Facing the Post Post-Colonial Challenges in the Pacific

Facing the Post Post-Colonial Challenges in the Pacific
Address to the United Nations Associaton of New Zealand
Bureta Park Motor Inn, Tauranga


I appreciate this opportunity to outline the current thinking of the National Party on some foreign policy issues relevant to the focus of this conference.

With a general election scheduled for the latter part of 2008, my colleagues and I are very committed to bringing about a change of government.

As it is in New Zealand's national interest that foreign policy should be, as far as possible, bi-partisan – that our relations with the rest of the world should transcend politics – there is much that would, in the event of a change of government, stay the same.

But there are some areas of interest that we see differently.

What I am going to say to you today is not National Party policy – it is much too early for that. But we have done a good deal of thinking about the path forward and today I will share some of that thinking with you.

I intend, first of all, to address some very brief remarks to the role of the United Nations, and the need for reform of that institution.

I also intend to comment very briefly on the UN's actions in relation to the Fiji coup, and to make some remarks about the Terrorism Suppression Act amendments which are before our Parliament, relating, as they do, to two United Nations' resolutions.

But I want to focus most of my comments on New Zealand's future role in the Pacific, where 40 years of following the de-colonisation prescription of the United Nations' Decolonisation Committee could hardly be pronounced to have been a success, and where new strategies, new money and new energy will be required from this country's future governments.

Sir Winston Churchill once famously described democracy as "the worst form of government – apart from all the others." If I might borrow a little from Sir Winston, I would describe the United Nations as the worst multi-lateral vehicle for the management of international relations – apart from all the others.

It would be fair to say that, while acknowledging the importance of supporting the United Nations in world affairs, my colleagues and I view that institution through a lens which is somewhat less rose-tinted than that utilised by the Clark Government.

I do not intend to focus particularly on the major United Nations' disasters that were the oil-for-food programme in Iraq, or the human catastrophes on the UN's watch in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, or the many reported examples of aid failing to find those who were intended to be its recipients.

But these events and others demonstrate clearly the need for very significant improvements in the manner in which the United Nations conducts its affairs.

The previous Secretary-General, Koffi Annan, has publicly accepted the need for significant reforms.

It is my own view that New Zealand, as a small nation with an independent mindset in international relations and a good track record of national and international behaviour, should be at the forefront of the move for reform of the United Nations, and fairly assertively so.

The proposals for reform brought forward under the previous Secretary-General were modest indeed. The institution's acceptance of change was even more modest.

Unless significant reforms are undertaken to its governance and operation, the United Nations risks continuing to lose international respect and effectiveness. And that would be most unwelcome.

An important task for the United Nations has become its role in the fight against terrorism.

Some of you will be aware that a bill to amend the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is currently before the New Zealand Parliament. This will make important changes to the manner in which UN resolutions 1267 and 1373 are dealt with under our law.

The National Party has been urging the Government to bring forward legislation on this matter for some time.

The bill proposes that we abandon the concept of New Zealand courts re-visiting designations of terrorist entities made under UN 1267 – that is the resolution relating to the designation of Taleban-related terrorist entities – and simply accept such designations as are made by the Security Council under that resolution, until such time as the Security Council decides to lift them.

In relation to UN 1373 – this is the provision relating to the designation of other terrorist entities perceived by individual nations to pose a threat to themselves or their neighbours – the bill again proposes the removal of the current review by the High Court of a terrorist designation after it has been in place for three years.

Instead, the maintenance of a UN 1373 designation will be a matter for the Prime Minister, whose task it is to make such designations in the first place. That, to me, seems eminently sensible. The Prime Minister is invariably the Minister Responsible for the Security Intelligence Service, and is regularly briefed on such matters by the relevant authorities.

I do, however, part company from the Government, and very seriously so, in relation to the manner in which the Terrorism Suppression Act is being used.

New Zealand has, of course, designated as terrorist entities the 400 or so Taleban-related organisations that have been the subject of a Security Council designation under UN 1267. In that respect we have matched the actions of our peers.

However, our actions have diverged seriously from those of comparable nations in relation to the use of UN 1373. Under UN 1373, Australia has designated, at last count, 88 terrorist entities. Canada has designated over 50.

Since the legislation was passed in 2002, New Zealand has not designated a single terrorist entity under UN 1373.

Given our proximity, and the relatively open nature of our border, it is simply not credible that Australia could have designated 88 terrorist entities, in respect of which their authorities are licensed to use the toolkit contained in the Terrorism Suppression Act, and New Zealand none.

The National Party will expeditiously facilitate the improvements to the Terrorism Suppression Act contained in the bill before Parliament. But we cannot force the Prime Minister to use the provisions of the Act.

And in relation to the UN 1373 provisions designed to counter terrorism in this country, it is our view that the actions of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, have been seriously deficient, and possibly even negligent.

It would be remiss of me not to mention, in this forum, my serious disappointment at the lack of leadership shown by the United Nations during the recent Fiji coup.

The National Party steered, at some cost, a careful bipartisan line, supporting the Clark Government in outlining sanctions that would be the result of the Fiji military carrying out its threat to overthrow the elected government.

Foremost among the threatened sanctions was the removal of Fijian military personnel being utilised on UN peace-keeping missions around the world, especially in Iraq – a position that was endorsed by the then Secretary-General of the UN.

While I and others have been very restrained in commenting publicly on this matter, especially as Fiji moves into a dialogue that is reported to be positive in the wake of the Eminent Persons report, I should, in this forum, be clear about my views.

The purpose of peace-keeping operations is to uphold the rule of law. For the United Nations to continue to use on peacekeeping duties, military personnel who have overthrown their own government, is unprincipled and wrong.

And for the New Zealand Prime Minister, our Foreign Minister, and the Secretary-General of the UN to threaten the withdrawal of Fiji peacekeepers in the event of a coup, and then not act in accordance with their words, is seriously damaging to the credibility of all of those involved.

New Zealand has a huge stake in the long term stability of the Pacific. There can be no stability without the rule of law. And when the United Nations cannot understand that, nor act in a principled and credible manner, we have a very serious problem indeed.

It is now 45 years since Samoa gained independence under arrangements generally guided by the United Nations Decolonisation Committee. It is over 40 years since somewhat different but nevertheless independent arrangements were made in respect of the Cook Islands, and over 30 years in respect of Niue. Fiji gained independence in 1970, Tuvalu in 1978 and Kiribati in 1979.

It fair to observe that the post-colonial era has been given a fair chance.

While New Zealand has approached its role and responsibilities with goodwill and generosity, it would also be fair to conclude that that just hasn't been enough. By any objective standard of measurement, the decolonisation process mandated by the United Nations in the Pacific has not been a success.

Let me recount a few simple facts:

In the 1960s the population of Niue was around 5,000. By 2006 it had shrunk to 1,625, with a loss of approximately 10% of the population in the five years following the 2001 census. There is little sign of a sustainable economic base, now or in the immediate future.

The Cook Islands has fared a little better. From a population of over 25,000, the 2002 census found a resident population of under 15,000, a drop of 17% over the previous five years. The results of the most recent census, to be released soon, may not make for very pretty reading.

Despite some very significant natural advantages in tourism, aquaculture and horticulture, the Cooks are heavily aid-dependent, losing people at a rapid rate of knots, and very far from having a sustainable economic base.

Similar stories could be retailed in respect of many of the smaller Pacific states.

In summary, right throughout the Pacific we see small states, burdened by the responsibilities of nationhood, struggling to find sustainable economic futures, haemorrhaging people at an alarming rate, and, with a few exceptions, finding the maintenance of democratic government more than a little challenging.

Add to that the challenges to the rule of law that too regularly appear on our television screens from within our Pacific neighbourhood, the dire predictions as to the likely effects of climate change on some of the smaller Pacific atolls, and the impact of cheque-book diplomacy throughout the Pacific, and you gain a small glimpse of the scale of the challenge that lies ahead.

Well, I hear you ask: what are you going to do about it?

This year New Zealand will spend around $396 million in international aid. That sum will be spread across over 100 different countries. Depending on how you cut the numbers, around one third of that aid will be spent in the Pacific.

The review of NZAid by Professor Marilyn Waring last year highlighted the need for us to get better value for money from our aid expenditure by spreading the available assistance across a smaller number of nations, and by focusing our efforts much more into our own neighbourhood.

It is my own view that New Zealand should dramatically re-focus its aid expenditure along these lines.

We live in a region which has, in terms of per capita incomes, some of the poorest people on Earth. They confront huge challenges in terms of sustainable economic futures and sustainable environments.

Yet the Pasifika cultures are a growing part of the Kiwi blend. Our largest city has the largest collection of Pasifika peoples in the world.

It is undeniable that we have a special responsibility within this region. We can make a greater difference within this region.

I struggle to understand why New Zealand taxpayer dollars are funding gender equality programmes in the Greater Mekong Region, aid programmes for the Palestinian Authority, poverty elimination programmes for indigenous peoples in rural Nicaragua, or poverty elimination programmes in the western provinces of China – a nation which, ironically, is itself committing increasing amounts in aid dollars into the Pacific – when there is demonstrably so much more to be done closer to home.

There are rumours afoot of a significant increase in foreign aid expenditure in this year's Budget. While that might be welcome, it is no substitute for ensuring that New Zealand taxpayers get better bangs for their bucks from the significant existing aid budget, or for understanding that much greater priority should attach to meeting the needs of our own region.

As we shift a greater proportion of our aid into the Pacific region, we have to ask ourselves some hard questions about the type of aid we are funding.

The rather loose heading "Poverty Elimination" can provide a justification for all manner of aid activities – some worthy and others not so worthy.

What is very clear is that despite the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured into the Pacific in recent decades, there has been a relatively modest proportion spent on essential infrastructure.

Key infrastructure – ports and sealed airport runways, for example – are the lifeblood of economic opportunity. Without them there is no hope of attracting the private sector capital to build the new businesses or provide the employment opportunities that will arrest the relentless forces of depopulation.

There are, of course, many problems, some of them very challenging ones, like land tenure, that constitute huge obstacles to economic development. These can only be solved through local leadership, but I am sure there is more that we can do to encourage a sense of urgency on these matters.

Finally, I ask the question as to whether New Zealand should offer to take a more direct role in education provision, through offering to fund and provide something akin to a New Zealand standard of education through to the end of secondary school for those nations with which we have close associations in the Pacific.

Indeed, unless we do so, there will be no slowdown to the depopulation of the Pacific. The residents of the Cooks and Niue are New Zealand citizens and can come here at will.

The creation of special Pacific access immigration quotas and the prospecting activities of New Zealand government departments like Corrections mean that many other Pacific nations are losing many able-bodied working-age people.

The huge gap in the relative standards of education available makes migration to New Zealand an irresistible option for many Pacific parents wanting to set up their children with decent opportunities in life. And who can blame them?

Delivering higher standards of education directly into the Pacific seems to me to be an essential part of any package of improvement that we bring to the table.

In summary, my point is simply this: regardless of the good intentions of the United Nations Decolonisation Committee and its parent body, and regardless of the goodwill and generosity that this country might have brought to the table over many decades, we must now, 30 or 40 years later, ask ourselves some difficult questions.

If the objective of the decolonisation process was simply to tick some governance boxes according to a bureaucratic UN formula, even then the answers are doubtful.

But if success is to be measured in terms of a clear pathway to economic viability; a focus on genuine success in key sectors of the economy; higher standards of education; and therefore genuine employment opportunities for younger Pacific people, then the results of recent decades could hardly be judged to be a success.

What I am advocating here is a dramatic shift in the seriousness and scale of our efforts in our Pacific neighbourhood.

I freely acknowledge that the current Government and Minister of Foreign Affairs have raised the profile of our relationships and responsibilities in this part of the world. I am suggesting that we now need to match the higher profile with changes of substance – changes in funding; changes in strategy; changes in focus; changes in energy.

The Pacific Plan initiated by the Pacific Forum provides a framework for some improvement but we cannot and should not see our responsibilities ending there.

I am pleased that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of our Parliament, of which I am a member, has agreed to undertake an inquiry into New Zealand's activities in the Pacific.

If given the level of effort and support that this topic deserves, then the committee's work could be as significant to our future direction as the work of that same committee in what is known as the Quigley Report on Defence in 1999-2000.

That is certainly my ambition.

A select committee working in a non-partisan way across several different political parties is the ideal vehicle for promoting the step-change in our efforts in the Pacific that is so clearly needed.