United States President Joe Biden yesterday apologised to Prime Minister James Marape and the people of Papua New Guinea for abandoning his planned trip to Port Moresby, and instead is sending Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Details of Blinken’s travel to PNG are still being finalised and will be announced soon, but he will be here on Monday, Marape said.

He said Blinken would be involved in bilateral dialogue with the PNG government and leaders of the Pacific Island countries.

• READ MORE: PNG’s Marape confident of pulling off PNG-US defence pact in spite of leak
• US envoy gets two of three north Pacific nations to sign defence deals
• Other US defence policy in Pacific reports

Marape, while addressing journalists yesterday afternoon, had to excuse himself twice during the hour-long address, to take calls from the White House and from Biden.

He said Biden was apologetic but had given his commitment to visit PNG and the region in the near future.

Marape also talked about the benefits of the US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement, downplaying fears that the agreement was unconstitutional and would sacrifice PNG’s sovereignty.

“Sorry I didn’t mean to be rude, but this call that came in this time, you know the US President is a very important man, he is not easily accessible, he’s got stiff protocols to access him and I was privileged on behalf of our people that he placed a call directly through my cell phone,” Marape said in apology to the local and international journalists in attendance.

“We spoke and I just stepped out and got his call.

‘Sincerest apology’
“He [President Biden] conveyed his sincerest apology that he cannot make it into our country.

“I did place an invitation to him that the next earliest available time, please come and visit us here, but he has confirmed that he has directed Secretary of State Antony Blinken to arrive here on Monday to meet with us for a specific bilateral with Papua New Guinea as well as a regional meeting with the Pacific Island leaders.

“He did invite again the Pacific Island leaders for a continuation of a progressive continuation of the meeting that we initially held last September in Washington.

“And so those were the reasons why I stepped out.”

Marape also said he had invited Biden to visit PNG whenever he could, and Biden had agreed.

He said that when Biden came, he would be able to sign the Ship Riders Agreement with PNG.

He said the agreement had been approved, and was ready for signing.

But he did not give a firm answer on the signing of other, more controversial agreement, the US-PNG Defence Cooperation Agreement.

He said the agreement was done within the confines of PNG laws, and assured the people that it would be of benefit to the country.

Rabuka apologises to PNG
Meanwhile, Governor-General Sir Bob Dadae received Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka at Government House in Port Moresby this afternoon.

Rabuka arrived in the country today and paid a courtesy call on the Governor-General.

By way of introduction, the Prime Minister and his delegation performed a traditional Fijian reconciliation ceremony complete with the presentation of a whale tooth, a significant Fijian traditional gift, to the Governor-General.

The traditional ceremony that Prime Minister Rabuka performed sought forgiveness and reconciliation on behalf of the people of Fiji for the closure of the Fiji High Commission in PNG in 2020.

Lawrence Fong and Gorethy Kenneth are PNG Post-Courier reporters. Republished with permission.

As many as 714,066 Papuans and 112 organisations which are part of the Papuan People’s Petition (PRP) have rejected last week’s enactment into law of revisions to Law Number 21/2001 on Papua Special Autonomy (Otsus), reports CNN Indonesia.

They believe that special autonomy is not the answer to resolving the problems in the land of Papua.

“There’s no such thing as Otsus in the Papuan people’s dictionary. The Papuan people are asking for the right to self-determination,” said Rawarap from the group West Papua Youth and Student National Solidarity (Sonamapa) during a PRP event broadcast on the Suara Papua TV YouTube channel on Friday, July 16.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the special autonomy law for the Papua region

Rawarap believes that special autonomy is a product conceived out of an illicit affair between the political elite in Papua and Jakarta. According to Rawarap, the policy has not accommodated the Papuan people at all.

“Otsus is like an illegitimate child conceived during a sex party between the Papua elite and the Jakarta elite. We explicitly reject Otsus because Otsus is an illicit product. It’s the result of an illicit affair,” he added.

Rawarap said that the decision by the House of Representatives (DPR) to ratify the revisions into law would not in any way make Papuans feel proud.

More than 20 years of the implementation of special autonomy has failed to bring prosperity to the Papuan people.

‘Still many mama-mama‘
“The fact also is that many have already explained that over the 20 years Otsus has been in force in the land of Papua, there are still many mama-mama [traditional Papuan women traders] who sell on the side of the road,” he said.

“Still using cardboard, sacks as mats, sitting on the road selling areca.

“The fact also is that there are still many Papuan children who drop out of school and cannot continue their studies at tertiary institutions because education is expensive, yet there is money from Otsus.

“But, the fact is that many Papuan children drop out of study or do not continue school, and the unemployment rate is high — what is there to be proud of with Otsus?,” he asked.

Rawarap then touched on the findings of the National Statistics Agency (BPS) which says that the Human Development Index for Papua and West Papua provinces are the lowest in the country despite Otsus being in place for two decades.

“Sonamapa — along with the 112 organisations involved in the Papua People’s Petition reject Otsus — explicitly states that we reject Otsus Chapter II resulting out of secret revisions [to the Otsus Law] by the [DPR’s] special committee,” he said.

PRP spokesperson Sam Awom said that group rejected all forms of compromise with any deliberations on special autonomy which failecd to involve ordinary Papuan people.

‘Return mandate to the people’
“He also asked policy makers to return a mandate to the Papuan people to determine their own future,” he said.

“We demand the immediate return to the Papuan people [of the right] to choose and determine their own future on whether they accept Otsus or independence as a country”, said Awom, reading out a statement.

Awom declared that they would hold a national strike if the demands of the Papuan people were not followed up.

“If the petition [against Otsus] is not followed up, then we will hold a national, peaceful civil strike throughout the territory of West Papua,” he said.

Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs Mahfud MD has stated that the government will prioritise dialogue with “separatists” seeking self-determination and independence in Papua and use law enforcement against alleged armed criminal groups (KKB).

“On the Papua issue the government will use an approach prioritising prosperity which is comprehensive and covers all aspects,” he said.

“In confronting separatism, the government will prioritise dialogue.”

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “714 Ribu Orang dan 112 Organisasi Diklaim Tolak Otsus Papua”.

Now that the phosphate dust has settled and the shameless self-promoting headlines about the Pacific being “leeches” and a waste of time and money have lost their hysterical edge – let’s take a look at some facts.

Jacinda Ardern serenaded with song written especially for her and Neve on arrival to Nauru
The song called Jacinda New Star in the Sky clearly delighted the Prime Minister. Source: 1 NEWS

Firstly to deal with the issue of “da plane, da plane” – it seems only appropriate here to bring in Tattoo from Fantasy Island for those old enough to remember this dubious 80s TV progamme.

Yes, it cost money to send up an extra plane to Nauru to make it possible for our Prime Minister to get there.

That is true.

What is also true is there have been several, not just the one, but several multiflight trips organised by the former National government around the Pacific because some politicians across the political landscape found it uncomfortable to travel on the C130 Hercules the whole way.

It’s not unusual, so I’m not sure why this suddenly became a big issue.

Multitude of reasons
It was important for the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be in Nauru for the Pacific Islands Forum for a multitude of reasons.

The geopolitical landscape in the Pacific has changed radically in the last couple of years.

Jacinda Ardern and Pacific leaders sport matching red threads during Nauru photo shoot
The Prime Minister is making a one-day appearance at the Pacific Island Forum. Source: 1 NEWS

At this Forum, Air Force 2 flew in a US delegation, a high profile Chinese delegation was there, other Asian countries, the European Union … all vying for influence.

From a geopolitical stance alone it’s crucial New Zealand is a player in this.

Just ask Australia, which is having kittens over the thought of Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu giving port power to the Chinese. Then there are serious security issues.

South East Asia and a bigger push since 2016 from South American cartels are pushing drugs through the Pacific to Australia and New Zealand, fisheries are being depleted – these are all issues that affect New Zealand – why wouldn’t we be there?

Instability bad for NZ
Instability in the region is bad for New Zealand.

Bilaterals with Pacific leaders are equally important.

New Zealand wants island country votes at regional and world level – the UN Security Council, which we headed at one point is a case in point, the World Health Organisation and many more. Votes are gold and don’t think that New Zealand doesn’t want to tie up Pacific votes any less than the big players.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters could easily have done the job but he is not Prime Minister.

You can throw money around the region as much as you like but to underestimate personal relationships in the Pacific is sheer ignorance.

Mana is quite rightly attached to New Zealand’s leader being there and if Jacinda Ardern hadn’t shown up for her first Pacific Forum we would have been penalised for it down the line one way or another.

New Zealand cannot afford to tread with the same ignorance Australia does as it blunders through the region – incredulous that things are happening that they don’t like.

PM holds her own
To suggest that Jacinda Ardern is not tough enough is ridiculous. I’m told by people who know first-hand that she more than holds her own in a bi-lat and so she should – it’s the very least we would expect any of our Prime Ministers to do.

While the above is important there is also something else. A palagi friend who I really respect had the following to say and I couldn’t agree more.

“For me the importance of the Pacific is much more cultural – we are part of this place and Pacific Islanders are part of us.

“It’s who we collectively are. We give to each other and sustain each other with language, music, laughter. And in doing so we are all creating a unique culture that is different – the rest of the world can only wonder and admire us.”

As someone who has lived and worked in the region for nearly 30 years I have nothing but contempt for the sheer ignorance I have been reading from those whose idea of the Pacific is lying poolside at Denarau with a pina colada.

New Zealand needs the Pacific as much as the Pacific needs New Zealand. In fact some countries have made it clear they don’t need New Zealand at all.

The National government understood this – so does this government. Let’s move on.

This Barbara Dreaver Television New Zealand blog posting is republished with permission.

By Gia Garrick, Political Reporter of RNZ National

Regional security and other pressing issues like climate change will top the formal agenda at the Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru this week.

But leaders will also be confronted with the situation facing refugees in Australian-run camps on the tiny island, living just kilometres from forum events.

The Nauru government has already started a pre-emptive PR campaign, with its president blaming Australian advocates for the plight of refugee children.

READ MORE: Dear Prime Minister, evacuate the kids off Nauru

New Zealand says it is an issue that will be raised at the forum. However, Australia’s new Prime Minister Scott Morrison will not be there to hear it. He has decided not to attend, and has sent newly appointed Foreign Minister Marise Payne in his place.

Winston Peters plans to meet with Payne while in Nauru, and it will be the first time the pair have sat down together in their respective foreign minister roles.

The Pacific Island Forum comes just months after Peters launched the new government’s so-called “Pacific reset”.

He and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern visited Samoa, Niue, Tonga and the Cook Islands in March, announcing a raft of increases to aid and development funding.

Broader region
But this forum is an opportunity for the pair to meet with leaders from around the broader region.

“Well I’ll have a chance to meet a lot of them on the way over, and some of them I’ve been talking to very recently. So that’ll be more than half of them. And I’ll get the bilateral with Marise Payne,” Peters said.

Ardern had initially indicated she would like to meet with some of the refugees, but said it was something she had since thought long and hard about.

“I’ve given a lot of thought to this,” she said. “I do have a short amount of time there, but I do want a perspective from those who are residents on Nauru.”

She plans to reiterate New Zealand’s offer to take 150 refugees from across Nauru and Manus Islands.

“But if I meet with individual refugees, how do we decide who they would be? Does that raise an expectation that I then can’t fulfill for them as an individual?

“So those are some of the things weighing on my mind.”

One day visit
Ardern will be there for one day only, flying to Nauru early Wednesday morning for the leaders’ retreat, which is considered the most important day of the forum.

Leaders are expected to sign a new regional security declaration at the conclusion of these talks, which Peters said would cover off a number of emerging challenges facing the Pacific.

“There’s human security, there’s environmental and resource security, transnational crime and cyber-security challenges – all of which are part of this declaration.”

National’s foreign affairs spokesperson Todd McClay said he hoped the cohesive nature of the Pacific Island countries was addressed first and foremost by Peters.

“It’s very important that he talks to Fiji and gets them to withdraw their claim from a year or two ago that Australia and New Zealand should leave or be thrown out of the Pacific Island Forum, with the view that we are not really Pacific countries.

“We are, we’re good neighbours, and for us all to move forward there needs to be a clear dialogue around that.”

When it comes to any plans to meet with refugees or raising issues of human rights, McClay said New Zealand could stand firm on its independent foreign policy.

But he warned against any moves that may destabilise its relationship with Australia.

Australian ‘protection’
“Fundamentally when it comes to refugees, the Australian border does provide some protection to New Zealand. So that refugees on boats don’t make the arduous journey down to New Zealand which is very, very risky.

“So ultimately he must be very diplomatic in this.”

But the pressure is already on Nauru, even before the leaders arrive.

Refugee advocates have been increasingly vocal in their criticisms of the conditions the refugees continue to live in and about the way they are treated.

They also say the government there is cynically trying to pretty up the place, with mouldy tents which have housed refugees for years being pulled down just last week.

Media coverage has also been a contentious topic ahead of the forum, with limits put on the number of journalists attending and guidelines around reporting in place.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• NZ offer still open for taking 150 refugees, says PM Ardern
• Nauru media ban on ABC targets Australian detention centre gag

By Sri Krishnamurthi

Debate has been lively and vigorous in response to the New Zealand government signalling a shift in foreign policy towards the Pacific Islands region.

To have a look closer at that debate the New Zealand Institute for Pacific Research (NZIPR) has brought together a diverse group of scholars from the University of Auckland who have research experience in the Pacific to discuss New Zealand’s Pacific-oriented foreign policy agenda, but more broadly to consider “where in the world is the Pacific?”

Associate Professor Yvonne Underhill-Sem (director of NZIPR and Development Studies, University of Auckland) chaired the discussion aptly titled “NZIPR Critical Conversation seminar”.

READ MORE: Browse RNZPR’s Lali blog

It was introduced by Professor Jenny Dixon (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Strategic Engagement, University of Auckland) and featured Georgina Roberts (Ngāti Porou, Director of Pacific Connections at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade – MFAT), Associate Professor Damon Salesa (Pacific Studies at the Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Auckland), Dr Mark Busse (senior lecturer in Anthropology, University of Auckland), Dr Lisa Uperesa (senior lecturer in Pacific studies at the Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Auckland) and Associate Professor Chris Noonan (associate dean postgraduate international in the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland).

“The New Zealand government has invited everybody to think differently about how they do development in the Pacific and it came under this Pacific reset strategy. Winston Peters (Foreign Minister) took himself off to Australia to announce that this is what New Zealand is going to do,” Associate Professor Underhill-Sem said in her opening remarks.

“Since then there has been a lot of fabulous articles, discussion, blogs written about what does this all mean? What do we mean by a reset? And what are we resetting from – but more importantly what do we imagine the Pacific to be, how do we understand the Pacific?

“The question I’m asking [of the researchers] is what are the most meaningful boundaries that they undertake their research in, and hopefully we get an idea of how we can deal with some of the substantive development issues that really haven’t changed regardless of what the New Zealand government has done.

“We still have enduring development issues that need to be addressed.”

‘Shifting the dialogue’
Georgina Roberts of MFAT defined the Pacific reset as “shifting the dialogue” as the perspective of the Pacific changed.

“Statements were made at the beginning of March by the minister around needing to change the approach New Zealand takes with our region and moving from more of a donor-recipient relationship to one of partnership.

“It was about doing things differently, and that was to be underpinned by five key principles that was the basis of the reset, understanding, friendship, mutual benefit, collective ambition and sustainability.”

She said that meant the government had to interact, engage and collaborate with all the parties and stakeholders who had an interest in doing things better with their Pacific partners.

In the budget, the government had decided to allocate $714 million over the next four years in additional overseas assistance to mostly support the “Pacific reset”.

“Where will that money be spent? Climate change is a significant one, human development and this is an area of health and education for example, inclusive development and that means doing more to support youth and women in political representation and value issues, things like human rights, governance and democracy promotion – these are areas that haven’t gained as much attention in the previous years,” she said.

“There are a lot of challenges in our region.”

Working collectively
There were 30 government agencies that were involved in the Pacific and it was the government’s ambition to have them working collectively.

That led the discussion to the historical perspectives of the Pacific and what were the meaningful boundaries both geographically and temporally in the region, presented by Associate Professor Damon Salesa.

“New Zealanders don’t understand what New Zealand is. There are two New Zealands constitutionally – there is the New Zealand proper which is the New Zealand that most New Zealanders think of, that is North Island, South Island, Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands.

“But there is another constitutional entity called the realm of New Zealand which goes as far south as the Ross Territory and Antarctica and as far north as Tokelau, and includes the Cook Islands and Niue.

“So, part of that points out this other history of the New Zealand dollar, New Zealand language and New Zealand passport – those complexities remind us that even New Zealand is a contested, misunderstood concept for New Zealanders,” he said.

That meant there was a lot at stake with how New Zealanders defined the Pacific, and it was particularly important in terms of foreign policy.

It took in the definition of New Zealand’s Pacific, it was very specific in what the Pacific was.

“What New Zealand isn’t is, as seen by the Pacific people who live here.”

‘Two New Zealands’
“If we think about New Zealand as a nation the two most distinctive things about it, are Tangata Whenua (Māori ) and Tangata Pasifika (Pacific peoples). They are what make New Zealand not Australia or Canada. That is something very powerful about that way of being New Zealanders.

“For me the last frontier is finding a place for the Treaty (Treaty of Waitangi) in our foreign policy,” Associate Professor Salesa said.

Dr Mark Busse spoke about anthropological ways of defining the Pacific. He said there were two things that were important to consider – that even small communities, such as the one he lived in, in Papua New Guinea, were affected by international politics and international capitalism.

He said they had a profound impact on the lives of people living in those communities.

“I would suggest that the Pacific is less a geographical space or area, than a set of deep social and historical relationships, its people face large challenges, but I expect they will face those challenges by using values and knowledge that has been passed down over generations,” Dr Busse summed up.

What countries and territories, and their moving demographics and diaspora were considered around the Pacific to be in the Pacific, was Dr Lisa Uperesa’s discourse.

She said from the vantage point of the United States, ongoing migration of Pacific peoples, Micronesians, was shifting with people moving to Guam and Hawai’i.

Largest Pacific city
In the eyes of Americans, they would be surprised to hear that Auckland was the largest Pacific city in the world, the anthropologist and Pacific Studies senior lecturer said.

Her studies concentrated on Samoa and the fact that approximately 400,000 Samoans live abroad, primarily in the US, Australia and New Zealand, compared to 250,000 in American Samoa and independent Samoa.

“I focus on Samoan migration and mobility looking specifically at sport, and this has provided new boundaries of the definition of Pacific peoples and the way they move,” she said.

This project, she said, used sport to think about the history of migration and the place of sport in education and it also helped to reinforce the importance of place and importance of community history and agenda.

“The new Polynesian triangle includes cities like Auckland, Sydney, Honolulu, Los Angeles and Salt Lake City and in this vision the Pacific encompasses geographies and cartographies of presence, it is where Pacific people are,” she said.

Associate Professor Chris Noonan said that from a legal and trade perspective, the Pacific region didn’t exist.

“In the Pacific, the Pacific negotiations were supported by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and funding from Europe through the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and negotiations took place because of institutional structures that were in place and not necessarily because the Pacific had a huge commonality,” said Associate Professor Noonan.

He outlined how and why the Pacific region negotiated both as a bloc and as individual countries.

Associate Professor Underhill-Sem said it was important that research in the Pacific was allowed to flourish and be given exposure through discussions like this “critical conversation”, which will be an on-going event on the NZIPR calendar.

Postgraduate AUT Pacific Media Centre students Sri Krishnamurthi and Blessen Tom (video) reported on the seminar in partnership with the NZ Institute for Pacific Research.