diplomacy

Letters

Pacific

Sir, I REFER to the article entitled “Diplo macy Pacific style” in the April issue of PIM. I must say that I find it quite extraordinary to find the diplomacy of Pacific Island countries criticised by someone who is so manifestly ill informed, so patronising towards re gional governments, and so intent on capitalising on the indiscretions of par ticular individuals without even bothering to check his “facts”. Is this Diplomacy PIM style?

As with similar appointments in the diplomatic services of most other countries, Papua New Guinea’s heads of mission are appointed by the principal executive authority in the country, the national executive council. Whether or not they are permanent officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, they are accountable to the government-of-the-day, at whose pleasure they serve. In both respects, their situation is like that of many other senior public office holders, including departmental heads (such as myself).

When their terms are complete or their appointments are revoked, permanent civil servants, including heads of mission who have been recently recalled, return to senior positions in the department or other government agencies. Others, in cluding some whose professional obituar ies your reporter so prematurely wrote, are frequently offered important posts elsewhere, including in the private sec tor.

Heads of mission who are called before their terms expire receive three months pay in lieu of notice plus other payments to which the law entitles them.

Some heads of mission have their terms extended (as happened once in the case of the former ambassador to the United States, and twice in the case of the former permanent representative at the United Nations). In any event, most heads of mission understand the position, and return, without public comment, to headquarters, when they are recalled.

All of them are, in fact, briefed in detail, at workshops held over a period of two weeks before they take up their official duties, on the terms and con ditions of their appointments. The com ments attributed to the former ambassa dor in Washington must, therefore, be regarded as indiscreet expressions of unfortunate ignorance or indifference towards longstanding practices and pro cedures.

As for your reporter’s assessment of regional diplomacy in general, and of Papua New Guinea diplomacy in par ticular, the best that can be said is that it is offensive, self-contradictory and based on the uncritical acceptance of others’ self-serving views. Thus, he pro vokes no firm evidence to support the sweeping claim that diplomacy “has never been a strong card for Pacific states”.

In fact, he subsequently cites two major diplomatic achievements: the re inscription of New Caledonia on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories and the passage of a resolution to appoint a United Nations panel on Papua New Guinea’s initiative of “Op

portunity and Participation”.

But, in doing so, he attributes both successes to particular individuals, who appear to have been his informants.

In relying on such self-interested and self-promoting sources, your reporter

fails completely to acknowledge (if,

indeed, he even bothered to try to find out) that both success were initiated at ministerial level, actively promoted by the South Pacific Forum, co-ordinated through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and backed by our diplomatic network around the world.

The Permanent Mission to the United Nations was, in both cases, a vital part, but still only a part, of much wider efforts.

As one who has spent quite a deal of my professional life working with my counterparts from other countries in the region, I am sure that they do not need my help in responding as they find

appropriate to your reporter’s disparag

ing comments about them. I am just as

sure that they will not allow him to draw them into controversy over issues which he has manufactured by trying to misuse the normal courtesies of diplomatic life.

But I am also sure that, like many political leaders, colleagues and other PIM readers in Papua New Guinea, they must wonder why a journal which aspires to provide an authoritative record of developments in the region should pub lish such an inaccurate, condescending and misleading version of important events.

The article displays neither diplomacy nor style. It does and says nothing of value for the Pacific.

The region is entitled to expect more reliable, insightful and genuinely thought-provoking writing about re gional affairs, particularly at a time when outside interest in and inter-action among Pacific Island countries over vital issues are growing apace.

Gabriel Dusarya

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Papua New Guinea

Peacesat

Network Sir, We were delighted to see David Barber’s article “The PEACESAT Network” in the April 1994 edition of PIM. As David Barber has stated, PEACESAT is indeed a little-known facility.

If any of your readers would like further information, they are welcome to contact the University of Hawaii PEACESAT Headquarters.

Address Christina Higa, PEACESAT Systems and Operations Manager, Social Science Institute, Old Engineering Quad, Building 31, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822,

Usa.

They are also welcome to contact us at Wellington Polytechnic.

Address Kay Seyb, PEACESAT Co-ordinator, Wellington Polytechnic, Private Box 756, Wellington, New Zealand.

Kay Seyb

PEACESAT Co-ordinator