The Month

Pacific leaders about the recogni tion, and reported that In donesia’s President Suharto had also raised the matter with him.

All this has not been lost on the Vanuatu Government, and, without moving away from their major foreign policy positions, they are now at pains to make clear that pragmatism, more than ideology, is behind their actions.

When Sela Molisa, now minister for foreign affairs and external trade, gave his first policy state ment to parliament on January 27, he commented briefly that “we have all been entertained by the foreign media with specula tions as to what our real inten tions are,’’ and that, as to ideological tendencies, “the government of Vanuatu and the Vanuaaku party do not profess any.’’

Certainly there has been much more of pragmatism to Vanuatu’s foreign policy than is generally recognised. Links have been carefully forged with Com mon Market countries such as West Germany and Belgium, in consideration of the need for trade and the benefits of the Lom6 Convention. Molisa has suggested, too, that Vanuatu’s first permanent overseas repre sentation would be to the Euro pean Economic Community, for the same reasons. Membership in the World Bank, the Internation al Monetary Fund, and the Asian Development Bank (which has just agreed to open its regional centre in Port-Vila), have been negotiated as part of the govern ment’s economic strategy. Mem bership of the Commonwealth and its French equivalent the ACCT has been important for aid and training programs. But prag matism is not the only force

important in forming foreign

policy.

Even Molisa’s speech, while denying any ideological tenden cies, lists the ideals that the government espouses, including “support for the principles of

self-determination, independ

ence and denuclearisation, espe cially in the Pacific region, re cognition of the existence of states, respect for human rights, territorial integrity and sovereignty, support for socio economic advancement in the

Third World, and commitment and support to the Charter of the United Nations,” among others.

These are ideals that have been given more than lip service.

When Prime Minister Lini, then also responsible for the foreign affairs portfolio, spoke to the General Assembly of the UN in September last year, he vigor ously defended his country’s right to speak in defence of these ideals, even when friendly na tions were involved. “We, as a nation, are not cynical enough to have interests which would lead us to close our eyes to the injus tices imposed on our fellow hu man beings,” he declared, while addressing issues as diverse as the shooting down of Korean airliner 007, and the invasion and long occupation of East Timor by Indonesia.

Now, however, with the gov ernment concerned to present a pragmatic face to the Pacific, these policies, though unlikely to be dropped, may be less em phasised. One possible shift has already been signalled. Molisa’s speech referred to four possible new diplomatic ties, with Israel, the republic of Kiribati, the Socialist Republic of Nicaragua, and, most significantly, the Un ited States.

Hitherto Vanuatu has avoided diplomatic recognition of either the United States or the USSR, as part of its non-aligned policy, and perhaps also as a way of avoiding the overwhelming help these nations can give their client states. Now diplomatic ties with the U.S. (and not with the USSR) are mentioned as a possibility.

There are good economic reasons as well as political ones for this. The U.S. has the poten tial to be a profitable market for Vanuatu’s beef. Nevertheless it would be a significant shift, as would be the formation of ties with Israel, as Vanuatu has no tie at all so far with the Middle East.

However, Molisa has only said that these possibilities “will be processed this year.”

It may be many months before it becomes apparent just where the government is prepared to go in search of a new image.

Julie-Ann Ellis.