|
Australian aid not tied
Your Letter from Suva in the July 2006 edition misrepresents Australia’s policies and relationships with Pacific islands countries.
The Australian Government is a strong proponent of whale conservation.
Australia advocates that position with deep conviction to Pacific islands countries, as well as to other countries in the wider international community.
The government accepts, however, that the decision whether to support whale conservation is for those countries to make. We respect their sovereignty and independence in deciding how to vote at the International Whaling Commission, as we do to other issues. Nevertheless, we shall continue to argue the merits of whale conservation.
You asked how many times Australia has used its aid programme “to force the islands to see things their way”. The answer is none. Australia’s overseas aid programme in the Pacific and elsewhere is not tied to political support for Australia’s position on whaling or other international issues.
The aid programme has a strong focus on strengthening governance and promoting growth and stability.
A fundamental principle of the programme is to ensure Australia’s assistance is aligned with our partners’ development goals and with regional frameworks such as the Pacific Plan.
The aid programme is managed in an accountable and transparent manner and its details are publicly available.
In 2006-07, Australia will provide an estimated $766.6 million in development assistance to the Pacific, including Papua New Guinea. We value our relationships with Pacific islands countries and are committed to working with them as sovereign states to build their capacity to implement sound domestic policies, promote economic growth and provide services to their people.
—Jennifer Rawson
High Commissioner
Australian High Commission
Suva, FIJI
Islands’ sovereignty
Your July “Letter from Suva”, like too many of your editorials, misrepresents the policies and attitude of my government towards its counterparts in Pacific islands countries.
New Zealand, as a relatively small state itself, is acutely aware of the need to respect the sovereignty of its Pacific islands neighbours, and strives at all times to do so.
New Zealand’s Minister of Conservation visited a number of Pacific islands countries in May to talk to counterparts about conservation issues, especially whale conservation.
With those who are members of the IWC, he discussed the (then) upcoming IWC meeting in St Kitts. During the IWC meeting, the New Zealand delegation (together with our Australian colleagues) hosted a lunch for Pacific islands delegations at the meeting, at which our minister took a further opportunity to talk about Pacific whale conservation matters and our countries’ shared interests.
He noted that we did not always have the same position on IWC issues but did share many interests.
During the meeting, the New Zealand delegation had further discussions with Pacific islands delegates about their positions as co-sponsors of the “St Kitts and Nevis Declaration” which, in the case of some Pacific countries, would appear to be contrary to their own governments’ positions of not voting in favour of a return to commercial whaling.
I note reports from one of those countries, Solomon Islands, that an investigation is being undertaken into votes cast by its IWC representative that did not conform to guidance from its cabinet.
The New Zealand Government was naturally disappointed with these outcomes and made no secret of that. Even though the St Kitts and Nevis Declaration has no practical impact, it does amount to a statement (by those countries which supported it) in favour of a return to commercial whaling.
We were pleased to see that some Pacific islands delegations abstained on some other votes, rather than support pro-whaling positions, and were thereby instrumental in helping ensure that no decisions were taken which would have altered the IWC’s agenda and functions.
There has never been any question of New Zealand using its aid programmes to, as you put it, “force Pacific islands to dance to their tune”. New Zealand ministers have consistently and deliberately ruled this out.
It is mischievous of you and reflects no credit on your magazine to imply that this was a governmental view.
We do take opportunities where relevant to let other countries know our positions on particular issues. A key function of diplomacy is to ensure that decisions which may have implications for other countries are taken in full knowledge of the attitudes and policies of those countries.
It is entirely legitimate to seek through diplomacy to influence the policies of another government—engaging in consultations with other countries in the lead-up to and during the IWC meeting was a proper diplomatic process which respected the sovereignty of the countries concerned and reflected a clear understanding that they would make their own decisions. It was not “interference”.
—Michael Green
High Commissioner
New Zealand High Commission
Suva, FIJI
Trade not aid, the answer
Thank you for a wonderful publication, one that gives some great insights into the thinking, direction and possibilities that exist in the Pacific region. I enjoy your publication and appreciate the views mooted, but in the case of the article “Defying the Mighties”, I’d like to make some comments.
While it is always true that we should respect our leaders in the Pacific, (especially the good ones), I find it offensive that you can say that Aussie and New Zealand have taken the Pacific for granted. You suggest that Australia and New Zealand shouldn’t have a say where our “aid” money goes and what it is used for.
I think the contrary is true, that it’s high time all aid donors have a direct say on where these funds should be used. Why is it that some Pacific states seem to think that “aid” funding is a right? Hello, wake up!
What the article forgets is that the aid money that comes from New Zealand and Aussie, comes from the sweat of our workers who earn the tax money that is gifted to the islands. If you cut your margins and increase your minimum pay rates, there would be less need for “aid” in the first place.
You suggest the islands may be looking towards their new Asian friends for aid—great. In ten years time when the whales are gone from the whale watching areas in Tonga, when the rest of the Pacific has no tuna (Isn’t China currently building 50 boats to fish in Fiji’s waters), it will be interesting to see where your countries come seeking aid!
If China really wanted to “aid” you, they should give you a tenth of those boats to help Fiji’s fishery exports).
Trade not aid is the long-term answer in our fast changing, global world with a banishment of corruption, fair margins, better wages and higher living standards for the people of the Pacific. Aussie and New Zealand are happy to help!
—Alan Peacock
Christchurch
NEW ZEALAND
Sogavare’s challenges
Many thanks for your excellent and informative coverage of the critical issues facing the Solomons (July 2006 edition).
Clearly, Prime Minister Sogavare, who is a very able and experienced hand, faces a challenging and historic role to forge national reconciliation and to deliver an effective and honest government for the benefit of all Solomon Islanders.
Tensions with RAMSI are bound to arise as understandable nationalist pressures in Parliament to take over responsibilities run into RAMSI’s concerns for good governance, in terms of the working relationship between Honiara and the islands regions and their village communities.
There is also a recognised need for better and more transparent procedures for the budget process, tax concessions and administration, and senior appointments to the public service based on merit.
In the end, these are essentially issues to be resolved by Solomon Islanders. But RAMSI should be a cooperative partner.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Sogavare has every right to be assured that RAMSI’s security role is being effectively carried out in the public interest and in close coordination with the local police.
Maintaining the integrity and high standards of the police should be fully compatible with progressive localisation, including the appointment of a Solomon Islands Commissioner, as is the case in other areas of government.
The Pacific Islands Forum regional framework within which RAMSI operates should help to address areas of sensitivity, such as particular appointments and issues like tendering procedures, to protect the long-term interests of the Solomon Islands.
—John Piper
Sydney
AUSTRALIA
Swain’s Island
In regard to the “We Say” piece in reference to Kiribati, which appeared in the May issue, in my opinion it is a most useful commentary.
My attention was called to the reference related to “Swains Island”.
It stated, correctly in my opinion, that the island now a part of American Samoa should belong to Tokelau.
“We Say” states that the US claim over Swains Island is “immoral”. Would it be better to use a different word than “immoral”? May be unfortunate, illegal, deplorable, or unacceptable?
I recognise this is a petty quibble. More important is that even many of your interested and knowledgeable readers of the Pacific islands would probably not know the history of the Swains Island (correctly spelt Swain’s Island) such as when it became part of American Samoa in 1925.
Incidentally, there are other Swain’s Islands in the world among them in Nantucket (US) and Newfoundland (Canada).
Might I recommend that may be your journal has an explicatory article about Swain’s Island.
While the internet is a useful source, the “Pacific Islands Year Book” has an accurate summary.
—Charles W. Arnade
University of South Florida
UNITED STATES
|
