Letter from Suva
More Questions About All Those Expatriates
It's good to see the Pacific Community now taking up the challenge of focusing on one of the region's most critical areas: Developing its human resources.
At its annual conference in Noumea last month, the Pacific Community looked at the new challenges facing the Pacific, such as globalisation, changes in world trade rules, HIV/AIDS, and the need to boost human resources to handle these challenges.
But the question that needs to be asked is how proactive is it really in getting Pacific Islanders involved and training and equipping them to be able to handle these challenges?
- ADVERTISEMENT -
The impression from reports about the meeting ‹ particularly from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community's (SPC) news service - Oceania Flash - is that to be able to meet these challenges regional organisations will have to recruit high level experts. This to me translates into hiring more expatriates.
Is this the future we want for us in the region? Getting more expatriates to fill the gaps and determining our destiny for us? The issue of Pacific Islanders or expatriates has been raised many times before in the region. We've been told from reliable sources that it was again raised at the Noumea meeting. This time it was described as a "very hot issue".
Sources at the meeting said there was disappointment among Pacific Islands officials about the continuing use of so many expatriates in the regional inter-governmental organisations.
These Pacific Islands officials want the number of Pacific Islanders working in regional organisations increased. They also want some sort of balance brought about in terms of the number of people from each country employed. A committee is reported to have been set up to look at this and report back to the Committee of Representatives of Governments and Administrations (CRGA) when it meets next year.
Fiji was given as an example to follow. In Fiji, local people/resources are given priority over expatriates. Only when there is a gap are expatriates hired, but on a short-term basis.
Sources say that similar sentiments were also raised at the recent sixth consultative meeting of Asia-Pacific sub-regional organisations held at Port Vila. This was attended by representatives from a number of important Asian as well as Pacific region agencies.
The Port Vila meeting was told that inter-governmental organisations should ensure that the Pacific Islands meet their quota in terms of employment within international organisations.
Yet while the region has the expertise, too often Pacific Islanders are sidelined. Instead jobs go to Austra-lians and New Zealanders or even the French, such as in the case of SPC's Oceania Flash. Why a French rather than a francophone ni-Vanuatu or a Tahitian, for example? Seems that France is funding this position and he who pays the piper wants to call the tune.
I recall a check I made on regional organisations early this year. It was quite revealing. It showed that despite these institutions having Pacific Islanders as chief executives or directors, many of the professional positions are still dominated by expatriates. Only when you get to the lower ranking service roles do you find Pacific Islanders dominating. At the SPC's growing Fiji operation at Nabua in Suva, for instance, out of the 19 top positions, 11 were held by non-Pacific Islanders. The story was similar for the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC). The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) was another, although there have been some recent encouraging moves there. While the heads of many regional organisations are Pacific islanders, key positions amongst the professional staff are still too often filled by expatriates.
Most of these organisations have limits on the number of years someone can serve in a position. But some of the expatriates seem to go on forever. How do they manage this? Could it be that some are changing job titles and job descriptions to get around the system?
It is about time countries like Australia, New Zealand and France are asked how much they are really doing in terms of developing Pacific Islanders for key positions in Pacific Islands organisations? Are they genuine or is it just lip service?
Take, for example, the constant use of expatriate consultants for projects. This basically means two things. The funding dollar goes back to the donor country and Pacific Islanders do not get a chance to show their capabilities..
This issue was also raised by regional news media leaders at the recent Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) convention held in Madang. Concerns were expressed about some aspects of the AusAID-funded Pacific Media Initiative.
Questions were raised why so much of the money from this project was going back to Australia through Australian consultants and training providers, and why Pacific Islanders were not being involved more. The regional news media leaders said Pacific Islands people must be more involved in management, design and implementation of Pacific Islands news media training.
It's a message that goes far beyond the news media, right back to organisations like the SPC, SOPAC and SPREP. How long will it be before some people realise Pacific Islanders want to be empowered? They want to be in control of their destiny. Who knows their destiny better than Pacific Islanders who have to live with the consequences long after those expatriates are gone.
Let's hope the SPC committee can really make a difference.
