Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. (René Descartes, mathematician and philosopher,1599-1650)

Monday 6 July 2009

(o+) Why the Rush with PACER? Why Was Fiji Excluded From PACER? Why Was Roman Grynberg's Contract Not Renewed?


PLEASE VOTE IN THE MEDIA POLL TO THE LEFT

It may all seem like the ramblings of several conspiracy theorists -- or a bunch of anti-free trade lobbyists -- but there are too many unanswered questions not to be concerned about Australia's (and New Zealand's) apparent role in the questions raised in the title to this post. The questions raised are at least as much about the the perception of patronising, bullying and very unequal relations between sovereign states as they are about trade. About what even Sir Don McKinnon, New Zealander and former Commonwealth Secretary-General, once called neo-colonialism.

Serious students of the influence of Australia and New Zealand on Pacific Island countries cannot avoid but look closely at the the hows and whys of last month's PACER-Plus (Pacific Agreement on Closer Relations) in Apia, from which Fiji, probably illegally, was excluded on the basis of its suspension from the PI Forum, arguably a different organization. It has also been excluded from the PACER follow-up meeting in Cairns next month.

It must be asked why the rush with PACER when earlier the Pacific Island leaders' "Pacific Plan" wanted a 5-year build-up? Why were Pacific Island officials (with trade expertise) separated from their politicians for an "informal" part of the Apia meeting when important decisions were made, without their advice? Is it true that many officials were furious, and that one flew home almost immediately?

Why was Fiji excluded from the PACER meetings? Knowing its reservations about free trade and outside dominance, did Australia and New Zealand connive its (possibly illegal) exclusion?

Why was Dr Roman Gynberg's Forum contract not renewed? He was the Economic Governance Director. Did some countries not welcome the advice he gave? Was he too much on the Pacific Islands' side? Grynberg is no fly-by-night expatriate adviser. He's been around the Pacific for years and has also been a senior economic adviser to the Commonwealth Secretariat. He worked under McKinnon. Soon after his "dismissal" he wrote "Who Owns the Pacific Islands Forum?" which pointed two fingers south and westward. Is it true he will be replaced with an Australian? It is not forgotten how Australia pressured Pacific Island governments to appoint Australian Greg Urwin as the Forum Secretary-General.

  • To read more on these questions, start with this damning overview in the Samoan Observer.
  • Follow this up with Adam Wolfenden's persuasive and disturbing article republished in the blog Stuck in Fiji M.U.D.
  • The blog site includes earlier postings on the same topic, including an earlier NZ Herald report.
  • To read why Grynberg's contract was not renewed again visit the Samoan Observer
  • Then read what Islands Business had to say
Our (Australia and NZ) policies on the present Fiji political situation are predicated by our perceptions of ourselves and what we perceive to be proper relations between "us" and "them." This is why the PACER issue is especially important at this time. It may help us, as the poet Robbie Burns observed in his poem To a Louse, to see ourselves as others see us.

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,

And foolish notion....
.

For the full poem, in Scots dialect, click here.

Photo: PI Forum flags. Acknowledgement: Forum Secretariat, Suva
Disclosure: Roman Grynberg and I were once colleagues at the University of the South Pacific in Suva.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Pacific countries who are even tentatively considering entering into FTAs should first look very hard at the predicament of indigenous people in Peru right now. http://www.coha.org/2009/06/murder-in-peru-indigenous-rights-and-corporate-interests/
The FTA Australia entered into with USA (against many protests)may well see any protection of Aboriginal rights ruled illegal in terms of the FTA. just as in Peru. Do island nations really want to go near such a scenario?