as an honest and humble leader who did much for his constituency and the nation at large.

The Pacific Institute of Public Policy extends its deep condolences to his family and the nation and acknowledges that Vanuatu’s political life will be poorer without his presence.

Natapei was quietly spoken and forthright but rarely played the Big Man role so common in Melanesian politics.  He also achieved something rare – there was never a whiff of scandal or corruption associated with him and thus he will be remembered as a ‘clean skin’ and a man of quiet integrity who improved the body politic of Vanuatu’s parliamentary life.

He drew deeply from his Christian faith and championed the rights of others in the region. In particular he was a strong supporter of the West Papuans and spoke on their behalf in various international fora, including the United Nations. Only recently he expressed his belief that the West Papuans should be given full membership of the sub-regional Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

Natapei was born in 1954 on Vanuatu’s only Polynesian outlier, Futuna, and together with former Prime Minister Moanna Carcasses is among the few Polynesians to have become MPs in this Melanesian country. 

He held a variety of parliamentary posts including Speaker of Parliament, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was also President of the Vanua aku Party, the political party which brought independence to Vanuatu in 1980 under its founding father, Fr Walter Lini.

Tributes have flowed from the general public on the Yumi Tok Tok (YTS) page of facebook, a popular social media forum.

Arthur Knight posted: “RIP. Honorable Edward Natapei .. A great national leader and family man that struggled and toiled for Vanuatu’s development ….May God Bless your family and nation in this time of loss and sorrow ..Deepest Sympathy and Condolences.”

One of the administrators of YTS Julian Ligo has posted a moving tribute called “we see you” on their website:

“In all the trials and tribulation, in our path to finding a way to redemption, through our visions of a nation, you have lit the fire that needed to burn. You decided to mould a future through a child’s heart. You instilled a symbol of hope in a generation without patience. You became an icon on your last breath for making us believe we can lead and we see you.”

Recently deposed Prime Minister Joe Natuman praised Natapei saying: “He was a true leader of Vanuatu, a humble person, very genuine, kind and loving person who cared about people, particularly ordinary people. He was a true leader of Vanuatu, a humble person, very genuine, kind and loving person.”

“He will be remembered as a person who was really trying to make sure that people have a better life in Vanuatu”.

Its a sombre moment as the country begins celebrating its 35th independence.

A State funeral will be held on July 31^st.

Caption: Edward Nipake Natapei Tuta Fanua`araki (center) with Australian MP Stephen Smith (left) and former Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) Tuiloma Neroni Slade (right).

Four teams from Efate battled it out on stage with compelling arguments for and against the set topic. The schools participating included Vila North, Ecole Francaise, Centreville, NTM and Central School. The first motion debated was “That kava bars should be banned from urban residential areas”, while the second debate topic was “That government has a responsibility to create jobs for unemployed youth in Vanuatu.”

Ecole Francaise won its round on the first topic while Vila North won the second and NTM won its place in the next round due to forfeiture since its opposing team couldn’t show up.

This is the second year of the national debating competition, whose ultimate winners will then go on to represent Vanuatu in the Melanesian Cup. Last year a mixture of outstanding speakers from various schools represented Vanuatu at the regional competition held in PNG, where the PNG team ended up winning the Melanesian Cup for 2014.

The debate competition is an initiative by the Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PiPP) in co-operation with the Ministry of Education and Training.

PiPP’s Communications Director Ben Bohane, who chaired the first debates, said:

“PiPP is proud to support this important initiative which encourages our school students to develop critical thinking, public speaking and research skills, plus build the confidence of students to creatively structure persuasive arguments on any topic. These are really important skills for life and help us to create an atmosphere of tolerance for other people’s views and opinions in society.”

He thanked Mr John Niroa, representing the Director of Education services for their partnership, Wan Smol Bag and all the teachers and students who worked hard to make the debates exciting and informative.

Mr Niroa said “On behalf of the Ministry of Education I want to thank PiPP and the schools involved for creating this great competition which will give our students so many skills. I was very impressed with the students performances today and our Ministry will continue to support this program into the future”.

The next round for Efate schools happens next Thursday, 23 July, from 9am – 12am at the Wan Smol Bag theatre. The debates are open to the public and the finals and semi-finals will be aired live on radio.

Next week schools on Santo will also begin their first rounds. The final winners of the Santo and Efate competitions will face each other in the grand final. Unfortunately, schools on Tanna which were going to be part of the competition this year have had to withdraw due to cyclone Pam damage and disruption.

To prepare teachers new to the activity, PiPP hosted workshops in Luganville and Port Vila in late May. The workshops aimed to provide teachers with the skills to develop an ongoing internal debate competition within their schools. Teachers came together to learn the basics of debating, understanding the individual roles, debate rules, structure and importantly the dissection of the judging criteria.

The workshops came together with a final mock debate between teachers, who scrutinized the 2014 Semi Final motion that “Tertiary Scholarships are the best way to provide employment opportunities for youth in Vanuatu.” The process was a success one, allowing teachers to put into practice the theories and rules that had been discussed the previous day, and provide insight into the challenges but also great rewards of debating.

Now equipped with sound understanding of debate process, teachers have the foundations to initiate debate competitions within their school, providing increased opportunity for student engagement. It will allow teachers to design their own motions for a debate, which could be based on themes they are studying already, or current issues that arise in the community or national news.

Through the debating process, students will be pushed to think critically about issues presented to them, using research and evidence to support their arguments. The skills learned can assist them in many future situations, including simple conflict resolution in the home, through to analysis and understanding of problems at a community or even national level.

Schools will select their best and brightest to compete against other school teams, to debate topics around education, employment, the environment and natural disasters as well as independence.

Caption: Gavika Viduka from Ecole Centreville arguing his case in support of the motion: ‘The government has a responsibility to create jobs for unemployed youth in Vanuatu’

New Zealand wasn’t the only target of French special ops three decades ago. Nor was the Rainbow Warrior.

The attack on the Greenpeace environmental flagship 30 years ago was part of a Pacific-wide strategy to crush pro-independence movements in both New Caledonia and French Polynesia during the 1980s.

And Operation Satanique, as the Rainbow Warrior sabotage plan was aptly named, got the green light because of the political rivalry between then socialist President Francois Mitterrand and right-wing Prime Minister Jacques Chirac that pushed them into point-scoring against each other.

Although misleading and laughable as early New Zealand press reports were about who was responsible for the bombing on 10 July 1985 in Auckland Harbour – focusing on mercenaries, or the French Foreign Legion based in New Caledonia and so on – there was certainly a connection with the neocolonial mind-set of the time.

New Caledonia then had the largest military garrison in the Pacific, about 6000 French Pacific Regiment and other troops, larger than the New Zealand armed forces with about one soldier or paramilitary officer for every 24 citizens in the territory – the nearest Pacific neighbour to Auckland.

New Caledonia … highly militarised with French troops in the mid-1980s.
PHOTO: David Robie

A small Pacific fleet included the nuclear submarine Rubis, reputed to have picked up one unit of the French secret service agents involved in Operation Satanic off the yacht Ouvea and scuttled her in the Coral Sea and then spirited them to safety in Tahiti.

A long line of human rights violations and oppressive acts were carried out against Kanak activists seeking independence starting with a political stand-off in 1984, a year before the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

Parties favouring independence came together that year under an umbrella known as the Front de Libération Nationale Kanake et Socialiste (FLNKS) and began agitating for independence from France with a series of blockades and political demonstrations over the next four years.

The bombed Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour … not the only target of the French military. PHOTO: John Miller/Eyes of Fire

Melanesian activism
The struggle echoed the current Melanesian activism in West Papua today seeking political justice and independence from Indonesian colonial rule.

The Greenpeace tragedy was one of several happening in the Pacific at the time, and this was really overshadowed by the Rongelap evacuation when the Rainbow Warrior crew ferried some 320 islanders, plagued by ill-health from the US atmospheric mega nuclear tests in the 1950s, from their home in the Marshall Islands to a new islet, Mejato, on Kwajalein Atoll.

Rainbow Warrior crew helping Rongelap islanders board the ship for one of four voyages relocating them to Mejato islet in May 1985. PHOTO: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

Over the next few years, after the start of the Kanak uprising, New Caledonia suffered a series of bloody incidents because of hardline French neocolonial policies:

• The Hiènghene massacre on 5 December 1984 when 10 unarmed Kanak political advocates were ambushed by heavily armed mixed-race French settlers on their way home to their village after a political meeting. (Charismatic Kanak independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou lost two brothers in that ambush when almost all the menfolk of the village of Tiendanite were gunned down in one deadly night.)
• The assassination of Kanak independence leader Eloï Machoro and his deputy, Marcel Nonaro, by French special forces snipers at dawn on 12 January 1985 during a siege of farmhouse at Dogny, near la Foa.
• The infamous cave siege of Ouvea when French forces used a “news media” helicopter as a ruse to attack 19 young militant Kanaks holding gendarmes hostage, killing most of them and allegedly torturing wounded captives to death. The 11th Shock Unit carried out this attack – the same unit (known then as the Service Action squad) to carry out Operation Satanic against the Rainbow Warrior.
• The human rights violations involved in this attack were exposed in the 2011 docudrama Rebellion (originally L’ordre et la morale) by director Mathieu Kassovitz, based on a book by a hostage negotiator who believed he could have achieved a peaceful resolution.
  [http://www.pjreview.info/sites/default/files/articles/pdfs/PJR18%282%29_Reviews_Rebellion%20pp212-216.pdf ]
• France had its problems in Vanuatu too. Founding Prime Minister Father Walter Lini’s government expelled ambassador Henri Crepin-Leblond shortly before the election on 30 November 1987, accusing Paris of funding the opposition Union of Moderate Parties – a claim denied by the French.

French CRS special police confronting Kanak activists demanding independence in New Caledonia. PHOTO: David Robie

Social scars
The social scars from these events affected France’s standing in the Pacific for many years. While relations have dramatically improved since then, it still rankles with both many New Zealanders and Greenpeace that Paris has never given a full state apology.

Interviewed on Democracy Now! recently, Rainbow Warrior skipper Pete Willcox, who is returning to New Zealand to captain the ship for a tuna fishing campaign, criticised the failure of France to apologise for being “caught red-handed” in state terrorism.

However, the American also delivered a strong warning about climate change – the main contemporary environmental issue.

Explaining his more than three decades of campaigning, Willcox said: “We know what climate change is doing. We’re the richest country in the world. We can support, if you will, a drought.

“Countries like in East Africa and other places of the world, Bangladesh, where it’s going to displace millions of people, can’t deal with it. And it’s coming.

“And it’s only coming because we’re not willing to change the way we produce energy, we make energy. We have the technology. We don’t have the will. And that’s just ridiculous.”

In January 1987, a year after my book Eyes of Fire was first published – four months before the first Fiji military coup, I was arrested at gunpoint by French troops near the New Caledonian village of Canala.

Tailed by agents
The arrest followed a week of me being tailed by secret agents in Noumea. When I was handed over by the military to local gendarmes for interrogation, accusations of my being a “spy” and questions over my book on the Rainbow Warrior bombing were made in the same breath.

But after about four hours of questioning I was released.

David Robie presenting an earlier edition of Eyes of Fire to former Vanuatu Prime Minister Ham Lini in 2006. PHOTO: Pacific Media Centre

This drama over my reporting of the militarisation of East Coast villages in an attempt by French authorities to harass and suppress supporters of Kanak independence was a reflection of the paranoia at the time.

Then it seemed highly unlikely that in less than two decades nuclear testing would be finally abandoned in the South Pacific, and Tahiti’s leading nuclear-free and pro-independence politician, Oscar Manutahi Temaru, would emerge as French Polynesia’s new president four times and usher in a refreshing “new order” with a commitment to pan-Pacific relations.

Although Tahitian independence is nominally off the agenda for the moment, far-reaching changes in the region are inevitable.

President Baldwin Lonsdale remarked about the Rainbow Warrior bombing in a welcome for the ship’s namesake, Rainbow Warrior III, in Port Vila recently on her post-cyclone humanitarian mission.

He recalled how the Vanuatu government representative, the late Charles Rara, sent by founding Prime Minister Walter Lini on board the Rainbow Warrior to New Zealand, had been ashore on the night of the bombing. Rara was at the home of President Lonsdale at St John’s Theological College in Auckland, where he was studying.

The late Charles Rara, Vanuatu’s “diplomatic” representative on board the Rainbow Warrior bound for Auckland in 1985. PHOTO: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

“When Charles got back to the ship that night, he found the Rainbow Warrior had been bombed, it had been destroyed,” President Lonsdale said.

“I think the main intention of the French [military] who carried out the bombing was because the Greenpeace movement was trying to bring about peace and justice among island nations.”

‘Living reef’
After being awarded $8 million in compensation from France by the International Arbitration Tribunal, Greenpeace finally towed the Rainbow Warrior to Matauri Bay and scuttled her off Motutapere, in the Cavalli Islands, on 12 December 1987 to create a “living reef”.

An earlier compensation deal for New Zealand mediated in 1986 by United Nations Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar awarded the Government $13 million (US$7 million) – the money was used for an anti-nuclear projects fund and the Pacific Development and Conservation Trust.

The agreement was supposed to include an apology by France and deportation of jailed secret agents Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur after they had served less than a year of their 10-year sentences for manslaughter and wilful damage of the bombed ship (downgraded from charges of murder, arson and conspiracy).

They were transferred from New Zealand to Hao Atoll in French Polynesia to serve three years in exile at a “Club Med” style nuclear and military base.

But the bombing scandal didn’t end there. The same day as the scuttling of the Rainbow Warrior in 1987, the French government told New Zealand that Major Mafart had a “serious stomach complaint”. The French authorities repatriated him back to France in defiance of the terms of the United Nations agreement and protests from the David Lange government.

It was later claimed by a Tahitian newspaper, Les Nouvelles, that Mafart was smuggled out of Tahiti on a false passport hours before New Zealand was even told of the “illness”. Mafart reportedly assumed the identity of a carpenter, Serge Quillan.

Captain Prieur was also repatriated back to France in May 1988 because she was pregnant. France ignored the protests by New Zealand and the secret agent pair were honoured, decorated and promoted in their homeland.

Supreme irony
A supreme irony that such an act of state terrorism should be rewarded in this age of a so-called “war on terrorism”.

In 2005, their lawyer, Gerard Currie, tried to block footage of their guilty pleas in court – shown on closed circuit to journalists at the time but not previously seen publicly – from being broadcast by the Television New Zealand current affairs programme Sunday.

Losing the High Court ruling in May 2005, the two former agents appealed against the footage being broadcast. They failed and the footage was finally broadcast by Television New Zealand on 7 August 2006 – almost two decades later.

French secret agent Alain Mafart pleads guilty to reduced charges of manslaughter and wilful damage in November 1985 (courtroom CCTV footage). PHOTO: TVNZ

They had lost any spurious claim to privacy over the act of terrorism by publishing their own memoirs – Agent Secrète (Prieur, 1995) and Carnets Secrets (Mafart, 1999).

Mafart recalled in his book how the international media were dumbfounded that the expected huge High Court trial had “evaporated before their eyes”, describing his courtroom experience:

I had an impression of being a mutineer from the Bounty … but in this case the gallows would not be erected in the village square. Three courteous phrases were exchanged between [the judge] and our lawyers, the charges were read to us and the court asked us whether we pleaded guilty or not guilty. Our replies were clear: ‘Guilty!’ With that one word the trial was at an end.

Ironically, Mafart much later became a wildlife photographer, under the moniker Alain Mafart-Renodier, and filed his pictures through the Paris-based agency Bios with a New York office. Greenpeace US engaged an advertising agency to produce the 2015 environmental calendar illustrated with wildlife images.

As Greenpeace chronicler and photojournalist Pierre Gleizes describes it: “Incredibly bad luck, out of millions, the agency bought one of Alain Mafart’s pictures to illustrate a Greenpeace calendar. Fortunately, someone saw that before it got distributed. So Mafart got his fee but 40,000 calendars were destroyed.”

French nuclear swansong
France finally agreed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty after a final swansong package of eight planned nuclear tests in 1996 to provide data for simulation computer software.

But such was the strength of international hostility and protests and riots in Pape’ete that Paris ended the programme prematurely after just six tests.

France officially ratified the treaty on 10 September 1996.

When Tahitians elected Oscar Temaru as their territorial president in 2004, he had already established the first nuclear-free municipality in the Pacific Islands as mayor of the Pape’ete airport suburb of Faa’a.

Having ousted the conservative incumbent for the previous two decades, Gaston Flosse – the man who gave Mafart and Prieur a hero’s welcome to Tahiti, Temaru lost office just four months later.

He was reinstated to power in early 2005 after a byelection confirmed his overwhelming support. But since then Temaru has won and lost office twice more, most recently in 2013, and Flosse is fighting ongoing corruption charges.

Since the Temaru coalition first came to power, demands have increased for a full commission of inquiry to investigate new evidence of radiation exposure in the atmospheric nuclear tests in the Gambiers between 1966 and 1974.

‘Contempt’ for Polynesia
Altogether France detonated 193 of a total of 210 nuclear tests in the South Pacific, 46 of them dumping more than nine megatons of explosive energy in the atmosphere – 42 over Moruroa and four over Fangataufa atolls.

The Green Party leader in Tahiti, Jacky Bryant, accused the French Defence Ministry of having “contempt” for the people of Polynesia.

Replying to ministry denials in May 2005 claiming stringent safety and health precautions, he said: “It’s necessary to stop saying that the Tahitians don’t understand anything about these kinds of questions – they must stop this kind of behaviour from another epoch.”

Bryant compared the French ministry’s reaction with the secretive and arrogant approach of China and Russia.

However, Britain and the United States had reluctantly “recognised the consequences of nuclear tests on the populations” in Australia, Christmas Island, the Marshall Islands and Rongelap.

In 2009, the French National Assembly finally passed nuclear care and compensation legislation, known as the Morin law after Defence Minister Hervé Morin who initiated it. It has been consistently criticised as far too restrictive and of little real benefit to Polynesians.

In 2013, declassified French defence documents exposed that the nuclear tests were “far more toxic” than had been previously acknowledged. Le Parisien reported that the papers “lifted the lid on one of the biggest secrets of the French army”.

It said that the documents indicated that on 17 July 1974, a test had exposed the main island of Tahiti, and the nearby tourist resort isle of Bora Bora, to plutonium fallout 500 times the maximum level.

US radiation fallout
This had been echoed almost two decades earlier when The Washington Post reported that US analysts had admitted that radiation fallout from their nuclear tests of the 1950s was “limited”.

In fact, federal documents, according to The Post in the February 1994 article, had revealed that “the post-explosion cloud of radioactive materials spread hundreds of [kilometres] beyond the limited area earlier described in the vast range Pacific islands”.

Thousands of Marshall Islanders and “some US troops” had probably been exposed to radiation, the documents suggested.

“One of the biggest crimes here is that the US government seemed to clearly know the extent of the fallout coming, but made no attempt to protect people from it,” said Washington-based lawyer Jonathan Weisgall, author of Operation Crossroads, a book about the Marshall Islands nuclear tests.

The Rainbow Warrior bombing with the death of photographer Fernando Pereira was a callous tragedy. But the greater tragedy remains the horrendous legacy of the Pacific nuclear testing on the people of Rongelap and the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia.

More information about the Rainbow Warrior affair can be found here.