Satish Chand
The leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum at their 2004 annual meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, articulated a vision for the Pacific region of: “peace, harmony, security, and economic prosperity, so that all of its people can lead free and worthwhile lives”; and, with the region being respected for “the quality of its governance, the sustainable management of its resources, the full observance of democratic values, and for its defence and promotion of human rights.” (Pacific Island Forum Leaders Vision: Auckland Declaration, 2004)

Reality in several of the Pacific Islands nations is diverging away quickly from the ideals espoused above.

A senior regional public servant, on being pointed to this anomaly, objected strongly, pointing out to me that I was being too harsh in my assessment and too rash in passing judgement: true to a degree, but the more worrying aspect is the rapidity with which reality is racing away from the espoused ideals of ‘peace, harmony, security, and economic prosperity’ in a number of Pacific islands states.

The divergence this early in the piece calls for urgent attention if the already yawning gap is to be closed. To his credit, my good and clever friend, agreed with this claim.

The leaders at this year’s meet in Nadi did not reiterate their pledge to the ideals espoused two years earlier, but their endorsement of the Pacific Plan could be interpreted as such.

The Pacific Plan, moreover, being a ‘living document’, continues to espouse the 2004 vision; reassuring, but time will ultimately judge the success of the plan in realising the vision.

The life of the plan has received a new lease of life with the extension of the term of office of the current Secretary-General of the Forum Secretariat, its principal architect. This could also mean that the commitment to peace, harmony, security, and economic prosperity will remain on the Forum agenda for the next three leaders meeting at least.

While a standing item on the agenda is no guarantee of actions backing rhetoric, what is clear, however, is that taxpayers in Australia and New Zealand will continue to spare resources for the plan.

While the leaders at their last meeting noted ‘considerable progress made in implementing the Pacific Plan’, tangible evidence in support of this claim is far from satisfactory.

Regress has been witnessed within several nations in terms of growth in per capita income, the quality of governance, the sustainable management of natural resources, the observance of democratic values, and the defence and promotion of human rights.

The more populous nations of Melanesia have lost ground in terms of access to basic services, law and order, and a proportion of the population living in poverty. Poverty in Fiji, for example, has increased by nearly one percent per year over the past decade.

Cook Islands and Samoa have bucked the general trend in terms of growth in per capita income, but their relatively small size does little to improve the regional aggregates. The Pacific islands region as a whole, in all probability, will fail to meet the Millennium Development Goals of halving poverty by 2015.

Alarmingly, at current rates of economic growth, poverty would have risen in many Pacific nations, placing us, on this score, in the unenviable company of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Unpacking the 2004 vision into measurable outcomes and stacking these against actual progress made since makes for some worrying comparisons; projecting the ensuing gaps between vision and reality into the future makes for some frightening statistics.

Peace is under threat in many of the Pacific islands states. The burning and looting of shops in Honiara last April and the riots in Nukualofa last month exemplify the fragility of peace and the inadequacy of the regional security apparatus installed to prevent such an occurrence.

Job growth provides a better route to voluntary compliance by the majority with the laws of the state, but progress on this front is hardly visible.

Harmony, despite the proposed ‘Promotion of Reconciliation, Tolerance, and Unity Bill’ is as far as one can get from the shores of Fiji.

The army and the government, as two separate institutions of the state rather than just their heads, remain at loggerheads on two proposed pieces of legislation.

The ensuing impasse is already scaring away tourists and investors, exacerbating an economic slowdown that has been in train for the past two years. Given Fiji’s position as the regional hub, an economic collapse there will adversely affect peace, security, and economic prosperity in the Pacific as a whole.

Poor governance remains a perennial concern: ongoing investigations into scams involving millions of taxpayers dollars in a number of Pacific islands nations suggests that the problems may be far from being contained.

Ironically, the Fiji Military Forces (FMF)—the vehicle used to trample the democratically elected governments in the past—is now the bastion for improved governance in Fiji.

While the changed focus is commendable, the strong arm tactics employed to achieve this end may in itself constitute abuse of power.

Does the end justifies the means? The answer is not all that clear cut, particularly when one is reminded of the fact that past investigations such as those following the National Bank of Fiji saga that cost the taxpayers in excess of F$250 million came to naught.

If there were a prize for a convenient and timely distraction from the pressing concerns of economic decline and security in the region, then the now well-publicised ‘Julian Moti affair’ would take the cake.

Moti, an Australian citizen, apprehended in Port Moresby last October at the request of Australia, managed to ‘escape’ back to Honiara on a PNG Defence Force aircraft flown specifically for the purpose.

The timing was just superb: the incident took place just as the 16 Pacific leaders were meeting in Nadi, Fiji.

To compound matters further, police raided the Sogavare’s office in Honiara, enraging the Prime Ministers of PNG and Solomon Islands who alleged political direction from Canberra.

It is a shame that this lone incident has led to a diplomatic rift between Australia and its closest (both figuratively and literally) Melanesian neighbours, distracting the leaders from the problems of the region.

The leaders of Australia, PNG, and Solomon Islands, according to media reports, spent more time, political capital, and energy brawling over the ‘Moti Affair’ at the expense of talking means of progressing the agenda towards realising the 2004 vision.

While in no way belittling the seriousness of the alleged crime, this was an issue best left to the police and an independent judiciary, the two institutions least in need of political meddling from above.

By being so easily distracted away from the long-standing concerns of the region, the leaders may have revealed a lack of commitment to the ideals espoused in their 2004 vision.

The lack of reform in majority of the islands states, therefore, is of little surprise, but of considerable consequence. The next collective opportunity to address this issue is a full year away—perhaps when some of the current crop of leaders may have exited the scene. But an early reminder on the slippages made in respect of peace, harmony, security, and economic security in several member states may still be timely.

The Forum Secretary-General has a responsibility to draw the attention of the leaders to progress/regress made on the outcomes stipulated in the Pacific Plan. As such, whilst he has minimal influence on policies within individual member nations, it is his responsibility to draw the attention of the leaders to the lack of progress made under the plan.