Asia
The Pacific Islands Forum
Islands in the scrum
Sep 13th 2011, 10:34 by J.F. | CANBERRA
THE Pacific Islands Forum gathering in Auckland on September 6th-8th was most notable not so much for what it did, but for what it did not do. Fiji’s suspension was not lifted, lacklustre Forum Secretary General Neroni Slade was not replaced, and delegates did not agree to back the placing of French Polynesia on the United Nations' list of non-decolonised territories. All three decisions reflect the dominance of Australia and New Zealand over the regional summit, which also brings together the leaders of fourteen Pacific Island states. Indeed, the event would have been a complete damp squib were it not for the accompanying razzmatazz of the rugby world cup, which also got going in New Zealand. On concluding their fruitless deliberations, the majority of Pacific Island leaders merrily dispersed to catch a game or two.
The South Pacific Forum, as it was initially called, first met in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1971. It quickly distinguished itself by its opposition to French nuclear testing in Polynesia. In the 1980s, as Kanak pro-independence militants clashed with French authorities in New Caledonia, the Forum backed the re-inscription of that territory on the UN's influential listing of "non de-colonised territories". Then, the island states had several influential regional leaders, including Papua New Guinea’s Sir Michael Somare and Fiji’s Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara who famously coined the expression "the Pacific Way" to describe his region’s preferred consensual style of decision-making.
Thirty years later, much has changed. Across the Pacific Islands, the post-colonial honeymoon is long over. The first generation of independence leaders has been replaced by politicians of lesser standing, more accustomed to haggling over the spoils of office than offering any coherent regional vision. Ratu Mara died in 2004, but lived long enough to watch his country experience debilitating coups in 1987, and again in 2000. Oddly, some of his descendants initially backed a third coup in December 2006, though most have since fallen out with Fiji’s latest coup leader, Frank Bainimarama. When Mr Bainimarama, who doubles as military commander, reneged on a promise to hold elections in 2009, Fiji was suspended from the forum. Since then, Mr Bainimarama has abrogated the constitution, dismantled the municipal councils, censored the press and clamped down on his opponents, including most recently the Methodist Church and the trades unions.
Other island leaders have, like Ratu Mara, seen their legacy besmirched by the antics of their children. Sir Michael Somare, easily PNG’s longest-serving prime minister, underwent three heart operations in Singapore earlier this year. His son, Arthur Somare—a business-oriented politician eager to retain his lucrative ministerial links with companies responsible for a huge liquid natural gas project in the southern Highlands—at first declared his father unfit to resume office, hoping thereby to inherit the top job himself. Then in August, most MPs deserted the ailing Sir Michael and instead backed the former finance minister, Peter O’Neill, as the new prime minister. Somare Junior cried foul, and brought his incapacitated father back from Singapore to contest the takeover. Despite Sir Michael making a fleeting appearance on the floor of parliament in a wheelchair on September 6th, the Speaker ruled his seat vacant, hoping thereby to sway the courts to endorse Mr O’Neill’s new government. An MP with no seat cannot also claim to be Prime Minister.
The position of Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific has also changed significantly since the 1970s. In the early years of that decade, radical prime ministers in both countries increased aid to the Pacific, and at times joined the newly independent states in challenging their former colonial masters. When French secret services sunk the Greenpeace vessel the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in 1985, New Zealand barred nuclear-armed ships from entering its territorial waters and pressed for a nuclear-free zone across the Pacific. In response, the United States suspended its treaty obligations to New Zealand. Those controversies are now long gone, partly due to the ending of French nuclear testing.
Nowadays, the Australasian nations are the status quo powers in the region, and New Zealand is again closely allied with America. Unlike the poorly attended annual summit in Vanuatu last year, this year’s gathering was graced not only by the Australian and New Zealand Prime Ministers, but also UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and a large delegation from the United States, as well as leaders from nearly all the Pacific states. The forum may be in trouble: its headquarters are located in Suva, the capital of Mr Bainimarama’s troubled Fiji; its secretary general has performed poorly but is not easily replaceable; and its regional trade talks have stalled, again because of the troubles in Fiji. None of these difficulties is easily soluble, at least while Mr Bainimarama remains in charge. Little wonder that island leaders retreated from the curve balls of regional politics to the colourful contests between Pacific rugby squads.
In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape. The blog takes its name from the Banyan tree, under which Buddha attained enlightenment and Gujarati merchants used to conduct business.
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Should gay marriage be legal in America?
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Daily chart: The German motor
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Lexington: Peter David
- The euro crisis: Europe’s Achilles heel
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Renouncing citizenship: Did Eduardo Saverin do anything wrong?
- The euro in crisis: Groping towards Grexit
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Poverty: The audacity of hope
- J.P. Morgan’s trading mistakes: A billion here, a billion there
- The North Rhine-Westphalia election: A well Krafted win
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
It seems the Pacific area has been through some rough patches, but they have had some highs as well. It is good to know that each of the islands have had recently one good ruler. Such is the case with Fiji. It began with a very good ruler, then he gave his rule to his children. This is not always smart because the children do not necessarily think the same way the parent does. This can be shown in the fact that Fiji is now ruled by a partial military leader.
On the other hand, it was smart of Sir Micheal Somare's island to not give his ambitious son the power. The government did believe the son in that his father was no longer able to hold office, but the government looked at more likely candidates like the finance minister to take office. It is pretty obvious that the leader should be qualified to lead not just related to the former leader. There has been trouble in the Pacific Islands, but as long as every government attains good leaders, it should get better. One good thing to help unite them is rugby, especially since it originated from there.
Australia and New Zealand dominate their region just like China, Japan, and India dominate theirs, and just like the United States dominates theirs. Perhaps this is a recurring theme - if you want to be a major power house in your region, get it together politically first.
The article said "independence leaders" have all past, and young less-preoccupied leaders have taken their place. They turned their attention to rugby instead of worrying about what is really important - the political leaders (namely Mr. Bainimarama).
Fiji is having some struggle. If Mr. Bainimarama doesn't do something to change his position, the other leaders will be forced to turn their attention back from rugby to him. Political things are stirring in this area to further the state - just as everywhere else - and I am interested to see where these countries stand on the global scale in 5-10 years.
"In the scrum" is a perfect phrase to describe this summit. It seems the summit was not at all advantageous. Australia and New Zealand over power the rest of the islands. While they account for the majority or land, the other islands should have their opinions heard as well. For this to happen, they need to have opinions though, that is ideas to fix the persisting problems in the area. Time will tell if the Pacific Islands Forum is able to get out of the "scrum".
The NZ nuclear ships ban was not as a result of the Rainbow Warrior bombing as your article states. The Labour Party had campaigned on this policy when it won the 1984 election.
"radical prime ministers in both countries increased aid to the Pacific, and at times joined the newly independent states in challenging their former colonial masters"
How can you say these prime ministers were radical? If you look at New Zealand's recent (40 years) history I don't think anything they have done can be said to be radical, especially compared to what has happened in other areas of the world. Is it not a sad day when we consider increasing aid and helping the smaller islands to be a radical action?
What's new in the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand still dominate and the Pacific islanders have many problems with their governments. It's about time Fiji and the others start thinking about cashing in on the tourism industry like the Caribbean islands have. That's one way for people to get out of poverty and bring in revenue to the government. There's a lot of potential for tourists from Aussieland, Kiwiland, the US, Japan, South Korea, and even China. "China rich" -John Boyer :)
What's new in the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand still dominate and the Pacific islanders have many problems with their governments. It's about time Fiji and the others start thinking about cashing in on the tourism industry like the Caribbean islands have. That's one way for people to get out of poverty and bring in revenue to the government. There's a lot of potential for tourists from Aussieland, Kiwiland, the US, Japan, South Korea, and even China. "China rich" -John Boyer :)
MSpaint: A Scrum is the opening sequence of a Rugby match or more properly described from Google's definition: "An ordered formation of players, used to restart play, in which the forwards of a team form up with arms interlocked and heads down, and push forward against a similar group from the opposing side. The ball is thrown into the scrum and the players try to gain possession of it by kicking it backward toward their own side
A disorderly crowd of people or things
- there was quite a scrum of people at the bar"
Consequently I feel that the word aptly describes the summit from the article. I'm a bit out of touch with Pacific Island politics but I find it quite telling that Bainimarama has further isolated Fiji from interaction at a global level.
As it stands I do not see Fiji's suspension repeal as being a 'bad' thing to come out of this. Bainimarama has, for all intents and purposes, destroyed a system of government that would have allowed his country a more direct say in the affairs of the Pacific. His coup (that transpired under the guise of securing aboriginal rights from Indo-Fijian's) has proved to be the exact opposite. He's not only taken control and abolished the elected government, He's abolished the Great Council of Chiefs as well! I suppose it's only a matter of time before the UN will have a proposal for intervention.
Scrum?