for friendship's sake?

Did Mataafa sack the UNDP for friendship's sake?

From an Apia correspondent

The United Nations Development Programme office in Western Samoa dosed its doors for the last time at the end of July—expelled by Prime Minister Fiame Mataafa. For what?

For the sake of friendship? Or for something far more subtle, like rivalries between Pacific nations served by the UNDP?

At June’s beginning, without any formal announcement to the public, Prime Minister Mataafa gave the agency 60 days notice to close down and get out. He sent a cable to that effect to UNDP in New York and later, in a 60-second conversation with UNDP’s acting regional repre sentative in Apia, Ray Fort, con firmed the order.

Parliament was not told in what way the UNDP had offended. The public was not told and, at the time of writing, Mataafa, despite protests from MPs, had maintained an aloof silence. Strongest rumour current was that the Prime Minister had laid his career on the line—and that’s what they are saying in Apia—for friendship’s sake; friendship with Mr Bill Hussey, UNDP representative in Western Samoa, whose five-year term of office had ended and was not being extended by the UNDP. Mr Hussey wanted to stay and sought the support of his friend.

Mataafa had delivered an ulti matum. Either Mr Hussey stayed or UNDP got out. UNDP got out.

It is now operating from Manila and making tentative approaches to other Island nations for a base.

Fiji has been mentioned as a likely base in the South Pacific but, accord ing to Ratu Mara, it’s not on the cards at the moment.

The Fiji Prime Minister said in July that the UNDP approached Fiji about a base in the country even before receiving Mataafa’s notice to quit, but Fiji would not agree to a condition that it should provide office space and pay the salaries of a local staff.

“We felt that, if the United Nations wants to come here, they should foot the bill like all other agencies who are already established in Fiji,” said Ratu Mara.

If the Samoan Prime Minister’s action was a piece of heavy-handed

bluff, UNDP called his bluff. Twenty Samoan employees have lost their jobs; Western Samoa has lost the decided advantage of having such an agency in its house and can hardly have any friends at the New York headquarters who can be useful, es pecially at this stage of Western Samoa’s development when there are plans to boost the economy, plans which need plenty of cash and advice.

Other reasons have been advanced for Mataafa’s action. One is that the Prime Minister expected, but didn’t get, the help he needed from the agency in his efforts to establish Samoa’s national airline, Polynesian Airlines, against opposition from the Air Pacific consortium. UNDP, it is said, sided with Fiji and Air Pacific.

Another is that he was tired of pro viding accommodation. But neither of those reasons holds as much water as the one based on his friendship with Bill Hussey. The UNDP, how ever, says it has an inflexible rule—

no-one serves more than one term in any country. It wasn’t prepared to make an exception for Mr Hussey.

Although Mr Fort declined to say much —“I’m merely on the sideline” —he has indicated that the main reason for expulsion was personal, and also explained the rule regarding a representative’s length of stay in any one country.

But, whatever the reason, the MPs have been in full cry. Their letter to the Prime Minister complaining that they had been left in the dark, under lined the “deep debt” Samoa owed to UNDP, a debt which “had been en larged many times over since inde pendence because of the economic and other benefits that have accrued to Western Samoa”.

The MPs wrote that they feared the image and credibility of their country would suffer as a result of the drastic step taken by Mataafa and asked; “Prior to it being taken, was this action assented to by the cabinet, by his Highness the Head of State?

Is this not a matter of grave public importance that parliament should be called, informed, and the proposal debated so that the will of the people be declared?”

The MPs also wrote an “open letter” to Mr Fort asking for clarifi cation of the supposed issues, leaning heavily on the Hussey question and asking for United Nations comment on any other reasons which might exist for Mataafa’s decision and the UNDP’s reaction. Had it to do, they asked, with Mr Hussey’s ad ministration of UN funds; his pro motion of certain personalities and policies which exceeded the “allow able limits of neutrality”; his pro motion of projects without proper authorisation or promotion of com mercial interests which had nothing to do with the UN programme?

The rest is silence!

Mr Bill Hussey.