Radical Approach to offer any hope

‘These nations need to tell the United Nations and the developed and developing nations to address the real problems that stare them in the face—of livelihood, shelter and even nationhood—by keeping the polemics, politics, science and controversy out of climate change. If those countries still do nothing, they may well wake up to find the blood of the entire communities on their hands’

Over the past few years, the anthropogenic global warming brigade has effectively hijacked the climate change agenda, leading to the establishment of a lucrative carbon emissions industry complete with bonds, brokers and billions of dollars at stake—to say nothing of the dosh continually made available to scientists for more research projects.
So great has been the push along this increasingly equivocal one dimensional track, that the world leaders have been forced to focus almost exclusively on cutting emissions—undeniably an important end in itself, no doubt—leading unfortunately to the kind of politicking that was seen in the run-up to and at Copenhagen.
The non-result at the end of it was only to be expected and any future agreement seems wishful thinking at least at this point in time—unless there is a genuine change of heart and a change in the manner in which negotiations are conducted. Only a radically different approach on the part of the world’s leaders would offer any hope.
We do not come from a position of climate skepticism—in fact, far from it. The effects of climate change are undeniable, real and are impinging on shelters, livelihoods and even the lives of people in several countries of the Pacific Islands region, much like the people of other coastal and low-lying areas around the world.
But climate change—and its most palpable symptom, particularly for low-lying islands nations, which is sea level rise—urgently needs to be seen more holistically; not from the restrictive, singular perspective of anthropogenic causes and carbon dioxide emissions.
Poorly conceived carbon trading systems based on unproven, highly debatable science will ultimately shift the financial burden on to the common taxpayer in every country—which is what has given the whole subject such a political colour. In fact the politics of climate change has spread like a virus even in the scientific community, as was borne out by the leaked emails of climate scientists and the charges being traded between the pro and anti-anthropogenic global warming camps.
Coming back to emissions trading: who runs these utterly complex international trading schemes that have already resulted in scandals and lawsuits in several countries including the Pacific Islands (Papua New Guinea, for instance)? It’s brokers, financial whizkids and accountants: the very type that triggered the global financial crisis. Imagine brokers, accountants and politicians charged with saving the planet!
To top it all, there is no guarantee whatsoever that restricting emissions so as not to exceed an average rise in temperature of more that two degrees will stall or slow down, much less reverse climate change. Everything is based on computer modelling, which by no stretch of imagination can be relied upon simply because of the fact that one cannot hope to factor in every single, constantly changing dynamic of the earth’s ultra complex weather system and the known and unknown factors that influence it.
This is by no means an argument against restricting emissions. That is not negotiable and absolutely important but an over exposure to anthropogenic causes of climate change has taken attention away from several other effects of climate change that are equally or far more serious. These don’t appear to be so, simply because there is not sufficient discourse about them in the public domain—and both the global and local media have tended to pan them in favour of the more glamorous, newsy and giga-billions worth politics and economics of emission control.
Mitigation measures have been discussed for years and at Copenhagen, there have been half-hearted attempts by rich nations—notably the United States and Japan—to set aside the mega-dollars for mitigation initiatives. But there is no agreement on how the fund would be run and who would run it. Expect high profile politicking and the potential for big scandal and much mud slinging as the scramble begins for the control of the fund whenever it is formally set up. Such a fund was also announced at the Bali conference and a list of most vulnerable nations drawn up—in which Tuvalu was included—but little initiative or money has been seen to flow through it.
While most mitigation measures focus on building sea walls and alternative coastal cultivation measures, there are several aspects of the effects of climate change that need to be addressed other than the immediately apparent physical aspects.
Just two of these are extremely critical for Pacific islanders: the depletion and erratic natural replenishment of freshwater resources especially on low-lying atolls like parts of Kiribati and Tuvalu, as well as the increasing salinity of the oceans that is beginning to affect marine and littoral life, not to mention coastal cultivation. Both of these greatly threaten food security, especially in isolated and hitherto self-sufficient environments like the Pacific Islands. 
These fundamental problems hardly figure in climate change exchanges, certainly not in the mainstream media. An estimated 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water stress due to climate change by 2030, even if the world agrees to restrict itself to less than a two-degree Celsius limit immediately. By the same projections, by 2050 freshwater availability will be decreased in much of Asia, especially around the tropics.
There is also evidence that sea salinity is on the increase. This is expected to affect marine life and threaten the existence of several biological species both in deep and shallow waters especially affecting subsistence fishing by coastal and islands communities.  Both these serious developments, which are in fact unfolding scenarios, will happen regardless of whether a binding agreement to hold emitting countries to the two-degree threshold will eventually be signed in Mexico.
In the wake of Copenhagen, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) has called for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of a huge coal plant in the Czech Republic. This is the first time that current or future climate victims could legally influence a foreign industry by arguing that it endangers them due to greenhouse gas emissions. This action offers a flicker of hope for other affected nations like FSM in that if it is successful, this legal challenge could have serious implications for climate changing industries worldwide.
These nations need to tell the United Nations and the developed and developing nations to address the real problems that stare them in the face—of livelihood, shelter and even nationhood—by keeping the polemics, politics, science and controversy out of climate change. If those countries still do nothing, they may well wake up to find the blood of the entire communities on their hands.

---

China, Taiwan Diplomatic Truce?

‘What does this mean for the six Pacific Islands countries that have recognised Taiwan (along with 17 others around the world)? Though China and Taiwan are quite some distance away from a formal reunification, there is considerable opposition to it and Ma’s popularity has waned in recent months over fears about this. Will these six countries have to come round to subscribing to a sort of ‘virtual One-China policy’?’

This year we might well see the end of the decades-long so-called chequebook diplomacy and fiercely competitive games of one up-man ship between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan or ROC) in the Pacific Islands region, as well as elsewhere in the world.
This development is by no means sudden and has been taking shape over the past year-and-a-half or so, soon after Taiwan’s 12th President, Ma ying-jeou, took office in May 2008. During his inaugural address, he had emphasised on improving relations with China and restoring Taiwan’s economic vigour as his top priorities, which indeed was his main election plan that found popular favour.
Cross-strait relations with mainland China deteriorated considerably during the eight-year rule of former president Chen shiu-bian’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Chen has since been convicted of corruption charges relating to himself and his family members and is serving time in prison.
His constant rhetoric about declaring Taiwan an independent state greatly vitiated the security atmosphere in the Asia/Pacific region with rumours of imminent missile strikes and even a full scale invasion by China on the island territory that it has always looked upon as its own renegade province. In fact, China had passed legislation to invade Taiwan if it declared independence.
As relations between the two fell into a deep downward spiral over the Chen years, China systematically stymied Taiwan’s efforts to gain recognition in the international arena and blocked its participation in international affairs. In sheer desperation to gain recognition, Taiwan embarked on a programme to garner support from mostly small nations across the globe. In the Pacific Islands region, it secured the support of Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Palau.
Their recognition of Taiwan shut these six Pacific Islands nations out of all assistance from China with Taiwan pouring in more aid and assistance into them to keep them within the fold. All throughout, the two Asian powers were engaged in a constant tug of war: China pushing the islands to adopt the “One-China policy” followed by the other Pacific Islands, and Taiwan to keep recognising itself as a separate entity.
Taiwan ran at least two annual conferences exclusively for its Pacific allies in recent years. There have been times when fissures developed within Pacific islands leadership on the question of whom to support—even becoming a national election issue in countries like the Solomon Islands. Tensions also became apparent on the margins of the annual Pacific Islands Forum meetings.
All this could be a thing of the past—officially so, if one goes by several recent developments. On a visit to the Marshall Islands’ capital Majuro last month, Taiwan Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs David Y. L. Lin said Taiwan was “building a more cordial working relationship with mainland China,” and that Taiwan was interested in a “diplomatic truce” because, “a diplomatic tug-of-war doesn’t serve any purpose.”
Both China and Taiwan have fiercely defended criticism from Western countries about chequebook diplomacy. Lin’s statement in the Marshall Islands was tantamount to an admission that this was indeed the case. “I don’t like the concept of chequebook diplomacy,” he said, reiterating that accountability and transparency in its foreign aid programmes were paramount to the Ma regime.
But perhaps the most telling development that Taiwan and China have patched up and are increasingly inclined toward sharing the same perspective on the Pacific Islands region comes from the fact that Taiwan indefinitely postponed its 2009 summit for its Pacific allies and has hinted it might do without future summits. Vice Minister Lin said Taiwan was still reviewing options for future summits, but said bilateral activity was sometimes “more effective.”
President Ma also postponed a scheduled visit to the Solomon Islands in October last year, though the ostensible reason was the tragedy caused by Typhoon Morakot, the worst to hit the island in five decades and which caused over 600 deaths. A tentative plan to visit has been announced for this year. More signals are the PNG Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare’s invitation to Taiwan to participate in the mega-million dollar second LNG project in the country as also New Zealand allowing Taiwanese visitors on a visa-free basis since late last year. These developments would be unthinkable without China’s blessings (Prime Minister John Key was at pains to explain why he would not be meeting exiled Tibetan spiritual leader and China’s bête noire the Dalai Lama when he visited New Zealand).
What does this mean for the six Pacific Islands countries that have recognised Taiwan (along with 17 others around the world)? Though China and Taiwan are quite some distance away from a formal reunification, there is considerable opposition to it and Ma’s popularity has waned in recent months over fears about this. Will these six countries have to come round to subscribing to a sort of ‘virtual One-China policy’? The answer could be both yes and no. Yes, because whatever Taiwan does in the Pacific now, would have the express sanction of China. As Lin himself said, the “more flexible and pragmatic approach” to relations between China and Taiwan had led to China easing its opposition to Taiwan’s international participation.
No, because Taiwan would still continue to be the official conduit of aid and assistance programmes. Taiwan now plans to concentrate on bilateral ties between specific countries. And the operative phrase for co-operation once again, as both President Ma and Lin have used it is, transparency and accountability with more measurable data.
Nothing, therefore, substantially changes for Taiwan’s six Pacific allies. But the good thing for the people of these countries and particularly for governance in these nations and the region as a whole, is that this considerably reduces the scope for corrupt practices as has been clearly seen in the mega scandal that rocked both Papua New Guinea and Taiwan in the past few years as also similar allegations of corruption and bribery that had great potential for triggering instability in the fragile polity of some of the islands.

---

Natural Resources never Infinite

‘The world is littered with examples of countries whose economies failed as soon as their natural resources ran out. One example in our neck of the woods is Nauru, which went from being among the world’s wealthiest nations per capita to utter poverty in just about a decade’

Papua New Guinea is clearly the economic success story of the Pacific Islands region. Its economy has recorded impressive growth for eight consecutive years, the longest continuous growth phase since the country’s independence. And it has grown unabated even last year, as much of the world’s economies reeled under the global financial meltdown.
What can truly be termed the golden age of economic growth has been possible because of a number of factors that worked in favour of the Pacific Islands region’s biggest and most populous nation.
PNG’s mineral wealth has long been known but the need to tap it was triggered only recently especially because of the relentless double digit growth of the Asian economies, notably China.
China’s appetite for metals, minerals and energy has been unsatiable, ever since forces conspired to turn it into the world’s collective manufactory over the past few decades. That export led growth spurred growth in its internal economy and the need to modernise the lives of over a billion people long deprived the conveniences of modern living.
PNG’s proximity and historical and business links to China’s other big supplier of raw material, Australia, has made PNG a natural magnet for the world’s biggest oil, minerals and mining prospectors, extractors and traders to turn their attention to in a bid to increase their fortunes.  
Last month, global petrochemical giant ExxonMobil Corp and its partners finally approved a $15 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in PNG, which is expected to start shipments in the year 2014. Global demand for LNG is estimated to almost triple by 2030—so the PNG LNG project will be an important supply conduit to meet the world’s demand. This is indeed an accelerator not just for PNG and its economy but for the rest of the region as well.
Naturally, the PNG government has accorded top priority to the project. Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare said, “My Government is committed to this project and will do everything within its authority to ensure the project comes on stream as scheduled”.
PNG’s mineral wealth has attracted a slew of the world’s big players. Giant American and multinational corporations as well as governments—particularly of China and Taiwan—are getting increasingly involved in the exploitation of its considerable natural resources both offshore and in the country’s vast verdant hinterland.
The possibility of expansion of its continental shelf boundary and therefore its exclusive economic zone following its submissions to the UN under the Law of the Sea parameters will see greater interest generated by international prospectors in exploring its offshore resources, particularly in its seabed.
Already, one company has achieved success having struck gold and turned over its first gold bearing ore to the country’s mining minister in a symbolic gesture.
Countries and their leaderships would die for the kind of potential for extraordinary growth and the possibility of generating wealth for its people that Papua New Guinea finds itself in. It is therefore extremely vital for its leadership to ensure that its riches are not only properly paid for but a substantial part also trickles down to the poorest of the poor, of which the country has enormous numbers.
Unfortunately, this hasn’t happened to the degree it should have in the past few years of the country’s blitzing growth. The Australia based Lowy Institute for International Policy recently published a report saying that though extreme poverty in the country had fallen 8.8 percent in recent years since economic growth began, the fall could have been greater.
Using the widely accepted international poverty threshold of US$1 a day, some 37.5 percent of the population lived in extreme poverty according to figures for 2004. While this would have certainly fallen, it would not have been by much.
Though Somare has repeatedly said that it was the interests of the people that drove his government to aggressively pursue the exploitation of mineral wealth to achieve growth, PNG continues to suffer greatly in terms of lack of access to jobs and money, education, clean water, health care, transport, roads and others, even after all these years, to say nothing of deteriorating law and order situation, runaway corruption, rampant illegal deforestation, a ballooning HIV-AIDS problem and continuing human rights issues concerning women and children.
Unlike much smaller Pacific Islands nations that have considerably improved their living standards, PNG repeatedly fails to achieve the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goal targets on a number of parameters, especially concerning the basic human needs.
While reach and access are genuine issues because of the country’s extremely difficult terrain and far flung isolated populations, there seems to be little political will to set up strategies and mechanisms to overcome these problems.
Corruption and porous borders have encouraged a huge influx of illegal immigrants from a host of countries around the world drawn to the country by the boom in the mineral mining industry.
This is clearly yet another factor that will get in the way of rural Papua New Guineans finding jobs in their own countries. This has already created a backlash last year with the anti-Asian riots in cities like Lae, which saw widespread arson, looting and violence.
It would be wrong for Papua New Guinea’s politicians and its elite to chase the pot of the gold at the end of the mineral rainbow without carrying its people with them.
While economic wellbeing is an end that every country rightly aspires for, true prosperity lies in its equitable distribution, particularly in a situation where most people are poor not only of money but also of education and the knowledge of their basic rights—all which conspire to create an enormous poverty of opportunity.
It is only a question of time when this then spirals into violence, mayhem and chaos—glimpses of which have been seen in worrying measure in the past couple of years in several pockets of the country.
Natural resources are never infinite. It is important for governments to devise plans and strategies to leverage them with a view to maximising their gain for the future with prudent investments.
The world is littered with examples of countries whose economies failed as soon as their natural resources ran out. One example in our neck of the woods is Nauru, which went from being among the world’s wealthiest nations per capita to utter poverty in just about a decade.