Clark's Pacific Hallucinations

Pacific Islanders take note. The islands now have a new branding, thanks to New Zealand's Iron Lady, Helen Clark. Prime Minister Clark‹who is the chair of the 16-nation Pacific Islands Forum‹told the AP news agency that the region could degenerate into a "ghetto of poverty and conflict". That's if its struggling nations do not pool their resources.

She said: "You have several possible futures. The Pacific could become a Œghetto of poverty and conflict' or it could become something so much better and that's where some of the ideas about sharing resources, capabilities and training resources, best practice legislation, bigger focus on governance, all those issues come to the fore."

The "Ghetto of Poverty" branding follows that of the Australian "Arc of Instability" label. This was used to justify Australian-led troops and police invading the Solomons in the name of establishing law-and-order and preventing the "failed state" becoming a haven for trans-national crime and terrorism.

So what prompted Clark to come up with the "ghetto" branding? What's she trying to push through in the region this time? Should we be suspicious?

As the current chair of the Forum, Clark would definitely like to leave an indelible mark of her term. She wants to be remembered as the chair who brought about positive changes in the way the Forum operates.

And what better way to do this than to ensure that the concept of a European Union-style Pacific union, proposed by a draft report, is endorsed by island leaders.

She is apparently cracking the whip on this issue and privately annoying the Australians.

Clark is convening a leaders retreat in Auckland on April 6 to consider proposals compiled by a group of eminent persons led by former Papua New Guinea PM Sir Julius Chan. The group was asked to review the role of the Forum and its secretariat.

Clark will have to work hard to canvass the support of island leaders if the report's recommendations are to be accepted. Her first target: The former Forum chair and Fiji Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase. She has invited Mr Qarase for a state visit to New Zealand on the eve of the retreat. The timing is suspicious.

While Fiji foreign affairs officials believe the invitation is a recognition of the restoration of full bilateral relations with New Zealand, others believe there's a motive.

If she could convince Qarase, who has clout amongst island leaders, this would help make her job easy when leaders meet on April 6, and later at the Forum summit in Apia in August.

But she could be facing a bit of opposition. Advisers to the Fiji PM are believed to be advising Qarase that political integration is a "romantic notion" and "inappropriate".

What the region needs, however, is a Pacific Plan that promotes economic growth and sustainable development, they say. This could involve at least the renegotiation of a successor agreement to SPARTECA and bilateral agreements in trade and aid with major markets in addition to Australia and New Zealand.

Qarase's advisers are also cautious about the region being used to serve the foreign policies of Australia and New Zealand. So what's been the initial reaction to a EU-style Pacific union around the rest of the region? There's been mixed reactions so far with some hailing the concept and others a bit cautious about it.

Tuvalu prime minister Saufatu Sopoanga said: "My initial reaction is one of anxiety because the interests of small islands nations like Tuvalu are always conveniently overshadowed by the bigger nations. This has to be a two-way issue as well, meaning that Australia and New Zealand have got to give and take."

One Forum observer questioned the timing of the EU-style proposal. He said at this point most of the region's small islands states‹like Niue, Nauru, Tuvalu and Kiribati‹are seriously looking at their own viability.

A Fiji-based diplomat said: "It's hard enough to sustain ourselves and to come up with such a proposal is impossible. Our future lies in ensuring that we have economic growth and sustainable development and that regional co-operation should not only be inward looking but also outward looking."

University of the South Pacific (USP) academic Dr Wadan Narsey argued that it would be pointless talking about a common currency or a formal Pacific economic and political community. This is because "Pacific Islands leaders are unlikely to make the required concessions which would dilute their discretionary powers in their economies‹what they call national sovereignty." He noted however, that the interests of the islands political leaders are not usually the same as those of their common people. So whatever the leaders decide come April 6, let's hope they make the right decisions that are beneficial to the region and its people.

Perhaps a reminder from the chair of the Fiji Great Council of Chiefs Ratu Epeli Ganilau when he spoke at the Regional Pacific Ocean Forum in Suva recently, would be appropriate.

He said: "We in the Pacific are at a critical stage of transition and what we need are leaders who can forge lasting relationships with their fellow Pacific leaders and work together for a better Pacific. All (leaders) of us have a role to play. All of us have a duty to direct our people to the path that beckons them. The people of the Pacific demand this. We must as leaders deliver‹they deserve it."