Salvage plan for a commission

and a conference

Former Director of Administration of the South Pacific Commission DON STEWART outlines measures which he believes could result in the salvation of that ailing body, and its ‘twin’, the South Pacific Conference.

The South Pacific Conference and the South Pacific Commission are different now from what they were at their beginnings in the post-war colonial Pacific of the late 19405. Indeed, they are different now from what they were in the 1960 s and even the mid-19705.

The conference and the commission have survived but not exactly flourished to date by a remarkable capacity for adapting to times and circumstances.

Cynics might call this ducking and diving. To see out the 1980 s, both will have to adapt even more radically than in the P ast -

Ostensibly, the conference exists as a talking place and a unique one for representa tives of all Pacific countries and territories, whether indepen dent, self-governing, or terri torial, at which they can get together once a year with each other and with representatives of ‘metropolitan’ governments having past or present terri torial interests in the region.

The commission, for its part, exists as the servant of the conference to carry out its wishes and directions.

In fact, the South Pacific Conference now exists primar ily to keep the commission

going for another year. This is achieved through two confer ence functions: formal approval of the commission’s budget for the coming year, and of nomi nations for the positions of principal officers (the com mission’s secretary-general and its two directors).

Yet even these two functions are in the rubber-stamp category since both are prede termined by one of two com mittees: the Planning and Evaluation Committee (P&E) in the case of the commission’s work programme and budget, and the Committee of Rep resentatives of Participating Governments (CRPG) in the case of total funds available to the commission and the ap pointment of its principal officers.

So, with the two main func tions of the conference prede termined by committees, and matters of political significance reserved for discussion in the South Pacific Forum, there is really not much left for the conference to do.

True, themes are discussed one social and one economic each year, but action on these has a tendency to fizzle out after a year or two of appearing on the agenda. Then, yet more themes are selected for discussion the next year.

Now and then proceedings are enlivened by such topics as opposition to nuclear waste dumping. But in one case where something really useful ema nated from discussions the completed feasibility study on a regional commodity stabilis ation scheme the subject was deemed too complicated for the conference, and was shunted aside for consideration else where.

Until quite recently, the con ference was a two-week affair.

In 1976 it was decided to pull it back to one week. These days, the conference proper is spread over five working days, from

Monday to Friday. As anyone who was at the last two or three gatherings knows, it is becom ing increasingly difficult to fill in the time available for formal sessions. So, a few more parties and sight-seeing trips are organ ised, and a good time is had by all.

Socialising, it’s true, has always been an important as pect of the conference, and will continue to play a part by bringing representatives together in relaxed surround ings to talk over common prob lems.

But in the 1980 s there is a real danger that the conference will degenerate into some kind of old-timers’ club, unless it finds something more useful to do with its time.

Pacific leaders, ministers and officials are busy people. Things are no longer what they were in the 1950 s and 19605. In those days, the people concerned did not have the many regional and international meetings to attend and commitments to meet that they have today. The South Pacific Conference is no longer for most of them the big event of the year. It is rather, and increasingly, a sideshow, with the real decisions being made elsewhere at the South Pacific Forum, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co-Operation (SPEC), the Commonwealth Heads of Gov ernment Regional Meetings (CHOGRM), and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) not to mention other forums sponsored by the various United Nations agencies, the University of the South Pacific and the East- West Center.

What can be done? I wish to make two suggestions: the first is to shorten the conference still further to, say, three working days. Unless something like this is done, the conference is not going to attract the big guns,

who cannot afford more than a few days even for the South Pacific Forum, and the present tendency for delegations to be made up more and more of officials will gather strength.

The second suggestion con cerns the way in which the conference is conducted.

With the hosting of this year’s conference by the Repub lic of Vanuatu, most indepen dent Island nations and several territories will have had a turn at playing host. The list of countries which have not yet taken the opportunity includes Kiribati, Tuvalu and Niue, and one reason for this may be that they simply can’t afford it. The recent tendency has been for each host country to strive to outdo its predecessors. This competitive spirit was born in 1975 when the Republic of

The South Pacific Commission touts itself as the “grassroots” organisation of the region. Should delegates to its South Pacific Conference continue to be accommodated in inter national hotels, attend luxurious air-conditioned conference venues, and be wined, dined and feted at great expense to discuss grassroots issues? The change I propose is not radical just a return to Islands values. ’

Nauru spared no effort to or ganise a conference where ar rangements could only be de scribed as lavish. This became the yardstick for subsequent host countries. The trend culmi nated in the ‘spectacular’ of 1979 in Tahiti, and the huge effort made last year by the government of Papua New Guinea. One can sympathise with any trepidation felt by the government of Vanuatu as it set about this year’s preparations - especially coming within a couple of months of its hosting the forum. Does Vanuatu, at present hard-strapped economi cally, need this added extrava ganza? Does any country?

I firmly believe it is time to return to a simpler format.

The South Pacific Com mission touts itself as the ‘grassroots’ organisation of the region. Should conference del egates continue to be accommo dated in international hotels, attend luxurious air conditioned conference venues, and be wined, dined and feted at great expense, to discuss ‘grassroots’ issues?

The change I propose is not

radical just a return to Islands values.

The ‘unwritten rules’ should be changed. The smaller countries and territories which have not yet hosted a confer ence should be allowed to do it in their way. This would mean ‘innovations’ like the billeting of participants in village homes instead of hotels, the conference venue being an open-sided fale fono, maneaba or domeneab instead of a plush enclosed hall, and the provision of entertain ment and hospitality by vil lagers (including children) in stead of cocktail parties and lunches.

This would give Island vil lagers an opportunity to meet the people who are supposed to be making decisions for their welfare and advancement. Just as importantly, it would give

delegates more than one fleet ing, flying-visit-type, glance at the grassroots issues to which the conference and the com mission purport to address themselves. ♦ * ♦ The South Pacific Com mission (SPC), the oldest re gional organisation in existence and the only one encompassing all countries, territories and so-

called metropolitan powers (a term now out of favour officially, but some term has to be used), has an image problem.

This is not new. It has had an image problem for years, de spite all sorts of attempts to brush it up.

I believe there are three main reasons for the long-standing disaffection with the SPC.

The first, and one over which the SPC strictly speaking has no control, is the location of its headquarters in New Caledonia. The reason for this is rooted almost in antiquity, or at least in 1949, when the then member governments of the commission accepted the offer by the French Government to make available the former headquarters of the US Army in the Pacific at Anse-Vata in Noumea as the permanent headquarters of the SPC.

Over 30 years later, what remains of those governments (the Dutch pulled out in 1962) no longer controls the confer ence or the commission in terms of political numbers (although they continue to provide most of its finance). They arc now outnumbered, even in the behind-the-scenes committees, by Island governments, all of which arc opposed some implacably and stridently to a French colonial presence in the Pacific.

Obviously this issue should not be linked with the SPC or the work it undertakes in the region, but the unfortunate fact is that it is linked, the SPC being tarred with a colonialist brush because of the circum stances of its creation and because of the continued lo cation of its headquarters on French territorial soil.

The simple solution would be to shift the SPC’s headquarters elsewhere. Yet it is doubtful if the organisation would survive such a move intact, or even at all. Such a demise might not be opposed by some governments, but it might not be acceptable to others, particularly, of course, to France and her territories, but also to the smaller countries and territories which still look to the SPC for valuable assistance. If and when independence comes to New Caledonia, this issue may fade away. Until then, a deeper

understanding is required all round.

The second reason for the SPC’s long-standing image problem concerns the attitudes of member governments them selves towards their own re gional organisation. Perceptions vary markedly.

Among the ‘metropolitans’, Australia and New Zealand, the most deeply involved financially and the closest physically to the region, tend to regard the SPC as an effective aid-distributor which at the same time provides a means of keeping them in touch with Island aims and aspirations. To a great extent, this applies to the UK also.

The French and the Americans on the other hand concentrate more on the politics of their territories within the organisation, and, particularly in the case of the former, keep a close eye on their activities.

Among the independent Island countries there is, in general, broad acceptance of

Young Vivian, Secretary- General of the SRC.

the commission’s role by the Polynesians, although there are exceptions to this in detail.

However, among the Melanesians, particularly those who have recently attained in dependence, such as Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, there arise periodic calls for radical changes to the commission or even its abol ition.

The smaller countries and the territories, together with the newly emerging countries of Micronesia, are more inclined to view the SPC as a useful development tool. In fact it is in large measure the support of these countries and territories which allows the SPC to survive from crisis to crisis, since they have a real fear that if it goes under, their voices will no longer be heard, or not heard as strongly, in any new organis ation which might take its place and which would certainly be dominated by Island indepen dents.

An influential Islander said recently that these varying atti tudes boil down to the fact that Islands governments cannot ‘get their act together’. No where is this opinion borne out more clearly than in the closed door, smoke-filled-room, atmo sphere of the SPC’s Committee of Representatives of

Participating Governments.

The main functions of this committee are to determine the SPC s total income and admin istrative budget, and to nomi nate its principal officers. These functions are in constant tur

moil, with budgets that are ‘frozen’ (meaning no increases) year-by-year, and principal officers being changed as fre quently as lava-lavas (in the past four years there have been seven incumbents in the SPC’s three top positions, and indi cations are that there will be more changes in the near fu ture).

A PIM special correspondent in Noumea recently pointed out (July, pp2l-22) that the budget freezing might be an attempt ‘to kill the SPC’. If so, the corre spondent added, ‘they should do it now, quickly and painlessly’. I agree. Nothing will more cer tainly cause slow but sure strangulation than what is hap pening now to an organisation whose administrative services, in particular, are already seriously overloaded. The SPC should either be given the resources to carry out its tasks effectively or it should be closed down flat and not be left to wither away, or be picked off by its rivals. On this point the participating governments must get their act together.

It is not enough for the SPC just to survive; it must flourish.

And if it is to flourish in the 1980 s, Island member govern ments will have to allow it the funds it needs. After all, the metropolitan governments pro vide about 95% of the finance so it is more a matter of principle (ie, whether the SPC is to have funds, not whether they them selves will have to pay it) than of finance which faces Island governments.

As recently as last year, member governments showed their concern for the survival of the SPC. A committee compris ing members appointed jointly by the South Pacific Forum and

the South Pacific Conference presented a report which rec ommended that immediate steps be taken to amalgamate SPEC and the SPC in such a manner as to create a new regional organisation. Certain methods were outlined to achieve this end, but the finer points were to be worked out later by still more committees.

The main thing was to stam pede the forum and the confer ence, and particularly the for mer, into a political decision which would have spelled the end of the SPC and probably of SPEC as well. Some wit once said that an elephant is a mouse built to committee specifications, and the new or ganisation which was proposed to replace the SPC and SPEC would have been a fascinating example of this, with minis terial and other committees meeting all over the place, and directors of various divisions being stationed here and there, all seriously promulgated in the name of ‘rationalising regional resources’ (read: saving money).

Fortunately the region’s poli ticians and their advisers, meet ing as the South Pacific Forum, recognised the implications and wisely decided to do nothing but let the matter drop, expressing the view that as more Island countries become members of the forum, this problem (the existence of two regional organ isations) would take care of itself.

A major reason why member governments still drag their feet over the SPC has to do with what I believe to be the third and possibly the most significant reason for the SPC’s image problem: the SPC secretariat’s apparently unlimi ted capacity for in-fighting and factionalism. Serious divisions exist within the secretariat’s ranks and these are exploited, often skilfully, by individuals and cliques manoeuvring and jockeying to maintain their entrenched little empires. Only strong, clear-thinking, deter mined and consistent leadership will arrest this situation.

If and when the secretariat develops the capacity to live with itself, perhaps its member governments will be more will ing to live with it.

This could be the biggest challenge facing the organis ation the possibility that it may destroy itself, or at least hasten its own demise through its internal bickering, thus saving its detractors the trouble.

Let us hope this does not happen, and wish the confer ence and the commission well as they head into the turbulent 1980 s.

South Pacific Conference in session this one in Fiji in 1970. But some Islands govern ments, particularly among the bigger countries, are question ing the value they get.

Pacific flags fly over the SPC headquarters in Noumea