Experts' views on the outcomes of the summit


Islands Business spoke to two Pacific EXperts on the recent outcome of the Pacific Islands Leaders’ Forum in Tonga. Six questions were sent via email to retired University of the South Pacific professor and author, Ron Crocombe (RC), now residing in his Cook Islands home, and Australian National University senior economist currently working in Washington DC, Dr Satish Chand (SC).
Here is an extract of their views:

Your view on the Forum’s achievement in obtaining a commitment from Frank Bainimarama for the first quarter 2009 election in Fiji?

Crocombe: It seems like a positive step.

Chandra: This, when announced, was indeed a step in the right direction. The reservations expressed on this commitment subsequent to the meeting raises uncertainty on whether Fiji will stick to its promise. At this stage, whether Fiji will have an election in 2009 is anybody’s guess. Unfortunately, externals will want more in terms of the commitment of the Interim Government to its promised timetable. This probably would not have been the case had Frank’s decision not been questioned at home.

Does this achievement show that the Forum is still of relevance to the islands of the Pacific, that it has a crucial role to play in assisting members in crisis?

Crocombe: The Forum always was and remains relevant to the Pacific Islands, but as the world gets more complex, the Forum will occupy less of the total space on international relations in the region. 

Chandra: The Forum, in my view, would need to carve out a specific niche for itself. My guess is that the Forum can add value by addressing issues that concern the region as a whole and particularly those unlikely to be addressed by the individual governments. Examples include issues around the effects of climate change, managing regional commons such as the ocean and resources from it, and those relating to spillovers from coups and the like on neighbouring countries. These issues were given a cursory coverage when they deserve a much more detailed discussion. The Forum needs to reduce the number of issues it considers and cover them in greater depth. I would also like to see these debates being broadcast live to the region as a whole.

Should the Forum push to obtain an election date from Bainimarama, or a commitment is good enough?

Crocombe: I assume they pushed for as much as they could get everyone to agree on.

Chandra:  My guess is that neither Australia nor New Zealand came to the meeting with a completely open mind. There is still considerable bad blood between them and Frank. This is extremely unfortunate as it weighed down heavily on the prospect for an agreeable solution. An election date is useless if extracted out of the Interim Government as it will only result in further excuses on why not to hold one. It would have been a lot better if Frank was allowed to present his plans, without pressure, that the leaders would consider and debate. Extracting a promise from an unwilling partner is worse than not having one at all as the latter is, in all likelihood, likely to be counter-productive.

What about criticisms heard in Fiji that Australia and New Zealand “bullied” Bainimarama to make the commitment, and that the Forum is dominated by the two bigger nations?

Crocombe: Of course the Forum is dominated by the countries that pay the most (as anywhere else in the world). But also the islands leaders have the numbers so they can limit that domination. It is the usual international power play with each player trying to maximise its own advantage.

Chandra: This is indeed very unfortunate. It signals that the Leaders’ meeting was poorly run and the resolutions from the meeting cannot be taken seriously. It would have been better not to get a commitment rather than have one that raises even greater uncertainty on the prospects for a 2009 election.

What about the Forum’s decision on RAMSI, that a Forum Ministerial Standing Committee be tasked to enter into dialogue with the Sogavare Government. You think this will help or is the Forum trying to avoid tackling the problem head-on?

Crocombe: Looks like a good idea to me. Australia has been bullying the Solomons too much and is going to have to learn to trim its arrogance and try to learn a little more about the Solomons from Solomons’ perspectives, and deal with elected governments. They demand elected governments, but when they get one they don’t like, they do all they can to topple it, as they have been doing in the Solomons.

Chandra: RAMSI has problems, thus it is unfortunate that the communiqué dresses this up as “an outstanding example of cooperative regionalism.” PM Sogavare was not there which is enough of a signal that RAMSI has problems. This is an issue that deserves greater discussion and a clearer path forward. The Forum meeting has ducked this issue and it may come back to haunt them.”

In your view, was the Forum correct in not including Tonga in the agenda?

Crocombe: My understanding is that nothing goes on the Forum agenda unless all countries agree. So if Tonga did not want to be discussed, that is it. The Forum works by consensus, which is very effective, although Australia has been pushing it to become more legalistic, which is not to the benefit of the islands nations. The secretary-general of CARICOM, the equivalent regional organisation in the Caribbean, told me 20 years ago that they were bogged down by a constitution and legalism, and that the Forum should always maintain its open consensus style.

Chandra: It would have been good to have included Tonga in the agenda. This would have given the opportunity to discuss the problems in Fiji, Solomon Islands and Tonga with greater honesty. As it is, it seemed as though the leaders were picking on Fiji while ignoring Tonga altogether and dodging the tough issues on Solomon Islands.