Commision gets new name

The South Pacific Commission (SPC) has a new name. Yes, from February 6, 1998, it will be known as the Pacific Community, following the endorsement of the name by the South Pacific conference in Canberra, Australia, in October. The new name is supposed to reflect membership of the Pacific’s northern countries and convey the organisation’s role in partner ship with Pacific Island governments and administrations. The conference overwhelmingly decided on the new name despite hav ing “Pacific Island Commission” as its early favourite. The Canberra venue was decided upon in keeping with celebrations to mark the organisation’s 50th anniversary celebrations this year; Canberra being the birthplace of the SPC - the site where the orig inal agreement establishing the Commission was signed.

And, in the words of Fiji President and one of the South Pacific Conference’s great contributors, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara: “It is fitting that we should return for the 50th birthday to Australia, the biggest Pacific Island of us all.”

The Canberra Declaration on Social and Economic Development notes the challenges facing the region and the SPC over the next 50 years in the areas of population growth and urban isation; the increasing need to use resources sustainably, particu larly in areas of fisheries and forests; meeting basic needs of Pacific people, including feeding populations; improving the health of people and meeting new challenges posed in areas such as HIV/AIDS; education, training and creation of job opportuni ties for young people; improving the way in which Pacific economies are managed; improving economic cooperation and trade in response to challenge and changes while accounting for the special circumstances of small island countries; and preserving fragile and unique environments and traditions of Pacific cultures.

Those present in Canberra reaffirmed their commitment to the SPC saying both the organisation and the region had changed dra matically since 1947 and this was reflected in its membership, its work, its programme and its positive responses to concerns. The declaration states that the SPC is no longer what it calls a “colo nial body” but has instead evolved as an organisation that has become an important instrument for cooperation and development.

In this light, the decision by the Britain to rejoin the Commission in 1998 - nearly two years after its withdrawal, also reflects renewed donor confidence and the work of its executive team in strengthening the management of the SPC and giving it new vision. British representative, Andrew Pocock told the conference that although his country welcomed what he termed “political developments” and the strength they gave the SPC as a body, by the early 1900 s, Britain became increasingly concerned by the way in which the organisation was being managed. “We perceived a lack of direction, vision and clear objectives and in our view an alarming proportion of members’ contributions being spent on

management. By 1994, we could see little prospect of change in the SPC and we felt that we could no longer justify to parliament our continued membership,” he said.

“There was a great deal of regret expressed to us over our with drawal ... (but) we noted with great satisfaction the review done by (Savenaca) Siwatibau and his team and the way in which SPC has been transformed in the past two years. We pay tribute to the polit ical will demonstrated by member governments to make the SPC into a vibrant and relevant deliverer of island services which you island societies want.” In his address to the South Pacific confer ence Ratu Mara said the declared arm of the SPC (in its early days was to promote economic and social stability in the small islands of the Pacific. However, he said island leaders began to feel that “an increasing sense of responsibility among major nations towards less developed countries” (had) evolved after the second world war and the founding of the United Nations.

“Benevolent paternalism,” Ratu Mara termed it. ‘But paternal ism just the same. The discussions of politics was very firmly banned. The winds of change had not yet begun to blow in the Pacific.” “Gradually, with political advancement in the island ter ritories, we began to feel that the SPC and its procedures were too rigid. So what was formally accepted as paternalism now began to be interpreted as arrogant and even autocratic. The particular bone of contention was the ban on any form of political discussion,”

Ratu Mara said. This forced island leaders to meet to discuss these issues outside the conference. These discussions would culminate in the establishment of the South Pacific Forum - another offspring of the SPC, albeit an unintended one. But finally in 1983, the Commission adopted a resolution that the conference of 27 states and administrations should have full and equal membership.

Another move, said Ratu Mara, that changed the character of the Commission was the appointment of islanders to the post of sec

retary general.

“Like all organisations, the SPC had its ups and downs ... (but) it has a feature which is not shared by the Forum. That is its uni versality. There is a place for every country, large or small and at whatever stage of political development,” he said.

Forum Secretariat secretary general leremia Tabai highlighted the challenges facing Pacific Island countries, pointing to popula tion growth rates outpacing economic development; unexpected declines in aid and the small prospect of the private sector being able to meet the needs of small economies and thus continuing to make these the primary responsibility of government and the com munity. “On the other hand,” said Tabai, “our exposure to external events and dependence on outside assistance raises other types of challenges - challenges to independence and sovereignty. Clearly, there is no better way to respond than to increase one’s ability to meet one’s own needs. “Information technology is considered to provide an opportunity for small isolated countries to leap frog the industrial revolution into the information and service age. There is much interest about how we should be able to overcome the dis advantage and isolation from the markets and high slipping costs by greater reliance on information service exports. To do this requires out people to be well-educated and willing to participate in a global society based on free flowing information.

“(But) anything is possible with foresight and political will.

Our future is what we make it and the politics we pursue and how we respond to these challenges and global changes will help us determine that future,” Tabai said. ■

Debbie Singh

Spc