Pacific Commission?
p. 11 · Read in the full issue
What now for the new-look South Pacific Commission?
The South Pacific Commission has finally come of age 36 years after it was created by metropolitan rulers of Pacific Is lands, and 18 years after Western Samoa, which achieved inde pendence in 1962, became the first Pacific Island country to join as a full member.
This political maturing of the once white-only club was sig nalled by the 23rd South Pacific Conference on Saipan in October when the commission opened its doors to all Pacific island gov ernments regardless of their political status (PIM Nov. pll).
The net result of the Saipan decision is that SPC now has 27 members five metropolitan countries, nine independent Pacific island countries, and 13 dependent island governments, 11 of whom became full mem bers during the Saipan confer ence. The 11 new members are American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia, Guam, Republic of the Marshalls, New Caledonia, the Northern Marianas, Republic of Palau, Pitcairn Islands, To kelau, and Wallis and Futuna.
Political implications of this historic decision are immense. It is certain to have a deep influ ence on the future of the region, and especially perhaps on the course of events in some of the dependent Island territories. It must also have a strong impact on the role of the region in international affairs. Exactly how things will work out after Saipan remains an open ques tion. But even now some broad outlines can be ascertained.
First, with the outnumbered metropolitan countries taking a backseat role, the SPC should begin more effectively to reflect Island views, rather than those of the metropolitan countries, in its programs and activities.
Second, despite moves to merge the SPC and the South Pacific Forum into a Single Reg ional Organisation (SRO), such an organisation may not come into being in the near future, or for at least another five years, in part because of Micronesian
Saipan-based Journalist FRANCISCO T. ULUDONG writes here exclusively for RIM on the perspectives opened up by the historic decision of the 23rd South Pacific Conference to grant full membership to dependent Island territories, including the five Micronesian entities.
fears of Melanesian domination of the SRO.
Third, when defence and sec urity matters come before the SPC, division rather than unity may result among Island mem bers. Metropolitan countries with strong strategic interests in the region, such as the United States and France, are likely to prevail on their Island “proxies” to take postitions more or less in line with their views.
Fourth, on emotional issues which unite the Islanders such as fisheries and nuclear-waste dumping the SPC will provide the forum for Pacific Island gov ernments to present their position more vigorously to the met ropolitan countries.
Fifth, domination of the SPC by Melanesian and Polynesian members, and by Australia and New Zealand interests, is likely to wane, with the inclusion of the five Micronesian governments (Palau, Guam, FSM, the North ern Marianas and the Marshalls).
Finally, although metropolitan countries insist on the SPC being a non-political organisation, Pacific Islanders whose political status remains unresolved may find the SPC an appropriate vehi cle to press their metropolitan rulers for greater self government, if not total independence.
The move to include non independent Island governments as full members of the SPC was not without opposition. Papua New Guinea, which wanted the status quo to remain, preferred to move decisively “towards the establishment of a single com prehensive and cost-effective re gional organisation”.
Paulias N. Matane, PNG’s foreign affairs secretary, made a spirited argument for his coun try’s proposal.
Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, PNG’s strong Melanesian allies in the SPC, argued in support of an SRO, but, like PNG, in the end gave in to the “Pacific Way”, the consensus-decision making process of SPC, by join ing the rest of the SPC in a unanimous vote to drop the SRO question and agree to the expan sion of the SPC to include depen dent territories.
The PNG move was doomed from the start of the eight-day conference, held at Saipan’s Capitol Hill, once a nerve centre of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s counter-intelligence training program for Asia in the 19505.
SPC Secretary-General Fran cis Bugotu had said in his open ing address: “(My) experience over the past year has confirmed in my mind the need for realism and honest thinking. The com mission’s structure and future operations must reflect the winds of change in the region and the world at large.
“It is to this end that I took on myself the task of carrying out an internal review of the South Pacific Commission. Although it was a personal initiative it has gained the blessing of many peo ple in the region as a move in the right direction towards removing duplication of effort and minimising costs, and which was subsequently endorsed by the Pago Pago Conference last year.
It is now in document form and will be discussed, and I pray approved, by this Saipan conference.”
The expanded membership proposal was included in Bugotu’s recommendations, but was not taken up until the second day. By that time Australia had circulated a resolution formalis ing the proposal, despite the fact
that in August Australia had ap proved the appointment of a ministerial committee of the South Pacific Forum to study the SRO matter, and make a recom mendation to the next meeting of the Forum.
When debate began on Bugotu’s recommendation, PNG found itself in the embarrassing and ironic position of opposing an idea supported not only by all non-Melanesian Island members but the metropolitan countries as well. Even Solomon Islands and Vanuatu began to soft-pedal their support for an SRO.
Overnight, Matane had appa rently reconsidered the PNG pos ition after private consultations with other Island members, and next day offered no floor objec tions to Bugotu’s recommenda tion. This led to the adoption of the Australian resolution.
The expanded membership question posed another problem for metropolitan countries who are parties to the 1947 Canberra Agreement which gave birth to SPC. The Canberra Agreement is a treaty among its original sig natories, and any substantive change in it technically must obtain the consent of the parlia ments of the countries concerned.
The Bugotu study recognized this problem, which was discuss ed at length by the conference.
At one point, the U.S. delegation received word from Washington that “some young lawyer in the State Department” was raising the issue, but, in the end, it was agreed that as long as none of the metropolitan countries rased serious objections the Saipan de cision will stand despite the Can berra agreement.
With the Saipan meeting, the metropolitan countries may have taken seats further back. But, in the final analysis, they still con trol the organisation through the purse strings.
The five metropolitan coun tries still contribute the bulk of the SPC’s budget, in 1984, for example, their contribution amounts to 92.2 per cent.
Francisco T. Uludong.