The Melanesian Way

Bougainville’s ‘Melanesian way’ beyond the referendum

Leave a comment

Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au

Bougainville knows far better than Britain that a referendum vote to go or to stay is only the first mountain. Then the second mountain must be climbed—the negotiation to turn the outcome into a reality.

For decades, Bougainville has been trekking towards the first summit that’s now in view—the vote on independence or greater autonomy, to be held from 23 November to 7 December.

The referendum question reads:

Do you agree for Bougainville to have:
1. Greater Autonomy; or
2. Independence

In Bougainville, 200,000 people are enrolled to vote; 12,000 registered voters are in Papua New Guinea, and a further 200 are in Solomon Islands, Cairns and Brisbane.

The Lowy Institute prediction is that 75% of voters will choose independence, driven by separate ethnic identity, residual animosity from the war years, and the failure of the current model of autonomy.

PNG’s and Bougainville’s leaders have always known about the second mountain that lies beyond the referendum. That’s because both peaks were established by the Bougainville Peace Agreement, signed in 2001.

The peace was a ‘complex agreement, produced by a succession of compromises made during more than two years of often intense negotiations (June 1999 to August 2001)’. The deal ended a conflict that ran from 1988 to 1997, with an estimated death toll ranging from 3,000 up to 20,000.

The referendum result isn’t binding on PNG. The second mountain climb calls for consultation on the outcome between the PNG and Bougainville governments. And even if that process produces an agreement, there’s a further stage. The final say on any deal, based on the referendum, rests with the PNG parliament, which can accept or reject.

Constitutional lawyer Anthony Regan, an adviser to Bougainville parties in the peace process since 1994, has just published a study of the vote, The Bougainville referendum: law, administration and politics. He says the vote could produce one of three outcomes: ‘a “yes” vote in favour of greater autonomy, which the national government endorses; a “yes” vote for independence, which the national government endorses; or a “yes” vote to independence, which the national government opposes’.

Regan says either greater autonomy or independence will need extended transition periods:

A ‘yes’ to independence, in particular, would require significant new institutions to be established. These could be expected to include a judiciary, a public prosecutor and a public solicitor, an auditor-general, a taxation collection agency, a foreign affairs agency and so on. The experience of the ABG [Autonomous Bougainville Government] in establishing new agencies where none existed is that it takes time and resources.

Regan’s book was launched last Thursday at an Australian National University symposiumon the referendum.

The optimism about what’s possible was well expressed by two of the speakers, Rose Pihei, of the Bougainville Integrated Community Learning Centre, and Barbara Tanne, of the Bougainville Women’s Federation, who is also a representative of the churches of Bougainville.

Pihei said ‘excitement is flooding Bougainville’, and Tanne said the referendum is ‘a window of opportunity for Bougainvilleans to realise their dreams’.

Expressing confidence that there’ll be a strong vote in favour of independence, two former independence fighters, James Tanis (‘the moment has arrived’) and Dennis Kuiai, put much of their focus on what’ll happen after the vote.

Kuiai is now acting secretary of the Department of Peace Agreement Implementation in the ABG, while Tanis is the peace envoy of Bougainville’s president and an adviser to the PNG government.

Kuiai said there’s ‘more confidence and trust in how PNG supports the process’. Tanis said PNG and Bougainville owned both referendum questions and paid tribute to PNG’s approach: ‘This is not a decision between a coloniser and the colonised. This is a decision taken by citizens, a decision between ourselves, to find a new relationship between ourselves.’

Both speakers invoked the ‘Melanesian way’ (consultation, conversation and consensus) as the key to how the two governments will deal with the referendum result. Kuiai said:

Using the Melanesian way of doing things, we know for sure we will finally get there. And this outcome we will agree on will be something good for PNG in terms of the sovereignty of PNG and in responding to the aspirations of the Bougainvilleans. The post-referendum has a lot of challenges.

One Melanesian-way analogy offered is that Bougainville is the daughter ready for marriage, and that PNG is the father who’s obliged to prepare for that marriage.

Bougainville is signalling the need for independent mediators to push along the Melanesian way—one PNG mediator and one international. The international mediator could come from New Zealand, based on its crucial role in securing the peace agreement; names mentioned are former prime minister Helen Clark and former foreign minister and secretary-general of the Commonwealth Don McKinnon.

With the vote in sight, Bougainville can embrace PNG to prepare for the next tough climb.

The departure of Peter O’Neill as PNG’s prime minister is an unspoken element in the warm sentiments. He didn’t give much time or cash to Bougainville, always putting the stress on a united PNG. In Melanesian-way fashion, O’Neill did keep the process going, even while abhorring where it could lead and pushing it off as much as possible. The Melanesian way can be about delay as much as about discussion or decision.

PNG now faces the cost of not having put in the resources to make a clear success of Bougainville’s autonomous government, which has been in operation since 2005.

Regan’s judgement is that two decades of peace created ‘more robust relationships’ between Bougainville and PNG. That history will matter, he says, ‘because it’s very unclear what will happen from the consultations after the vote’.

Graeme Dobell is ASPI’s journalist fellow. Image: Antman!/Flickr.

The Melanesian Way

Peter Donigi and Indigenous Land Rights in PNG

Leave a comment

By John Endemongo Kua

Peter Donigi
Peter Donigi

All good things come to an end, and as such, the life of an outstanding scholar and gentleman, had come to pass yesterday morning, here in Port Moresby.

The late Donigi and myself, did not see eye to eye on many national issues of importance to the nation not because of the principles behind the issues, and nor did we allow each other the opportunity to discuss or debate issues of importance to the state or international concerns, simply because he was a Sepik and I a Chimbu, and we were rallying, behind the powerful men of post independence politics, with him standing stoically behind Somare as a kinsman and myself behind Okuk.

For the better or worse, most political cadres were consumed in this shallow and empty game of cloak and dagger political manoeuvres, that destabilised the national progress in many respects to the detriment of this nation state.

Despite the hostile environment of ethnic and regional divide, reason prevailed in men of valour, such as Peter Donigi, who was an astute scholar in law and sociology, and was the chief advisor to the longest serving prime minister, in Sir Michael Somare.

I found a deeply, rooted alliance, with him, where in, he was able to premise the greatest legal blunder, crafted by the Caucasian race of European, who had frolicked the vast oceans for new lands and territories, which they annexed with force of their own self serving inequitable laws that nullified the interests of the indigenous people who were natives of the land.

Donigis arguments, on indigenous land rights, had received international attention, peaking with the United Nations General Assembly, which had passed a resolution, declaring that the indigenous people of any nation state, possessed an inalienable claim to land upon occupation and usage.

Unfortunately his intellectual ability to logical reasoning could not find anchor the political masters of our nation, including the dinosaurs of PNG politics, particularly his own Sepik Kukurai, where he had difficulty in convincing that the land actually belonged to the indigenous inhabitants, including its other properties such as the vegetation and it’s subsoil elements.

In 2005, I called into his office at the UPNG, where he was tutoring in law, and probed him on the possibility of introducing amendments to the existing legislation particularly in relation to inorganic resources in minerals and hydrocarbons. He may have had a bad day, or his mind was engaged or something else was happening, but he reluctantly dismissed my notion of an amendment by pronouncing, his motion in court applying S. 19 of the constitution to interpret the relevant mining and petroleum laws in accordance with S. 53 to include the rights of indigenous customary land right holders.

There was nothing I could do as a non lawyer, but to take my fight at the legislative front to rest my case, and to prove to Donigi that people power can be harnessed to change the legal framework for the better and faster route to restoring equitable rights.

Luck struck, on the 18 July, 2008, when I stumbled over Boka Kondra, the member for North Fly, who had presented a grievance debate on the misgivings of the gigantic Ok Tedi mine in the Star Mountains, which had little or no benefit for the indigenous land owners.

I approached him, that day, and convinced him that, he had the privilege to move a private members bill to amend the Mining Act, to remove the state, and restore the indigenous land owners as the legitimate proprietors.

Kondra accepted my proposal and gave me a blanket power of attorney to co ordinate the drafting of the amendments on the 03 of February, 2009.

I fired the instructions, to Pakgne Lawyers, to draft out the amendments to the Mining Act of 1992 and the Oil and gas Act of 1998.

The private members bills were sent to the parliamentary legal counsel for recourse, and had subsequently put on the notice paper for debate by the clerk of parliament.

For presentation and elaboration, I could think of nobody, better than Donigi, and therefore rang him and invited him to the presentation at the state function room, where he authoritatively convinced those present that, such was the law.

We endured a long campaign with him finally, drafting a master piece legislation, which Somare had shunned, and now O’Neill likewise.

Boka Kondra got caught in the maze of self glorification and aborted the proposed amendments, in exchange for a cabinet post.

With the death of the great champion of indigenous peoples land rights, I now declare war the puppets of foreign investors.

English

The Effects of Colonial Mentality on Filipino-American Mental Health

1 Comment

By Kubo Guest Writers – 

By Joriene Mercado

In a survey of San Diego public high school students, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a striking 45.6% of Filipino-American female adolescents have thought about committing suicide, which was the highest rate among all ethnic groups in this study (Wolf, 1997). Data collected by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health showed that the depression rate was 13.6% among Filipino-American female adolescents, which is a higher rate than other Asian American adolescents (Kim & Chun, 2013). The literature lacks information on Filipino-American males. While it is clear that mental health issues disproportionately affect this population, there is an alarming dearth of information on why incidences of suicidal ideation and depression are so high.

Research suggests that this health disparity may be linked to the psychological phenomenon of colonial mentality. People who possess colonial mentality have a perception of ethnic or cultural inferiority that is a specific consequence of colonization. For Filipinos, this involves an automatic and uncritical rejection of anything Filipino and an automatic and uncritical preference for anything American or white. Studies show that Filipino-Americans who possess colonial mentality have poorer mental health.

I’ve been able to recognize my own colonial mentality growing up, particularly not being satisfied with my appearance and wishing I looked more white.

When I first learned about Philippine history during my sophomore year of college, I discovered that my negative self-perception was rooted out of colonialism in the Philippines.

And today I am still healing from the intergenerational trauma that affects Filipinos. We should collectively heal by learning about our history so we can better understand the source of mental health issues in our community.

Filipino-American psychologist E.J.R. David argues that it is critical for Filipinos to know and understand the catalysts of their colonized thoughts, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. This entails learning about the tragic history of colonialism in the Philippines. Since colonial mentality and poor mental health are linked, Filipino-Americans can better understand their own mental health with knowledge of the history of colonialism in the Philippines.

My struggles with mental health and the impact of learning my people’s colonial history have inspired me to educate Filipino-American high school students about mental health and our collective history. Partnering with the Filipino Mental Health Initiative, a grassroots organization striving to improve the wellness of Filipinos in San Mateo County, we’ve developed workshops for our community that teach the history of colonization in the Philippines and how it relates to mental health and ethnic identity development. In addition to facilitating the workshops, we examined how participants’ perceptions of mental health and ethnic identity changed based on the use of a decolonization framework in the workshops.

Based on the findings from our workshop, students have an increased awareness about their heritage, ethnic identity, and mental health. Throughout the workshop, they reported feelings of inspiration and empowerment and found value in learning about their peers’ personal experiences and connection with the topic. Additionally, their attitudes towards colonization changed to being completely negative, and they drew connections between colonization and mental health and ethnic identity. These preliminary outcomes suggest that educators should consider the sociopolitical forces and structures that may influence the mental health of marginalized communities.

We must continue to learn and share our ethnic histories as a means of empowerment and healing.

I call upon community health initiatives to think critically about how our histories of oppression have influenced the wellness of our communities. How does teaching youth about their collective history impact their ethnic identity development and mental health? What will happen to our youth if they are not exposed to their collective history? I would have been much better off if I learned about my collective history when I was younger, and I believe all students deserve to learn about their collective histories.

Joriene Mercado is a recent graduate from Stanford University with an interest in education and mental health. As an aspiring educator, he aims to work towards developing an education system that’s reflective of the histories and legacies of marginalized groups.
English

What Is a Colonized Mind?

Leave a comment
Peter d’Errico Dec 12, 2011

England was once so proud of its colonial regime that it boasted, “The sun never sets on the British empire.”

Today, colonialism is a bad word. It is fashionable to say we live in a ‘post-colonial’ world.

The truth is the world continues to involve relations of domination and exploitation, under new names: “globalization,” for example.

None of this is news to observers of history and contemporary affairs. The “Occupy” movement, whatever else it may be, is evidence of widespread awareness that 1 percent of the population dominates 99 percent, an arrangement similar to colonialism except it happens within as well as between nations.

The interesting—and complicated—thing about colonialism is that it encompasses not just politics and economics, but consciousness. Critical theorists such as Frantz Fanon and Paulo Freire have pointed this out.

Fanon, a black man born in the French colony of Martinique, became a world-renowned psychoanalyst and philosopher, working in Algeria. He wrote, “For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity” [The Wretched of the Earth].

Fanon’s study of psychology and sociology led him to the further conclusion that colonized people perpetuate their condition by striving to emulate the culture and ideas of their oppressors. He wrote, “Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, is best known for his development of what might be called ‘liberation literacy,’ teaching literacy and political awareness together. Freire agreed with Fanon, “The oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressors.” He said, “the oppressed must be their own example.” Unlike Fanon, he argued that oppressors also could (and those who wanted to end colonialism must) change their own thinking: “those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly” [Pedagogy of the Oppressed].

How do we apply these thoughts to the situation of American Indians today? The problems start with the notion that the United States is not a colonial power, or that the colonial era of American history is over. These notions are sometimes stated openly, more often concealed as assumptions behind our rhetoric.

When an Indian speaks about “our country,” what country is being talked about? Is it an Indigenous Nation or the United States? When an Indian refers to “my President,” which president is being discussed, the president of an Indigenous Nation or the president of the U.S.? These kinds of statements need to be examined to determine whether the speaker is asserting something that supports or undermines consciousness of Indigenous sovereignty.

The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act declared, “all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…are…citizens.” Reaction among Indians was diverse, some welcoming the chance to more closely assimilate and others wary of the loss of Indigenous sovereignty. Prior citizenship acts had been tied to allotment, for example. Non-Indians were also divided in their views, some saying citizenship would “redeem… the tribes,” and others saying citizenship would empower Indians.

It may be the case that an Indian values U.S. citizenship and seeks an active role in the political system that dominates Indian nations. This approach may have some utilitarian value in struggling for Indian self-determination; but it is an approach fraught with difficulty because it uses language that can trap the speaker and listeners in an illusion of self-determination and cause them to miss opportunities for the real thing.

Patrice Lumumba, the first indigenous leader of the Republic of the Congo, called for mental decolonization in his speech to the 1960 Pan-African Congress, saying we have to “rediscover our most intimate selves and rid ourselves of mental attitudes and complexes and habits that colonization … trapped us in for centuries.” Lumumba thought it possible to work together with the former Belgian oppressors; for their part, they saw him as an enemy and facilitated his assassination.

We might say that collaboration among Indian nations and the U.S. is the best of both worlds. Even here, however, we must be careful. To ‘collaborate,’ in its root meaning, is to ‘work together’; but there is also a different meaning: ‘traitorous cooperation with the enemy.’ Which of these we mean—and which we engage in—depends on whether our minds are decolonized. ‘Working together’ requires all participants to work on themselves, their thinking, assumptions, perspectives, beliefs, and habits of mind. Decolonization is personal and political.

Melanesian People

Indonesia is an “imagined community”, Melanesia is a REAL community!… BUT…

Leave a comment

A Melanesian Dilemma

It is a human tragedy today is that “the REAL Melanesian community think they are unreal, and then they believe and treat the “unreal Indonesian community” as a real one,

They think un-real Indonesia poses real threats and danger, that therefore it is a sensitive issue that should be treated cautiously. They are fearful that supporting and defending the Real Melanesia means offending the “unreal Indonesia”. What are human tragedy. And this tragedy is imposed by Melanesians ourselves, because we Melanesians do not have a clear self-image ourselves. That is why we cannot see the image of other humans as they are. We are believing on what they told us about who they are.

It is Benedict Anderson that branded Indonesia as an un-real community because “Indonesia” only exists as a country, not not as a people. There is no Indonesian island, Indonesian tribe, Indonesian village to this date, but there is Indonesian state called the Colonial Unitary Republic of Indonesia (CURI). In other words, Indonesia does not exist as a people, but only as a nation-state.

An imagined community is a concept developed by Benedict Anderson in his 1983 book Imagined Communities, to analyze nationalism. Anderson depicts a nation as a socially constructed community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.[1]:6–7 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community>

The first Note:

  1. There is no single tribe called Indonesian tribe;
  2. There is no single village called Indonesian village;
  3. There is no single island called Indonesian island; and
  4. Therefore, in fact, there is no single person called Indonesian.

The second Note:

  1. There are Java tribe; Batal Tribe, Bugis Tribe, Bali Tribe, Lani Tribe, Yali Tribe, Mee Tribe, etc.
  2. There are villages like Genyem, Banyuwangi (Java), Sragen (Java), Bogor (Java), Bogia (PNG), Eratap (Vanuatu), GabaGaba (PNG).
  3. There are islands like New Guinea Java, Bali, Eromanggo, and Borneo.
  4. There are peoples like Javanese, Sumatran, Dayak, Bugis, Melanesian, Balinese

The third Note:

  1. Indonesia is not a real identity of human being, it is just an identity of a country, a colonial boundary created for the sake of their economic interests, disregarding and undermining human beings who live in islands included into Indonesia.
  2. Melanesia is a real identity, but we are divided up by colonised by different masters at different times, and finally we were given independence, but still following the maps of our colonial masters. Consequently, we are identifying ourselves according to colonial map, not according to the truth of our own identity.
  3. Indonesia has declared the country as “one people – one land” (sebangsa setanah air), either foolishly or cleverly ignoring the matter of fact that there are MANY nations and MANY islands included into Indonesia.
  4. Melanesia never declared herself as “One People – One Origin, One Destiny”,
    • that is really why we are thinking Melanesia is not real but West Papua is real,
    • therefore I am West Papuan, Melanesia is not real but PNG is real, therefore I am Papua New Guinean,
    • that is why I am ni-Vanuatu, not Melanesian.
    • therefore I am a Fijian, and West Papua issue is an internal Indonesian issue, I am as Fijian stay outside, West Papuans are Indonesians.
  5. In fact, it is not difficult for Melanesians to say to ourselves and to the world, “We are Melanesians”:, “Yes We are ONE, Melanesian People!” and
    1. WE ARE NOT West Papuans;
    2. WE ARE NOT Papuan New Guineans;
    3. WE ARE NOT Fijians;
    4. WE ARE NOT ni-Vanuatu;
    5. WE ARE NOT Solomon Islanders;
    6. WE ARE NOT NEW CALEDONIANS,

Therefore, Free West Papua is not to Free West Papuans, but Free West Papua is to Free Melanesians from colonial power. Occupying West Papua is occupying Melanesian ancestral land.

We should not be fooled by colonial-made governments of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and think that West Papua issue is an internal affair of Indonesian peoples.

We Melanesians a Facing Dilemma on our Own Self-Image

Our Melanesian our self-image is already over-painted by foreign powers. We are holding our image made-up by foreign colonialists. And today we are thinking according to what our colonial powers want.

They told us you are NOT Melanesians, and we are agreeing that we are not so. They told us West Papua is part of Indonesia and governments of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) are thinking the that way too.

Finally Indonesians themselves told us this

If you cannot figure out your own self-image, then let me tell you, “YOU ARE MONKEY!”

So right now, this struggle is not between West Papuan people and Indonesia anymore. This is a struggle between us all “monkeys” from Melanesia against those “imagined human community” of Indonesia.

Let us unite! Let us declare our image: Yes we are monkeys! Let monkeys stay in our own forests, and let imagined humans go back to their homes.

We are ONE: 1 Ancestor, 1 Land, 1 People, 1 Destiny.

We are not West Papuans, We are not Papua New Guineans, We are not Fijians, We are not Solomon Islanders, we are not Ni-Vanuatu, we are not New Caledonians, “WE ARE MELANESIANS!”

This is all about Melanesian nationalism! The nationalism of the “monkeys” against imagined society of Indonesia.

Nature Care

Pacific leaders, Australia agree to disagree about action on climate change

Leave a comment

BY FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER MELISSA CLARKE IN TUVALUUPDATED FRI AT 1:36PM

Australia has stymied efforts by small island states to get Pacific-wide consensus on their declaration for stronger action on climate change.

Key points:

  • Australia expressed reservations about emissions reduction, coal use and the Green Climate Fund
  • Scott Morrison said he understood sensitivities in the Pacific region but ultimately he was “accountable to the Australian people”
  • Tuvalu’s Prime Minister was disappointed with the outcome, saying leaders “should have done more work for our people”

Regional leaders, including Australia and New Zealand, held 12-hour talks in the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu for this year’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), eventually reaching an agreement on a statement on climate change and a communique early this morning.

They could not reach agreement on the Tuvalu Declaration made by smaller Pacific countries, instead drafting a separate Kainaki II Declaration, with different terms on coal use and emissions reduction.

The finished communique comes with a qualification that means the leaders do not support all of the declaration from the smaller nations.

Scott Morrison in Tuvalu

Earlier in the week, the Smaller Island States (SIS) group agreed to the Tuvalu Declaration, which acknowledges a climate change crisis, encourages countries to revise the emissions reductions targets and calls for a rapid phase out of coal use.

They had hoped the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum, which includes Australia and New Zealand, would endorse it.

But Australia expressed reservations about the sections on emissions reduction, coal use and funding for the UN’s Green Climate Fund, while New Zealand also had reservations about the section on the Green Climate Fund.

Introducing Tuvalu

Prime Minister Scott Morrison will arrive in Tuvalu, one of the smallest and least-visited nations on Earth, for the annual gathering of Pacific leaders, who have named climate change as their top issue.

That means that the final communique endorses the Smaller Island States declaration “with qualifications”, and no country has fully committed to endorsing the Tuvalu Declaration.

Speaking after the marathon leaders meeting, Mr Morrison said he wanted the SIS group to be able to express its views “freely” but that its statement was not binding on the rest of the forum.

“The Pacific Island Forum has its leaders meeting and it agrees to the things that it agrees. And then the Small Island States have their own forum that sit within that,” he said.

“And it’s not incumbent on the leaders’ forum to have to run a ruler over that.”

‘The Prime Minister of Tonga actually cried’

Tuvalu’s PM said tears were shed during Pacific Island Forum.ABC NEWS

That disappointed the PIF chair, Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who said as he left the meeting: “We tried our best”.

Mr Sopoaga had invested significant time and energy in making climate change the central focus of the meeting, and pushed for the Tuvalu Declaration to be adopted by Australia, but was resigned to the alternative outcome.

Negotiations were heated, particularly between Mr Sopoaga and Mr Morrison.

Pacific pivot undermined

Australia’s return to its Pacific neighbours after years of neglect could risk being undermined by the Government’s intransigence on the region’s main threat: climate change.

“We expressed very strongly during our exchange, between me and Scott [Morrison], I said: ‘You are concerned about saving your economy in Australia … I am concerned about saving my people in Tuvalu,'” Mr Sopoaga said.

“That was the tone of the discussion. Please don’t expect that we come and bow down … we were exchanging flaring language — not swearing — but of course expressing the concerns of leaders.”

Mr Morrison said he understood the sensitivities in the region and showed his respect during negotiations, but ultimately he was “accountable to the Australian people”.

“I am accountable to the Australian people, that’s who I’m accountable for,” Mr Morrison said.

“I understand the deep sensitivities. It’s not a theoretical issue, it’s not a dinner party conversation here in the Pacific.

“It’s not just about Australia’s economy. It’s about how Australia can continue to provide the support that we do across the Pacific region.”

Mr Sopoaga said Tonga’s Prime Minister Akilisi Pohiva had been reduced to tears as climate change activists delivered a presentation to the leaders earlier in the week.

“The Prime Minister of Tonga actually cried in the meeting … shed tears in front of the leaders, such is the passion.”

Tongan PM Akilisi Pohiva and Morrison
Tongan PM Akilisi Pohiva and Morrison

The outcome falls short of what Mr Sopoaga and some other Pacific leaders had hoped.

“It was a negotiated outcome, I think it still contains some references to the (UN) secretary-general’s message to accelerate actions against climate change and it’s a way forward,” he said.

“I think we can say we should’ve done more work for our people.”

How do the declarations differ on key issues?

Abbot Point coal terminal in north Queensland

Emissions reductions:

Tuvalu Declaration:

“Encourage all countries to revise their nationally determined contributions so as to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Kainaki II Declaration

“Call for … all parties to the Paris Agreement to meet or exceed their nationally determined contributions.”

Climate change and the ADF

 
Australia’s Defence Department has spelled out clearly to a Senate inquiry that climate change will create “concurrency pressures” for the Defence Force as a rise in disaster relief operations continues.

Coal use:

Tuvalu Declaration:

“We re-affirm the UN secretary-general’s call for an immediate global ban on the construction of new coal-fired power plants and coal mines and … [call on them to] rapidly phase out their use of coal in the power sector.”

Kainaki II Declaration:

“Invite all parties to the Paris Agreement to reflect” on the UN secretary-general’s remarks on “fossil fuel subsidies and just transition from fossil fuels”.

“[Call on] the members of the G7 and G20 to rapidly implement their commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”

Green Climate Fund:

Tuvalu Declaration:

“We call for a prompt, ambitious and successful replenishment of the Green Climate Fund.”

Kainaki II Declaration:

The international community “continues efforts towards” meeting international funding commitments, “including the replenishment of the Green Climate Fund.”


Nature Care

Fijian PM accused Scott Morrison of being ‘very insulting and condescending’

Leave a comment

Fiji’s leader has hit out at his Australian counterpart, questioning their personal relationship following the Pacific Island Forum.

Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama has launched a scathing attack on Scott Morrison and his deputy prime minister over their attitude towards their Pacific island neighbours.

But the Australian prime minister insists his government still has a deep commitment to its regional neighbours after a tetchy week at the Pacific Island Forum which tried to turn the heat on Australia over climate change.

In an interview with Guardian Australia on Saturday, Mr Bainimarama accused Mr Morrison of being “very insulting and condescending” during a leaders retreat.READ MORE

Deputy prime minister Michael McCormack.

Deputy PM says Pacific Islands will survive climate change because they ‘pick our fruit’

“I thought Morrison was a good friend of mine, apparently not,” he said.

Asked if Mr Morrison’s approach might cause some Pacific leaders to look to China, Mr Bainimarama said: “After what we went through with Morrison, nothing can be worse than him.”

“China never insults the Pacific.”

Labor’s climate change spokesman Mark Butler weighed in saying the long-standing relationship with Pacific countries has been damaged by Mr Morrison’s heavy-handedness.

When combatting climate change, it’s good to have an ally like New Zealand in your corner. Together, we can save Tuvalu, the Pacific, and the world. Vinaka vakalevu for the passion you bring to this fight, @jacindaardern.

View image on Twitter

2,2412:09 PM – Aug 15, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy709 people are talking about this

“It just adds insult to injury to have the deputy prime minister of the country then say if you lose your home through sea level rise you’ll be fine because you’ll be able to access some job opportunities in Australia.”

Pacific island leaders used the forum to urge Australia to lift its game on climate change to protect low-lying countries like Tuvalu by curbing fossil fuel emissions.

Nationals Leader Michael McCormack, who was acting prime minister while Mr Morrison was attending the forum in Tuvalu this week, said on Friday he gets annoyed when Pacific countries point their finger at Australia and say it should be shutting down its resources sector.

“They’ll continue to survive because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit, pick our fruit grown with hard Australian enterprise and endeavour and we welcome them and we always will,” Mr McCormack is reported as saying.

Mr Bainimarama said the comments were insulting and disrespectful.

“But I get the impression that that’s the sentiment brought across by the prime minister,” he said.

Labor frontbencher Jason Clare also had a crack at Mr McCormack, saying it’s hard to have credibility in this debate when emissions are going up and members of the government are cracking jokes.READ MORE

Back on home soil in Adelaide on Saturday, Mr Morrison said Australia has the deepest engagement and biggest commitment in the world to the Pacific,

“We’re there for the difficult conversations, we’re there for every type of conversation with our Pacific family, just like any family that comes around the table,” he told reporters after addressing a South Australian Liberals conference.

“We will always be there and regardless of whatever issues we have to work through at the time.”

Even so, Pacific island leaders are taking their call for action on climate change to the United Nations at a climate meeting in New York in September.

This week’s forum ended with a statement calling on major economies to “rapidly implement their commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”.

Many of the forum members wanted to single out coal-fired power for its impact on the climate, but the language was rejected in the final document.SOURCE AAP – SBS

Source: ABS Com. AU

Asia Oceania

Pacific Island nations will no longer stand for Australia’s inaction on climate change

Leave a comment

The Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Tuvalu this week has ended in open division over climate change. Australia ensured its official communique watered down commitments to respond to climate change, gaining a hollow victory.

Traditionally, communiques capture the consensus reached at the meeting. In this case, the division on display between Australia and the Pacific meant the only commitment is to commission yet another report into what action needs to be taken.

The cost of Australia’s victory is likely to be great, as it questions the sincerity of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s commitment to “step up” engagement in the Pacific.

Read more: Can Scott Morrison deliver on climate change in Tuvalu – or is his Pacific ‘step up’ doomed?

Australia’s stance on climate change has become untenable in the Pacific. The inability to meet Pacific Island expectations will erode Australia’s influence and leadership credentialsin the region, and provide opportunities for other countries to grow influence in the region.

An unprecedented show of dissent

When Morrison arrived in Tuvalu, he was met with an uncompromising mood. In fact, the text of an official communique was only finished after 12 hours of pointed negotiations.

While the “need for urgent, immediate actions on the threats and challenges of climate change”, is acknowledged, the Pacific was looking for action, not words.

Morrison was met with an uncompromising mood in by leaders in Tuvalu. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

What’s more, the document reaffirmed that “strong political leadership to advance climate change action” was needed, but leadership from Australia was sorely missing. It led Tuvaluan Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga to note:

I think we can say we should’ve done more work for our people.

Presumably, he would have hoped Australia could be convinced to take more climate action.

In an unprecedented show of dissent, smaller Pacific Island countries produced the alternative Kainaki II Declaration. It captures the mood of the Pacific in relation to the existential threat posed by climate change, and the need to act decisively now to ensure their survival.

And it details the commitments needed to effectively address the threat of climate change. It’s clear nothing short of transformational change is needed to ensure their survival, and there is rising frustration in Australia’s repeated delays to take effective action.

Australia hasn’t endorsed the alternative declaration and Canberra has signalled once and for all that compromise on climate change is not possible. This is not what Pacific leaders hoped for and will come at a diplomatic cost to Australia.

Read more: Response to rumours of a Chinese military base in Vanuatu speaks volumes about Australian foreign policy

Canberra can’t buy off the Pacific

Conflict had already begun brewing in the lead up to the Pacific Islands Forum. The Pacific Islands Development Forum – the brainchild of the Fijian government, which sought a forum to engage with Pacific Island Nations without the influence of Australia and New Zealand – released the the Nadi Bay Declaration in July this year.

This declaration called on coal producing countries like Australia to cease all production within a decade.

But it’s clear Canberra believes compromise of this sort on climate change would undermine Australia’s economic growth and this is the key stumbling block to Australia answering its Pacific critics with action.

As Sopoaga said to Morrison:

You are concerned about saving your economy in Australia […] I am concerned about saving my people in Tuvalu.

And a day before the meeting, Canberra announced half a billion dollars to tackle climate change in the region. But it received a lukewarm reception from the Pacific.

The message is clear: Canberra cannot buy off the Pacific. In part, this is because Pacific Island countries have new options, especially from China, which has offered Pacific island countries concessional loans.

Read more: As Australia’s soft power in the Pacific fades, China’s voice gets louder

China is becoming an attractive alternate partner

As tension built at the Pacific Island Forum meeting, New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters argued there was a double standard with respect to the treatment of China on climate change.

China is the world’s largest emitter of climate change gasses, but if there is a double standard it’s of Australia’s making.

Australia purports to be part of the Pacific family that can speak and act to protect the interests of Pacific Island countries in the face of China’s “insidious” attempts to gain influence through “debt trap” diplomacy. This is where unsustainable loans are offered with the aim of gaining political advantage.

But countering Chinese influence in the Pacific is Australia’s prime security interest, and is a secondary issue for the Pacific.

But unlike Australia, China has never claimed the moral high ground and provides an attractive alternative partner, so it will likely gain ground in the battle for influence in the Pacific.

Growing confidence among Pacific leaders has changed diplomatic dynamics forever. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
Growing confidence among Pacific leaders has changed diplomatic dynamics forever. AAP Image/Mick Tsikas

For the Pacific Island Forum itself, open dissent is a very un-Pacific outcome. Open dissent highlights the strains in the region’s premier intergovernmental organisation.

Australia and (to a lesser extent) New Zealand’s dominance has often been a source of criticism, but growing confidence among Pacific leaders has changed diplomatic dynamics forever.

Read more: Climate change forced these Fijian communities to move – and with 80 more at risk, here’s what they learned

This new pacific diplomacy has led Pacific leaders to more steadfastly identify their security interests. And for them, the need to respond to climate change is non-negotiable.

If winning the geopolitical contest with China in Pacific is Canberra’s priority, then far greater creativity will be needed as meeting the Pacific half way on climate change is a prerequisite for success.

Source: The Conversation

Asia Oceania

Blackbirding: legacy of anger in Solomon Islands

1 Comment

There is still anger in Solomon Islands over Blackbirding, an academic says.

About 60,000 Pacific Islanders were taken from their mainly Melanesian homelands to Australia in the 1800s to work on plantations. Photo: State Library of Queensland
About 60,000 Pacific Islanders were taken from their mainly Melanesian homelands to Australia in the 1800s to work on plantations. Photo: State Library of Queensland

David Gegeo, the director of research at Solomon Islands National University, said thousands of Solomon Islanders were kidnapped and later contracted to work in Australia in the 1800s, a practice known as Blackbirding.

Its legacy includes intergenerational anger that could be relieved, if the complete history of the practise were taught in schools, Dr Gegeo said.

“There was grieving over people leaving but also there was anger when people were taken. People still talk about those stories with a certain degree of pain, anger and frustration,” he said.

“‘What did we do to deserve this? We were taken away to develop someone elses country, economy’. Yes, there is still some anger.”

From listening to oral histories, Dr Gegeo said Blackbirding had disrupted social fabric in Solomon’s villagers and caused disputes.

“For example, Fiu harbour on Malaita where I come from, after young men were taken, a chief, or what we call in Kwara’ae a fata’abu, would curse the harbour because people were kidnapped from the harbour. Anybody who was seen in the harbour, even just walking along the beach would be killed. And there were bounties,” he said.

David Gegeo
David Gegeo Photo: Solomon Islands National University

“Another impact: two friends went to the beach and one of them was taken away. The parents, or the tribal group of the kid that was taken away, would be angry and would demand compensation from his people, saying ‘it was your son who took my son to the beach that day and he was kidnapped. If it hadn’t been for his friendship with your son this would not have happened’. So sometimes compensation, killing took place because of it.”

“Also, the fact that young men who are supposed to be in the village and doing tribal responsibilities were taken away. It left a gap and women suddenly had to step into men’s roles because able bodied men were taken away.”

The school curriculum in the Solomons only focuses on the so-called benefits of Blackbirding, Dr Gegeo said, the result of history being “deemphasised” by the “colonial regime” as a means of modernising the country.

“It’s taught under Social Studies. The bit about Blackbirding is very highly selective in that it emphasised mostly what you might call the benefits of blackbirding,” he said.

“People coming back with guns and knives and axes, Solomons Pidgin and Chritianity but not the other side of it which is the suffering and the agony that Blackbirded Solomon Islanders went through.

“I believe in presenting a balanced picture of the phenomenon. Painful as it may be.”

Source: https://www.rnz.co.nz

World

Pope says indigenous people must have final say about their land

Leave a comment

Francis echoes growing body of international law and standards on the right to ‘prior and informed consent’

Pope Francis in Rome last week when he said indigenous peoples have the right to ‘prior and informed consent’ regarding their lands and territories. Photograph: AP
Pope Francis in Rome last week when he said indigenous peoples have the right to ‘prior and informed consent’ regarding their lands and territories. Photograph: AP

In the 15th century papal bulls promoted and provided legal justification for the conquest and theft of indigenous peoples’ lands and resources worldwide – the consequences of which are still being felt today. The right to conquest in one such bull, the Romanus Pontifex, issued in the 1450s when Nicholas V was the Pope, was granted in perpetuity.

How times have changed. Last week, over 560 years later, Francis, the first Pope from Latin America, struck a rather different note – for indigenous peoples around the world, for land rights, for better environmental stewardship. He said publicly that indigenous peoples have the right to “prior and informed consent.” In other words, nothing should happen on – or impact – their land, territories and resources unless they agree to it.

“I believe that the central issue is how to reconcile the right to development, both social and cultural, with the protection of the particular characteristics of indigenous peoples and their territories,” said Francis, according to an English version of his speech released by the Vatican’s press office.

“This is especially clear when planning economic activities which may interfere with indigenous cultures and their ancestral relationship to the earth,” Francis went on. “In this regard, the right to prior and informed consent should always prevail, as foreseen in Article 32 of the [UN] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Only then is it possible to guarantee peaceful cooperation between governing authorities and indigenous peoples, overcoming confrontation and conflict.”

Francis was speaking to numerous indigenous representatives in Rome at the conclusion of the third Indigenous Peoples’ Forum held by the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development.

The UN’s Declaration – non-legally-binding – was adopted 10 years ago. Article 32 says

“states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.”

Francis also told his audience “humanity is committing a grave sin in not caring for the earth”, and urged them to resist new technologies which “destroy the earth, which destroy the environment and the ecological balance, and which end up destroying the wisdom of peoples.” He called on governments to enable indigenous peoples to fully participate in developing “guidelines and projects”, both locally and nationally.

Various mainstream media including the BBC, The Independent and the Washington Post interpreted Francis’s speech as a comment, or an apparent comment, on the current Dakota Access Pipeline conflict in the US – almost as if that was the only conflict over indigenous peoples’ land they were aware of. But what about everyone and everywhere else? Such interpretations were swiftly rejected by a Vatican spokesperson, who was reported as saying “there’s no element in his words that would give us a clue to know if he was talking about any specific cases.”

So what do some of those who were with Francis that day think of his speech? How significant was it?

Myrna Cunningham, a Miskita activist from Nicaragua and former Chairperson of the UN’s Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, says the Pope was sending several main messages. These included the “need to reconcile the right to development with indigenous peoples’ spiritual and cultural specificities and territories”, and the importance of the UN Declaration and consent which was, she says, “in a way a response to indigenous demands.”

“I expected a strong message but his position exceeded my expectations,” Cunningham told the Guardian. “He is truly clear about the struggles of our people and an important voice to make our demands be heard.”

Elifuraha Laltaika, from the Association for Law and Advocacy for Pastoralists in Tanzania, says it was a “timely wake-up call to governments.”

“[His comments] come at time when, instead of scaling up, governments increasingly violate and look with suspicion at the minimum standards in the UN Declaration,” he told the Guardian. “Without heeding Pope Francis’s call, life would undoubtedly become more miserable for indigenous peoples than ever before. Greed towards extraction of hydrocarbons and minerals will open up additional fault-lines, heightening indigenous peoples’ poverty and inability to deal with impacts of climate change and a myriad of other challenges.”

For Alvaro Pop, a Maya Q’eqchi man from Guatemala, Francis’s remarks demonstrate his ongoing commitment to indigenous peoples’ rights.

“Indigenous peoples have been the guardians of their resources for centuries,” says Pop, another former Chairperson of the UN’s Permanent Forum. “Free, prior and informed consent is one of the most important issues of the 21st century. The Pope’s comments are truly significant.”

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, a Kankanaey Igorot woman from the Philippines and now the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, says Francis’s comments illustrate his “understanding of the importance” of implementing the UN Declaration.

“His view that a bigger chance of overcoming confrontation and conflict between indigenous peoples and governing authorities can be achieved if prior and informed consent is respected echoes what many indigenous peoples have always stated,” Tauli-Corpuz told the Guardian.

Les Malezer, from Australia, describes it as “gratifying” that the Pope took such a “strong stance” on the need to respect indigenous peoples’ rights, and says he took the opportunity to raise with him the “Doctrine of Discovery” – the international legal concept grounded in the 15th century papal bulls.

“Each person in our audience had the opportunity to say a very few words to the Pope as he came around the room,” Malezer, from Queensland, told the Guardian. “I asked the Pope to continue to review the Doctrine of Discovery which was followed by many instances of genocide of indigenous peoples and the taking of their lands. Also I requested the Catholic Church seek to raise awareness worldwide of the situation and rights of indigenous peoples.”

In asserting indigenous peoples’ right to consent, Francis was echoing – and giving sustenance to – a growing body of international law and jurisprudence binding on governments, and guidelines, principles or operating procedures adopted by some financial institutions, UN agencies and private sector groups. According to a 2013 report by UN-REDD on the international legal basis for what is known as “FPIC” – free, prior and informed consent – “More than 200 States have ratified numerous international and regional treaties and covenants that expressly provide for, or are now interpreted to recognise, a State duty and obligation to obtain FPIC where the circumstances so warrant.”

As the crisis escalates…

… in our natural world, we refuse to turn away from the climate catastrophe and species extinction. For The Guardian, reporting on the environment is a priority. We give reporting on climate, nature and pollution the prominence it deserves, stories which often go unreported by others in the media. At this pivotal time for our species and our planet, we are determined to inform readers about threats, consequences and solutions based on scientific facts, not political prejudice or business interests.

More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.

We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as £1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Source: The Independent

United Tribes of Melanesia!