Who owns the forum?

An opinion by Dr ROMAN GRYNBERG

(DR Roman Grynberg was, until earlier this March, the Director of Economic Governance with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat).


IN the early 1970s recently independent Pacific island leaders balked at their enforced silence in what was then the South Pacific Commission where they were unable to discuss French nuclear testing because of the opposition of the French government.

They decided as a group to create a new forum where independent nations would be free to talk. At the time Pacific island leaders were divided over whether the new ‘Forum’ should include Australia and New Zealand or not.

Ostensibly because of the huge resources these two countries could bring to the table they were grudgingly included.

Initially the Forum and its secretariat, then called the South Pacific Economic Community, was there to provide technical assistance to the islands, hand out small bits of cash for training and workshops and to service the annual meetings of leaders.

However, the Pacific Islands Forum quickly grew to become the region’s paramount political organisation where all major issues of the day are discussed.

It has replaced the Secretariat of the Pacific Community which now performs an essentially technical role. The two organisations co-exist but the highly contentious political issues are largely handled at the Forum.

By the late 1990s the Forum, under pressure from Australia and New Zealand, began to evolve as a policy making body rather than a technical body assisting the islands.

Regrettably the change in the function of the Forum was never accompanied by an increase in its capacity to set the policy.

At the beginning of the current decade this role as a policy making body became even more important when the ‘ethnic tensions’ occurred in the Solomon Islands.

The very important and beneficial Australian lead intervention to save the Solomon Islands from the possibility of civil war and total collapse meant Australia needed what is called ‘regional cover’ from the Forum for the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands.

This sort of intervention could not be done bilaterally and needed the support of other island states through the Forum.

But whereas RAMSI started as a truly positive intervention to save the Solomon Islands it has evolved into creeping control of economic policy by the young Australian ‘babycrats’ as they have dubbed in Honiara.

Some of the commercial policies they have advocated and implemented will directly benefit Australia.

The wags in Honiara now say the RAMSI mission will continue for many years and will only ever come to an end once the last overpaid ‘babycrat’ in Honiara pays his last mortgage installment in Australia.

If the Forum is a policy body then who establishes the policy? These decisions over policy are made by ministers on advice from officials.

Ministers then seek endorsement from leaders.

But where does the actual policy come from? The answer is very simple. In theory it is the technical people at the Forum secretariat who prepare the papers and the advice.

In reality, however, there is simply no capacity within the Forum secretariat to establish independent policy on most economic issues.

The policy either comes directly or indirectly from Canberra and Wellington or through its ‘multilateral cover’, that is the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

If you look at almost every study undertaken in the region by the international financial institutions you will find a thank you on page 2 or 3 for the funding provided by AusAID or NZAID.

These organisations have Australian and New Zealand staff seconded to them and Canberra vigorously and jealously controls their trust accounts.

Only very occasionally do any of these institutions dare give advice that Canberra and Wellington explicitly disapprove of. This did occur recently with the World Bank’s courageous and successful push to get Australia and New Zealand to open up their horticultural labour markets to Pacific island temporary workers.

Who sets the Forum agenda? In the Forum as in all international bodies, a draft agenda for every meeting is sent out to all members and they must all agree.

In reality in most cases only Australia and New Zealand have the capacity to review these documents and make substantive comments and hence they very largely set the Forum’s agenda.

Not one Pacific island country, even PNG, the largest, has one dedicated official whose sole job it is to work only on Pacific island affairs.

Australia and New Zealand have scores of officials and desk officers in Canberra and Wellington with experts on each Forum island country.

Pacific island officials work on so many areas they have to be a ‘jack of all trades’ but because they are so busy they rarely even have time to read the meeting papers prior to an international meeting.

As a result they are almost invariably out-gunned by their Australian and New Zealand counterparts at any meeting.

So if the Forum’s policy and the agenda are by and large set in Canberra and Wellington why do Pacific island officials, ministers and leaders continue to accept it?

The answer to this is fairly complex. The first reason is that some of the advice provided by Australia and New Zealand is basically sound.

Whether it is democracy and the rule of law or the liberalisation of telecommunication and air transport few Pacific islanders would doubt that the advice provided by Canberra and Wellington either directly or through their regional or international surrogates has done anything other than benefit the people of the region.

However, there are many glaring examples in the past of policy advice which Canberra and Wellington would not be so proud of.

But this is not the point really. I have witnessed Pacific island officials and ministers sit there and agree to policy they know is not in their country’s interest.

You will often hear outsiders ask why they remain silent? The usual response is a cultural explanation. Many Pacific island cultures, though by no means all, have no tradition of engaging in the sort of direct confrontation needed to achieve their foreign policy objectives.

I don’t like this explanation because it portrays Pacific islanders as victims and I have seen another type of more subtle calculus occurring.

Many Pacific islanders remain silent for what are often good self interested reasons.

It takes a courageous official to question Canberra and Wellington when Australia and New Zealand provide two-thirds of the income of the Forum Secretariat and a very large part of their national aid budget. Careers of officials can be terminated. Prime Ministers will receive letters of complaint about recalcitrant ministers and pressure can be brought to remove governments where they are too strident. All this is part of the normal use of power to retain effective control of countries in Australia and New Zealand’s lake.

But in the final analysis what buys the silence of the islands in Forum meetings stems from the ‘original sin’ of the Forum leaders who included the aid donors as members and created a Forum where the poor and vulnerable are better off remaining silent.

There is an ancient proverb that goes, more or less ‘He who eats the food of others shall grow weak in the mouth and he who takes the goods of others shall grow weak in the arms’.

This I believe explains much of the silence that is observed at forum meetings.

Whenever a Pacific island leader or minister sits there and accepts policy that is not in their national interests they know that speaking up too loudly may risk the aid flows to their country.

There is, however, even a dirtier secret about the Forum that all ministers and leaders know.

They can sit there at Forum meetings and nod silently to a policy which they have no intention of implementing when they go home and there is no-one to force them to do so.

So what happens are an endless cycle of meetings with quiescent ministers who agree silently to things because they know it will cost them too much to object publicly or they have no intention of implementing when they get home.

Implementation of decisions has simply never been a great priority for the Forum.

So if the purpose of creating the Forum 35 years ago was to have a place where free and independent countries could speak freely then the silence of island ministers means that the Forum is really no longer fit for its purpose – because of the disproportionate power and wealth of Australia and New Zealand.

There are some Pacific islanders who dream of reversing the ‘original sin’ of the forum’s founding fathers.

The Forum Secretariat with its six figures incomes, manicured lawns and its cycle of largely fruitless meetings (which provide very profitable daily subsistence allowances) will not change and Pacific islanders are never likely to throw Australia and New Zealand out of the Forum. International organisation do not change – they simply become irrelevant or less relevant, witness the UN over 60 years.

More to the point, Pacific islanders irrespective of how they feel about the Forum still need a place to talk to their neighbours Australia and New Zealand.

But is the Forum a place where free nations can exchange their views openly which is what the founding fathers wanted when they broke away from SPC? Freedom, as the Americans quite rightly remind us, is not free. The increasing power and domination of the islands by Australia and New Zealand is the real price the islands nations pay for Australia and New Zealand financial support.

For the larger Melanesian states which constitute 85% of the Pacific island population there is the realisation that if they want independent and unbiased advice then they have to form their own secretariat.

Hence with Chinese and possibly EU funding the Melanesians are creating a Melanesian Spearhead Group secretariat in Vanuatu.

The Melanesians want the freedom to get independent advice but they want the Chinese and the Europeans to pay.

This will also probably not work in the longer term but at least for the moment Chinese and EU interests in the region are profoundly different from that of Australia and New Zealand and will give the Melanesian states much greater policy space.

Things will only change with the circumstances. In the last generation it was France which silenced the islands. The present culture of silence in the Forum stems from the nature of the relationship with Australia and New Zealand. It is perverse and will never lead to a healthy relationship. There may yet come a generation of Pacific island leaders who have a genuine vision and intestinal fortitude to lead their countries and the region. I do not see it yet but I wish the Pacific islands, the region that has been my home for 25 years the very best in raising them.


8 thoughts on “Who owns the forum?

  1. Great Post Emmanuel! Interesting parting shot there from the good Dr… I thought I’d include this article from a few years ago so that we could all relive another moment in Australian Imperialist foreign policy. On this occaision, we tried our best to stand up for ourselves.

    Australian government bullies PNG over airport security incident

    By Will Marshall
    22 April 2005

    A security incident at an Australian airport involving Papua New Guinea (PNG) Prime Minister Michael Somare escalated into a full blown diplomatic row between the two countries after Canberra refused to issue an apology for the demeaning treatment.

    On March 24, Somare was travelling back to the PNG capital Port Moresby via Brisbane after attending a Pacific Islands leaders’ summit in New Zealand. At Brisbane airport, Australian officials insisted that Somare remove his belt and empty his pockets to comply with security provisions. Eventually he was even asked to take off his shoes. Somare complied but later told PNG TV: “I thought it was an insult to the leadership in our region.”

    PNG Foreign Minister Rabbie Namaliu presented a diplomatic note on March 28 to Australian High Commissioner Michael Potts demanding an apology from Australian Prime Minister John Howard within 24 hours. Namaliu’s spokesman Brian Martins told the Australian: “We cannot rule out suspending diplomatic ties, but we hope it won’t go to that extent.”

    The most significant aspect of what was a relatively trivial incident was the Australian government’s response. Far from attempting to smooth ruffled feathers, Canberra deliberately inflamed the situation and refused to make any form of apology.

    Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, speaking on talkback radio on March 31, condescendingly declared: “It happens to me when I go to other countries. I have to take off my belt and shoes from time to time. It’s just the way of the world these days. It’s not a question of trying to insult anybody.”

    Downer also declared: “Australia’s traditionally a very egalitarian country, and therefore our laws apply to all people.” To make the obvious point, Downer nor anyone else in the Howard government would dare to treat US President George Bush, for instance, in a similar “egalitarian” manner.

    The response certainly smacked of imperial arrogance towards Australia’s former colony and provoked a series of angry protests in PNG. Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside the Australian High Commission in Port Moresby on March 31 and April 1 to demand a formal apology. A subsequent march in Lae, the country’s second largest city, attracted 7,000 people.

    The diplomatic clash continued to escalate. Canberra issued an official two-page response on April 1, pointedly refusing to make any apology and implying PNG was at fault for failing to consult the Australian High Commission in advance. Somare’s chief of staff Leonard Louma replied in a letter to the media on April 7 contradicting the claim that Canberra had not been informed and pointing out that the prime minister had never experienced similar treatment at other airports.

    The PNG government sent a second diplomatic note on April 7, again demanding an apology. It also suspended the first quarterly high-level meeting on the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) between senior officials from both governments, scheduled for next week.

    PNG chief secretary Joshua Kalinoe warned that his country might scrap the ECP altogether and accept no more Australian aid. “Failure to receive a favourable response will lead to undesirable consequences in some aspects of our bilateral relationship,” he told a press conference.

    It is not surprising that the ECP reemerged as a bone of contention. The Howard government’s contemptuous dismissal of Somare’s objections over his treatment mirrors the way in which Canberra pressured Port Moresby to accept the ECP package.

    Under the plan, Australia has deployed 210 police officers to PNG and 64 government officials to supervise the country’s police force, courts, finance and planning agencies, customs and civil aviation at a cost of $800 million over the next four years. In the name of promoting “good governance”, Canberra is riding roughshod over PNG’s national sovereignty and tightening its grip over a country where Australian companies have significant investments.

    From the outset, the PNG government objected to the ECP. Somare declared in 2003 that PNG was a sovereign country that did not need Australian officers to “run the show for us.” After branding the plan as “neo-colonial,” Somare caved in when the Howard government made clear that Australian aid would not continue unless the proposals were accepted in full. In all likelihood, Port Moresby will be compelled to back down again over the incident at Brisbane airport.

    Downer, well aware that PNG is heavily dependent on Australian aid, offhandedly dismissed Kalinoe’s threats. “[Y]ou know, at the end of the day, when you do provide major aid programs to other countries, how they handle those aid programs is a matter for them. I mean, those countries can make up their own minds about whether they want meetings or don’t want meetings, and they’re sovereign. They can make their own decisions,” he told an ABC interviewer.

    The whole affair reeks of diplomatic thuggery on the part of Canberra. In the manner of schoolyard bullies, Downer and Howard not only lord it over weaker, economically backward nations in the region, but revel in humiliating their leaders.

    East Timor’s leaders have publicly complained that Howard is bullying their government into parting with the lion’s share of the oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea. Having launched an Australian-led military intervention into the half-island in 1999 on the pretext of protecting the East Timorese, Canberra now insists that Dili accept Australia’s inequitable plan for exploiting the seabed resources. Australian officials have deliberately drawn out negotiations so as to maximise pressure on impoverished East Timor, which can ill afford any delays.

    In 2003, the Howard government used the same tactic of withholding aid to compel the Solomon Islands government into formally accepting a virtual takeover of the small Pacific Island state. Australian police and troops remain on the ground and Australian officials effectively run the police, the prisons, finance and other aspects of the state apparatus. Nauru and Vanuatu have been faced with similar ultimatums, which are part of a far-reaching policy, by Canberra to assert its strategic and economic interests in the Asian Pacific region to the exclusion of its European and Asian rivals.

    In late 2003, an incident like that involving Somare took place in the Solomons. The country’s Governor-General John Iri Lapli complained of being treated as “a common criminal” after being searched by two Australian police officers. In that case, Australian officials, concerned to keep up appearances, issued a formal apology. Now entrenched in the Solomons, there is no guarantee that they would do the same again.

    Commenting on Canberra’s reaction to Somare’s complaints, PNG academic Allan Patience commented: “Australia was probably hinting that it is losing patience with the Somare government over its ongoing reluctance to engage in comprehensive reforms to improve political integrity and good governance in PNG.” To put it more bluntly, the Howard government’s deliberate rudeness is simply a way of pulling Somare into line and ensuring that he fully cooperates with Australian plans.

    There are already indications that Somare is softening his stand. A spokesman declared on April 11 that the ECP was not being suspended. Rather a quarterly meeting of senior officials was to be cancelled and the deployment of in-line officers put on hold. Australian police deployments would continue. In a rather empty act of defiance, Somare has re-routed an overseas trip so as not to stop over in Australia.

    On April 13, the credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s stepped into the dispute behind Canberra. “There doesn’t seem to be a serious intention to cancel the aid program. Nevertheless, any serious move to cancel this program is likely to affect Papua New Guinea’s rating,” the agency warned. Alarmed at the financial consequences, PNG Treasurer Bart Philemon exclaimed: “I think that the ECP should be kept out of that”.

    It is unlikely the matter will go much further. Nevertheless what at first appeared to be a minor diplomatic squabble has underlined once again the determination of Australian imperialism to impose its agenda on its Pacific neighbours.


  2. A big thanks to Mona Giheno for steering our attention to this article. DR Roman Grynberg has another article in this weekend’s Post Courier titled ‘An Alphabet Soup of Powerlessness – Trade negotiations in the Pacific’

  3. I can’t help but chip in on this one.

    The issue is simple: beggars are not choosers.

    I beg to differ with the cynicism surrounding the behaviours of Australia and New Zealand in the forum. I bet if PNG was also as powerful and wealthy as our two neighbours, we too would bahave in exactly the same manner to protect our own interests. In this context, I do not see anything wrong with how these two countries engage with the rest of the Pacific.

    We need to earn the right to be heard in any international forums, let alone the PIF. We had more than 30 years to do it and we chose to throw it away. So it’s back to the drawing board.

    Let’s start by building our economic power in order to earn any political voice, because unless talks can be translated into any significant tangible support, it’s all talk. So enough of talking about how we are being treated internationally and let’s start building our backyard first.

    I admire the author’s sympathy for us but it’s this kind of sympathy we do not need. Because it leads us to blame our failures on other people and not taking ownership of our problems. I’d rather read about an honest critic that challenges me as an individual and us collectively to take action now to grow our country.

    Let’s be our own harshest critics and get the ball rolling now!


  4. Dr Roman is an opportunist who doesn’t know a single thing about the Pacific. 80% of his time at the Forum Secretariat was spent trotting globally and building up his frequent flyer points… he was useless although he was a respected trade guy in the region… the guy’s talk is just full of rubbish… all his fellow advisers and officers at PIFs will tell why… i rest my case…. hope he is worth a penny for the Botswanian government

  5. @ emmanuel…he was there for more than 10 years… after spending 5 yrs teaching psychology at the university of the south pacific…those b4 him were not as competitive as he was but he uses his undiplomatic shit to btray those that he suspects are better than him…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s