South Pacific

Letters

South Pacific Conference

Sir, MARTIN Tiffany’s report on the South Pacific Conference if(PIM December 1993) raised the key question “are South Pacific countries and territories ef

ficiently served by the existing regional

institutional arrangements?” That ques tion does not appear to be on the agenda of the Forum Secretariat, the Conference or any of the member countries of these or other organisations that are members of the, apparently ineffective, South

Pacific Organisations Coordinating

Committee (SPOCC).

Tiffany reports that the SPC secretary general’s report to the Conference warned of the contracting financial support base for our existing regional institutions. This is a real situation and one that is likely to get a lot worse before it gets better. The region is finding it increasingly difficult to compete for aid from traditional donors whose attention is focused on Africa and Eastern Europe, let alone attract new donors.

In any case, how long can donors be expected to support the activities of these institutions? SPC boasts at being the

region’s longest serving institution. Yet it

still can only identify 30 per cent of the

budget it requires to implement its

planned 1994 work programme. It is irresponsible that member countries and territories can see fit to approve a work programme for an organisation when 70 per cent of the funding to support it, is unidentified.

Surely, it will not be long before pressure is applied for programmes in our regional institutions to demonstrate they either have the potential to become sustainable using non-donor sources of 'support, or close down. If programmes are to continue, the only alternative funding sources lie with the member countries themselves. We all know how difficult it is for countries in the region to secure funding to support essential public

services domestically, let alone signifi cantly increase their support to a pleth ora of regional institutions.

Some regional organisations do in fact generate economic and social benefits for the region in a cost-efficient way. I think it is time that they were clearly identified.

Following that relatively simple exercise,

it is time for a system of rationalisation to be introduced to the regional organ isations. As Tiffany implies, this will involve a rational and planned transfer of activities from the Conference and the SPC to the Forum and other regional

organisations.

I’m sure that providing a medium to

long-term approach is adopted, the

interests of the territories can be ad

equately catered for. Any organisation

that needs to go on bended knees looking for new members because of its funding difficulties, is a dying organisation. As the diversification of political long term interests expands, new membership is reluctant to act, maybe it is time for some

professional investigative journalism? In

the interest of those of us who have little say in these issues, I encourage PIM make it the subject of a feature article?

Peter Apakama,

Port Moresby

Environmental values

Sir, AS a tourist, spending a year or more visiting Pacific islands, I have had the

opportunity to experience the lifestyles of

many peoples and to appreciate their urgent need for constructive investment.

And when Hawaii-based Trusts “own” vast numbers of atolls and seek to stop such investment by trotting out PC gibberish about “defending the tra ditional rights and mores” of these

people by maintaining a “very fragile

uninhabited ecosystem and refuge for wildlife,” I see red.

“The American Miller,” as Kermit

Rydell labels him (is Hawaii not “Am erican”?) of Islander Investments, Ltd. (not “Inc.” as he states) is hardly likely to damage the “lands, lagoon and seabed” of an atoll which he seeks to turn into a permanent top-rank resort in collaboration with the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a sovereign nation sorely in need of imaginative investment.

Presumably Mr Rydell and his “Trust” will not be happy until they “own” the whole of the North Pacific, and can throw out their destructive inhabitants and turn every atoll into a refuge for wildlife. After all, we have all read reports of the “native rights and natural environment” of overpopulated Ebeye Island and Majuro.

Arthur King

London, UK.

Games

report

Sir, I REFER to the report by Shailendra Singh (Vanuatu takes on pressure) in PIM January and find it necessary to clarify some matters in relation to comments raised on supposed problems within the Mini Games Village.

The report made mention of poor conditions within the village and states that “some teams moved out of the Games Village into hotels”. Firstly, let me assure your readers, that the unani mous verdict of all team managers was that conditions within the village were very good. Some minor teething prob lems occured in the early stages of the teams arriving; however immediate ac tion was always taken to ensure that the comfort of the competitors was main tained.

Two women’s teams which were scheduled to stay in the village remained

at alternate private venues (not hotels).

This involved approximately 25 women, and the decision not to be accommo dated in the village was based on the team’s financial reasons, and not as has been insinuated, because of conditions within the village.

The report which appeared in The Fiji Times was unfortunate, and has been strongly condemned by the management of the Fiji team. Rumours of extensive outbreaks of diarrhoea were false, with a number of cases reported being described by the medical teams at the village as “no greater than could normally be ex pected”. Additionally, care should al ways be taken with drinking water whenever and where ever one travels around the region or world.

The report on food problems was also incorrect. There is no denying that a container with food especially for the

Games was late in arriving. However interim arrangements were put in place to have food purchased from local markets. The standard of food through out the Games received the highest praise from athletes and all team officials.

The comments regarding the non attendance of chefs is also quite false.

Four chefs from Australia arrived in Port Vila as planned on November 28, 1993, that is eight days before the official start of the Games, and finished their duty on December 18. In addition, one local chef and several kitchen hands worked with the chefs for the duration.

Rules governing the movement of media within the village were set after considerable discussion with the general managers of all teams. This was the procedure that was adopted for all matters within the village complex, with the team managers becoming the regu lators, whilst the village management assumed the role of enforcer. This ensured that the well being and privacy of athletes were always first and foremost.

The media will always have a very important role to play in promoting and

reporting major regional sporting activi

ties such as the Mini Games and South Pacific Games. It is important for all parties, that such reporting remains impartial and factual for the good of sport. Unfortunately, in the case of reports relating to the village complex, these qualities were lacking in some instances.

It should be noted that despite being available at all times during the games, only one journalist made the effort to seek clarification on the issues raised herein.

To the officials and athletes of the South Pacific, we thank you for your attendance, support and words of en couragement during your stay in Vanu atu.

Is Rector

Village Manager

Fourth South Pacific Mini Games

Png’S

Security Act

Sir I READ with interest the editorial comment in PIM October 1993) edition of your magazine headlined Security or Humanity? in which you put forward your view of the Internal Security Act passed by the Papua New Guinea parliament last year.

You set out in the article your opinion of the Act and forecast some reper cussions of it in what I am inclined to believe is an attempt on your part not only to again portray a bad imagine of this beautiful country but also to smear this, as well as other initiatives taken by

the PNG government, to address the social and economic problems that have been prevalent in our society for quite some time.

I am writing this not as an advocate of the current government but as a supporter of any initiative that is bold, controversial, and draws adverse pub licity, yet practical and suited to the changes in society.

In this respect, and with regard to the Act, you quite wrongly stated in your first paragraph that “the Act, unveiled by this government, is aimed at prevent ing terrorism”.

In fact, the mechanism of the Act was actually put together and discussed by the Namaliu government some years back but shelved because of largely to heated debated and division in cabinet during discussions on whether to intro duce it in parliament for debate or not.

Furthermore, the Act, at the outset, is worded to seem it is aimed at preventing terrorism but it is actually intended to contain possible armed uprisings against the state or between provinces and tribes, and widespread civil and industrial unrests instituted outside of provisions of the labour law, all of which have contributed to the general breakdown of order in society in the urban areas, and have cost the government huge public money in its efforts to contain them.

In your fifth paragraph, you “under standably” confused the Act with a proposed changed to the provisions of the criminal code which deals with the onus

of proof.

The proposal to shift the burden of proof was not contained in the Act but was a separate proposal on its own designed to enhance the prosecution of offenders of serious crimes such as rape, armed robbery, etc in a Melanesian society where the community is known

for staunchly protecting the identity of

and defending “wantok” offenders no matter what crime they commit. It may seem that contrary to the practise adopted from the English criminal laws, any accused may now be presumed guilty until proven innocent but if that is the way justice is done, or is seen to be done more effectively, then so be it.

In all, you offered a poorly researched criticism in the strongest possible way, but you failed terribly to propose to us any constructive remedies that we readers in PNG could not only appreci ate but also view your magazine as balanced and purposeful in its reporting.

Daniel Korimbao

University of Papua New Guinea Waigani.

National Capital District.

Population

programmes

JEMIMA Garrett “Population de

bacle,” article (PIM December 1993) is a victim of the propaganda of the population control bureaucracies.

In an article laden with errors, Ms Garrett prefers to misrepresent me and engage me in sectarianism than examine my arguments against the anti-child Population control programmes to our acific neighbours who have a great love for children. If Ms Garrett thinks she is champing the plight of Third World women, she should listen to what many of them are saying about these pro grammes.

Where is her evidence for “a major change in the thinking behind these programmes”? The 70 women activists who attended the international sym

fiosium “People’s Perspective on Popu

ation” in Bangladesh in December, didn’t seem to think there had been any

change they condemned population

control programmes in a resolution which will be delivered to the Interna tional Conference on population and development in Cairo in September.

The symposium heard the grassroots experiences of many developing world women on the devastating effects of these programmes about women bleeding uncontrollably from IUDs or Norplant which doctors refuse to remove; of women offered food and money if they submitted to sterilisation; of women who had to agreed to contraception to be admitted to development programmes and of poor women being used in

experiments of long acting abortifacient

injections such as the anti-HCG vaccine, without informed consent.

Australia’s 1993/94 budget for over seas aid is miserly apart from one year, it is the lowest Official Development Aid/ GNP ratio for 20 years. From this, S3om is earmarked for population control programmes and Sl3om over four years a five-fold increase. Main countries targeted are Vietnam S2sm; China s7m; Indonesia S2om; Philippines S2om; PNG SIS; South Pacific Population and Fam

ily Planning Project Sl5M.2m. More

than Slom goes to international popu lation control bureaucracies, primarily United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) —57.25 m increase of 97.5 per cent) and International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) Sl.6m (an increase of 77.8 per cent).

Ms Garrett says that in the South Pacific “forced contraception has not been a problem”. But we can see in the renewed push for contraceptive inun dation of this region the seeds of target driven and more forceful practices. Just ask Indonesian women how it all started there.

The fact that a number ofprogrammes are to be run by the UNFPA is cause enough for concern it applauds China for its great achievements in reducing

population, totally ignoring the brutality

of a one-child policy which uses forced abortion and sterilisation, and severe punishments, to achieve its goals. Besides its involvement with coercive pro grammes, UNFPA’s role is one of

strengthening”, funding

complaint government agencies and aca demic institutions. This creates a long gravy train going its merry way and doing all it can to avoid the scrutiny of members of parliament.

Family Planning Australia (FPA), a

member of IPPF which promotes abortion in under-developed countries, has also been given money to carry out its plans for the South Pacific, with Australian Interna tional Development Assistance Bureau (AIDAB) funding, FPA conducted the first family planning feasibility tour of the South Pacific in 1984 when it met opposition from the then prime minister of the Solomon Islands who described the introduction of contraception by foreign donors as “con trolled genocide” and against the traditions of the Solomon Islands.

Australia’s then Foreign Minister Bill

Hayden was pushing heavily for population

control and in expressing his views on a join submission from the Department of Foreign Affairs and AIDAB on the future of Kiribati and Tuvalu wrote “(I) don’t care for budget aid or even project aid if no disciplines implemented faithfully and per sistently followed by “K” and “T”.

Question is how do we get those sorts of guidelines in place without being intrusive/ offensive ie. avoid impression of playing role of a localised “mini-imperialist” power?”

This persistent neo colonialist attitude can be seen in a 1990 pre-feasibility study commissioned by AIDAB “It is time, then, that leading citizens and foreigners seek to influence attitudes to and trends in

PNG population growth.”

The report is critical of the PNG government’s approach which “shows a strong preference for an indirect influence on fertility, thus limiting the scope for donors who have an interest in family planning and contraception as part of development policy and action.”

Even more disturbing is a recommenda tion for what really amounts to aid blackmail “Overall efficiency of donor assistance would dictate against the allo cation of resources to ameliorating living conditions in ‘stressed’ and ‘peri-urban’ regions until capacity to improve and sustain improvements is released (sic) by declining fertility.”

This is a classic example of aid with strings attached don’t give PNG money unless it is willing to insist upon its people accepting a population control policy under whatever guise, to reduce the fertility rate. At the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Estimates Committee, March 31, 1992, Australian Senator Chris Schacht asked “By switching money from budget aid to programme aid in PNG, that would be a real chance that we could make a major contribution to the funding of that

(World Bank population) programme?”

Mr Engel of AIDAB agreed, “It is quite a possibility.”

Considerale pressure continues to be brought to bear on the PNG government

to ensure that the emerging population policy in PNG moves in a direction pre determined by foreign creditors and do nors. Official documentation shows UNFPA has set targets in PNG for

“acceptance” of oral contraceptives,

condoms, and Depo-Provera from an estimated six per cent in 1989 to 35 per cent

by 1995. The injectible drug Depo-Provera

accounts for 63.3 per cent of the total funds to be spent on contraceptive purchases by UNFPA for the PNG project Pneumonia and malaria are big killers in PNG. At a medical conference in the PNG Highlands in 1992, I was told of people dying from pneumonia for want of effective antibiotic treatment. They haven’t got basic medicines but there’s no shortage of the Pill and Dep Provera. Why does Australia fund this controversial drug in PNG when it is not officially approved for use as a contraceptive here?

The PNG government will have to find USs9m for its share and later has to repay nearly USsl4m borrowed from the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. Ms Garret implies that my opposition to population control programmes will con tribute to maternal mortality. The question must be asked, what is the real reason for these deaths?

A study titled ‘Too Far to Walk Maternal Mortality in Context’, cites hospital-based studies which find that the large majority of deaths are preventable.

According to the Women’s Information Network, maternal mortality figures in Africa “exactly correlate” with female genital mutilation. Unvaccinated and anaemic women are also more likely to die in childbirth. The fertility of poor women is not to blame for these appalling conditions. Surely alleviating these con ditions would be a better use of our aid money.

Ms Garrett says the population inquiry would “re-invent the wheel”. But empirical evidence documenting the supposed nega tive net impact of population growth on economic development is either fragile or non-existent. There is no scientific consen sus. There is a solid body of evidence opposing conventional wisdom about the

effects of population growth.

Should Australia’s precious aid money be diverted from development cooperation and poverty-alleviation programmes to Copulation control programmes on the asis of an untested assumption? Inaccur ate to the last, Ms Garrett’s final words are that the person appointed to conduct the review required my endorsement. Far from

receiving my approval, Minister Bilney has

appointed Professor Dennis Ahlburg, of the University of Minnesota, a long-time consultant with the World Bank who has expressed views in support of population programmes of the type proposed by

Aidab.

Senator Brian Harradine

Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 Australia Senator Harradine is vice-president of the Australian Parliamentary Am nesty Group, and a member of the Australian parliament’s joint com mittee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade and its Human Rights Sub Committee.