sheepdog”.

The South Pacific Forum

Bob Hawke: “Well, um, it may be a humdinger by New Zealand standards but by the standards of the Australian Labour Party it was pretty tame.”

The skids were under Hawke and Pal mer before they even arrived in Port Vila. While the Island delegations com muned together at one end of town at the Radisson Royal Palms Resort, the Australians and New Zealanders set themselves up in lonely, five-star splen dour across town at Le Lagon. The tale of two hotels became the leitmotif of the Forum.

That the Australian and New Zealand isolation was a major handicap soon be came apparent. New Zealand Associate Foreign Minister Fran Wilde spent vir tually the entire Forum at Le Lagon. Her last minute inclusion in the delegation became a waste of time after Fiji made it clear she would not be an acceptable candidate for resuming ministerial con tacts.

Even before interim Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kmaisese Mara arrived, Fiji offi cials were making it known that he saw no point in meeting with either Hawke

or Palmer, given their publicly expressed

condemnation of Fiji’s new constitution.

Ratu Mara first deliberately “missed” his plane to avoid Hawke and Palmer at the leader’s retreat. Then he danced away from golfing sessions, lunches and breakfasts, with Hawke and Palmer be

coming increasingly desperate to tie

down meetings. Ratu Mara was reported ly not unhappy to see this palaver head lined overseas a snub to Palmer and Hawke.

Eventually, they met and Ratu Mara completed the rout. Hawke said that, de spite its flaws, the Fiji constitution was the best that could be achieved at the moment and concluded by saying that some Commonwealth countries had “sig nificantly less democratic constitutions than the new constitution of Fiji”. Palmer was less easily won over but did concede it was better to have Fiji with a constitu tional government than to have no con stitution. Both leaders called on the Coalition to contest elections.

Ratu Mara was obviously pleased. He even went so far as to joke with some reporters and when asked who had writ ten Hawke’s statement, Ratu Mara crack ed a huge smile. Meanwhile, the discom forting of Hawke and Palmer was being

vicariously enjoyed by other Island de

legations, upset at the two leaders’ stance on Johnston Atoll. One official gleefully described Bob Hawke’s desperate attempts to talk to Ratu Mara at after noon tea on the final day as “following the old man around like a small, blond

sheepdog”.

If Fiji was a matter of picking their way through a peripheral minefield, Hawke and Palmer found themselves

under heavy bombardment over Amer ican plans to burn chemical weapons at Johnston Atoll. The division between Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Forum became obvious at the offi

cial’s meeting.

Hawke’s public support for incinera tion of three categories of chemical weapons at Johnston weapons already there, those from West Germany and any found in the Pacific came under bitter fire as “arrogant” and trying to kneecap a full debate and consensus.

Hostility hardened with the leak of an Australian foreign affairs cable spelling out tactics, agreed upon with the Amer icans, to “manage” the debate. This in cluded not releasing Australian scientific reports on the chemical weapons destruc tion plant, called the Johnston Atoll Che mical Agent Disposal System (J AC ADS), before the Forum to avoid “provoking a fruitless technical debate without the be nefit of setting that debate in a political context”.

Several Island leaders criticised Austra

lia for keeping back the reports until the last moment. “Many islands didn’t have

enough information,” complained one

official. “They had to make instant judg ments and that’s not good enough.” In the event, the technical debate was insig nificant compared with the “political con text”.

The debate lasted most of the day and was described by Forum spokesman Rab bie Namaliu as “very emotional, lively and occasionally acrimonious”. Observers reported Hawke had a “virtual stand-up fight” with Nauru’s President, Bernard Dowiyogo. One official described Hawke as “becoming very reactionary”, while another said he was “very arrogant, ignorant and rude”.

“Many leaders were not happy with the three categories and the manner in

which they were being pressured,” said

Papua New Guinea’s United Nations Ambassador Renagi Lohia. “Australia’s previous commitment to the United States position on JAG ADS made it very difficult for Australia to contribute to the concensus process at the Forum.”

“We thought we were close to a deci sion when Nauru took the floor and said all the chemical weapons should be des troyed elsewhere because of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty,” said Lohia. “New Zealand and PNG were trying to get the Australian officials to

bring Hawke to give up something.”

Namaliu later confirmed Hawke was alone in blocking a consensus resolution opposing the shipment of chemical weapons from West Germany to John ston Atoll something Hawke himself emphatically denied at the post-Forum press conference. In a highly testy per formance, Hawke claimed all his “three

categories” had been accepted by the

Forum.

“They expressed concern about the whole of it, particularly the shipments of chemical weapons stockpiles from the Federal Republic of Germany,” Hawke said. “The Forum understands that there is nothing that can be done by the Forum about that issue.”

But consensus is a wonderful thing.

Barely 48 hours later the Forum’s dia

logue spokesman, Vanuatu Justice Minis

ter Donald Kalpokas, said the United States had been told the Forum position was: “We don’t want the West German weapons coming into the Pacific or John ston Atoll. That is speaking on behalf of the Forum and that includes Australia.”

Meanwhile, Geoffrey Palmer had emerged from the fracas relatively un scathed. He abandoned his rather mouselike pre-Forum stance and fairly roared with the most trenchant public

interpretation of the communique by any

Forum leader. Palmer said the Forum agreed to the weapons on Johnston being destroyed there because of the

Nauru’s Dowiyogo: “a virtual stand-up fight” with Hawke.

danger of moving them, but that “no other weapons” should be brought there fer destruction.

Palmer later confirmed he interpreted the communique to mean the Forum didn’t want the West German shipment to go ahead. However, he remained “pessimistic” about reversing the American plans. “Every element of the New Zealand position is reflected in the communique,” Palmer added. “I am entirely satisfied the New Zealand policy on (JACADS) is extremely sound.”

Although New Caledonia barely raised a media ripple, neither New Zealand nor Australia can afford to be self-satisfied about their policies in that area. The issue of observer status for the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) took longest to resolve and may presage much deeper dissent within the Forum in future.

Although the communique was described by one official as “a much better deal at the Forum than ever before, ineluding investigation of the FLNKS as a dialogue partner”, its strength was due a great deal to Hawke and Palmer being knobbled by their own officials. The Melanesian Spearhead countries were threatening to withhold support for what they criticised as a “very weak” consensus resolution on New Caledonia at the UN, which had been worked out with France, PNG s Ambassador Renagi Lohia says the strength of the communique was a trade off for agreeing to let the UN

“wheels roll”. Lohia claims the UN resolution was drawn up in his absence and was another attempt by Australia and New Zealand to “pre-empt” the Forum, Although Lohia commended a “noticeable change in attitude” from Australia and New Zealand, Hawke and Palmer both opposed observer status for the FLNKS. Hawke also turned down Walter Lini’s invitation to sit on the Ministerial Committee to oversee the Matignon Accords, on the grounds that France

doesn’t appreciate foreign nosey parkers.

Both are likely to find themselves on the outer at the next Forum where the hosts, the Federated States of Micronesia, are reportedly determined that the FLNKS shall get some kind of observer status. Namaliu has also indicated the Forum’s honeymoon with the Matignon Accords is over. He said the greatest concern, with the chance of a change of Government in Paris in 1991, is “whether at the end of the Accords, the act of self-determination will inevitably lead to independence,” and that the 1998 referendum should be brought forward.

Beneath the divisions over New Galedonia, Johnston Atoll and Fiji’s constitution, lies a much more powerful divergence of interests between the Forum Island nations and Australia and New Zealand. They are becoming the targets of

increasing impatience for consistently

blocking the Island nations from explor-

ing issues of indigenous and regional

sovereignty. New Zealand and Australia,

with their developed country status, are also becoming barriers to multilateral de velopment aid through the Forum. The question is being asked; do New Zealand and Australia really belong in the Forum?

Walter Lini believes New Zealand and Australia do belong, but are isolated within the region because of their “Euro pean perspective” on life. He says they approach controversial issues like dump ing from the perspective of possible reac tions from outsiders, like France, Amer ica or any European nation, At the leaders’ retreat, Hawke was re

portedly spouting the French line against

FLNKS observer status. Lohia says the Spearhead case for observer status is based on the same principles which has seen SWAPO, the PLO and Polisario rec ognised by international bodies such as the UN, the Organisation for African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement, “Somehow Australia and New Zealand take a different approach and try to put the FLNKS with the RPCR,” says Lohia.

“The RPCR is a political party within the French republic. The FLNKS is not; it is a liberation movement.”

Similarly, Fiji Trade Minister Bere nado Vunibobo sees New Zealand and Australia as being unable to grasp the core concept of indigenous sovereignty, He says their belief in the Westminster “one person, one vote” system has led them astray in dealing with Fiji and could mislead them again when dealing

with New Caledonia.

“We didn’t want Fiji discussed at the Forum,” Vunibobo said. “But in the long term, we would like to see a greater ex change of views on the various indige nous communities. And some are more threatened than others,”

Namaliu also concedes that while the Forum’s preoccupation still lies with the region’s non-self governing territories,

indigenous rights may come up during

the review of dialogue and observer criteria. It is a trend already apparent at the UN where the focus has left decol onisation in favour of rights of indige nous communities within independent nations. “But it has implications for many of us,” Namaliu warns. “For us, for Indonesia, Australia and New Zea land.”

A major point of contention is what Namaliu calls the “conflict of interest” between the status of Australia and New Zealand as developed nations, and their membership of the Forum. “They are a barrier to development aid,” he says.

“For example, in tourism. If we adhere to the Lome Convention then New Zea land and Australia cannot be members of the regional tourism council. But then we cannot bring it under the Forum umbrella.” Namaliu says the Forum may have to set up an umbrella Ministerial Council through which all aid should be channelled.

Lohia says Australia and New Zealand, by giving aid to the region, play a role as developed nations. “There’s a question of what the dialogue partner review should do about this because if we seriously look ahead analysis would lead me to believe their role is similar in general to that played by other dialogue partners.”

Kiribati President leremia Tabai pro fesses he has no problems with the two countries as full Forum members but does have difficulty describing their roles. “They maybe partners, but we re gard them as special partners.” Tabai agrees with Lini that the two countries do seem to believe themselves to be part of the Pacific, judging by their rhetoric.

Lohia points out they have also be nefitted considerably from being associ ated at the UN with the Forum initia tives on New Caledonia and driftnetting.

“It has made it possible for donor in stitutions and other countries to look at the Pacific in a more serious way.” But here again Australia and New Zealand try to have their cake and eat it too.

They’re identified as Pacific nations on those issues but normally are grouped with the Western nations while the Is land countries at the UN are grouped with the Asians.”

Australia’s double dealing on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone is a par ticular sore point. “They go about brag

ging about the treaty and then they sell uranium to the French,” complains one official. “Do they think we’re stupid and can’t work out whafs going on?”

Several Island leaders made the point at the Forum that Australia and New Zealand need to make more of a com mitment to the region. New Zealand’s task force report, Towards a Pacific Is land Community, which was tabled at the Forum was generally applauded as a step in the right direction. But it suf fered from being a last grasp by a Labour Government on the way out of office; one official labelled it “good PR”.

However, Australia’s position is much more entrenched with trade and defence

ties with Europe and north America.

Lini and Namaliu both foresee the Au stralia versus the rest schism could be come “more prominent” if Forum na tions don’t recognise their differences and work towards common goals. “It is equally important for them to acknow

ledge we’re maturing and growing,”

Namaliu says. “We’re going to become more confident and not have any wor ries about expressing ourselves. Times are changing.” The question for New Zealand and Australia is whether they have the capacity to match those changes, or whether the Tale of Two Hotels will become more than just a con venient symbol for one Forum. □