Academia Nomad

The Unchained Dragon Roams the Pacific: Part ONE

Part ONE: Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), Debtbook Diplomacy, Solomon Islands

This is the first of three part articles which will analyze Chinese presence in the Pacific. This week, Solomon Islands switched allegiance from Taiwan China, reducing the number of countries supporting Taiwan in the Pacific from 6 to 5. But Solomons is not the first country to do so. Countries supporting Taiwan has been decreasing. Last year, El Salvador in Central America, Burkina Faso in West Africa and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean did the same. These series of articles will analyze the motivations for such switches, the implications (+&-), and potential response from the West and their allies. The analysis will also cover PNG. All these switches can be tied to a Chinese initiative called the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

Belt & Road Initiative (BRI)

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also referred to as the New Silk Road is a global development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments, which intends to include 152 countries and international organizations in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas. This initiative was started in 2013 by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The Belt component covers road infrastructure that China intends to build from China across Asia to Europe, the Middle East and Africa. It roughly follows the trade route that medieval businessmen in caravans used to trade with China, coming from Africa and the Middle East through Asia to China. Under the Han Dynasty of 206 BC to 220 AD, a flourishing trade emerged along these same routes, until the Christian Crusaders and Mongols disrupted it.

The Road component covers maritime trading routes linking the maritime trading ports from China, to Southeast Asia, to the Middle East and Africa. It is the most ambitious infrastructure project ever attempted in by mankind, and China intends to pay for it all… we’ll through loans that recipient countries have to repay.

So who funds these roads and maritime infrastructures?

CHINA!

China uses it’s own money. China gives what it claims as “low interest loans” for countries participating in the BRI to built these infrastructures as opposed to aid grants. China intends to give billions of dollars to about 152 countries that are planned to be included in this network, but here is the catch 22, it’s given as a loan that these countries have to repay. By May of 2019, China had already spent $200 billion, and Morgan Stanley estimates that China will spend $1.2 – $1.3 trillion by 2027.
To date, 60 countries, which account for two-thirds of the world’s population have either signed up to the BRI project or have shown interest.

Why are countries interested in BRI?

Developing countries are drawn towards these infrastructure loans for two reasons: first, it goes to build infrastructures which small poor countries cannot build themselves. And second, the flexible, less transparent nature of Chinese loans appeal to countries where transparency and accountability is weak. Loans from Western countries and institutions come with strong accountability and transparency mechanisms.

Debt book diplomacy

There are many who think BRI is just another initiative of the Chinese government to extend its geostrategic position in the world. This thinking is now called debt-book diplomacy. Basically, China is accused of giving “low interest loans” to poor countries who do not have the capacity to repay, and when these countries default on their repayments, China chancels the debts and takes over strategic locations in these countries as a payment for the debt. For instance, Sri Lanka got $13 billion to build Hambantota Port. By 2018 Sri Lanka’s revenues was $14 billion. With these revenues it could not repay it’s $13 billion loans, so they asked China to reschedule the repayment, but China insisted on long term lease of the port for 99 years in exchange for the forgiveness of the debt. Now, China is into its second year of owning the port, 98 years to go before Sri Lanka gets it back.

When China is not taking over ports like in Sri Lanka, it goes for other geopolitical advantages such as trapping Solomon Islands to drop its diplomatic relations with Taiwan and formally switch to China with promises of constituency funding.

Now that you have an understanding of why nations would prefer Chinese funds, and the debates surrounding it, let’s look at why Solomon Islands decided to break its 36-year recognition of Taiwan to recognize to accept Chinese position.

Solomon Islands Choose China

There are only 17 countries left in the world that recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation, and 6 of those nations are in the Pacific. Among the six nations in the Pacific, Solomon Island is the largest with a population of 660, 000. Now that Solomon Islands has broken diplomatic relations with Taiwan to recognize China, there are only 5 countries left in the Pacific, which recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation.

Basically, Mainland China and Taiwan issue goes back to 1949 when, after a Civil War, the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) fled to Taiwan, and the Chinese Communist Party took control of the mainland. For years after that these two parties claimed to be legitimate rulers of both Taiwan and Mainland China. Taiwan has over the years scaled down this claim and instead decided to position itself as an independent nation. China on the other hand, regards Taiwan as part of Mainland China.

To be able to access these BRI funds, Solomon Islands had to choose China over Taiwan. This is despite the fact that Taiwan promised $8.5 million dollars for the Solomon Islands for the period 2019 to 2020. $8.5 million was less than the amount China would give. How much China promises/promised is unclear, but Chinese officials promised to bankroll funds for Solomon Islands if the Pacific Island country switched allegiance.

A taskforce was set up to assess the Solomon Island-Taiwan relationship in April after Sogovare returned as the PM. Their recommendation was for Solomon Islands to switch to China. The parliament and cabinet voted to recognize China, ending their 36 years diplomatic relationship with Taiwan which started in 1983.

Solomon Islands is not the only country that switched to recognizing China, last year, El Salvador in Central America, Burkina Faso in West Africa and the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean switched allegiance to Beijing.

Did Solomon Islands make the right decision? What are the possible implications? These will be covered in the next article, drawing on PNG and other countries experiences in dealing with China.

To read more series as they are published –

Subscribe to my blog:http://academicnomad.home.blog

Like my Facebook page: Academia_Nomad
https://www.facebook.com/NomadAcademia/

Salasia Camp: Australia’s 50 Year Old Refugee Processing Centre in Manus

A less common known fact is that the Lombrum detention center built in 2015 is not the first Australian refugee-processing center; the first one was built 50 years ago!

“Australia’s first refugee camp on Manu still stands, forgotten in time…. A handful of rusty, corrugated iron houses on bare concrete slab…” writes Stephen Armbruster of SBS. This Camp is the home of third generation West Papuans, who were sent there by the Australians in the 1960s. They fled Indonesian occupation of West Papua in 1962.

Among the first refugees were two West Papuans named Clemens Runawery and Willem Zonggonau. Their story is interesting. They were forced off the plane headed for New York and sent to Manus. These two men were on their way to the United Nations in 1969 to report that Indonesia got about 100 West Papuans and coerced then under gun point in a locked room to vote in favour of Indonesians control of West Papua. This event is know as Act of Free Choice which West Papuans to this day claim is not legitimate. It is not legitimate because the Dutch granted them independence in 1961, so there was no need for a referendum (Act of Free Choice) in 1962, and even those chosen were not “free” to vote. They were intimated. Had they got to the UN, they would have reported these facts.

Australia knew of these facts, but refused to acknowledge it. The 1960s were the heydays of the Cold War, where the world was practically divided between the Communists led by Russians and the Chinese, and the Democratic nations led by US. Indonesia was among the last frontiers of communist advancement towards the Pacific. They were supported by the West to resist communism. It was in the best interest of Australia (and her patron the United States) to keep Indonesia happy. Australia did not want to have to deal with repercussions from the Indonesians.

But why sent the West Papuans to Manus?

Well Australian leaders though that if they kept the West Papuans in the then Territory of Papua and New Guinea mainland, they would influence Papua New Guineans to assist their cause, and also cross the artificial boarder to fight the Indonesians. Many of the first-generation refugees were either fleeing for safety, or were active rebels from the group Operasi Papua Meradeka (OPM). OPM was a rebel group fighting against the Indonesians.

What was PNG’s response to the first West Papuans in Salasia?

A young political activist and member of the second House of Assembly, after hearing of the news that West Papuans were placed in camps next to police stations, said that this act …

“could be compared with Second World War when Jews were placed in concentration camps.” (Quoted by Stephen Armbruster of SBS, 2017)

This young leader’s name is Michael Somare. He is now the retired former Governor of ESP and former Prime Minister Grand Chief Sir Michael Somare.

What is Australia doing now for the West Papuan refugees in Salasia and West Papua in general?

After independence of Papua New Guinea, Australia claimed that West Papuans in Salasia are PNG’s case to deal with. They stopped supporting West Papuans in Salasia. This seems to be a re-emerging Australian strategy: send refugees to Manus, and leave it to PNG to deal with the mess.

On West Papuan case in general, Australia maintains its 1960s position that West Papua is Indonesian territory. Back then it was the communism threat. Now its Australian mining company Rio Tinto’s Freeport Mining in West Papua. Australia recognizes Indonesia’s control of West Papua partly because Rio Tinto operates in West Papua. Australia also exports mostly agricultural products to Indonesia, beef been one of the largest exports. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, and Australia courts this lucrative market, exporting halal beef.

Australia’s Aid to Indonesia is only second to that given to PNG (at other times exceeds that given to PNG). And Australia trains and gives military equipment, which some argue, Indonesians use on West Papuans. Despite this unethical use, Australia continues to support Indonesia Military.

What is PNG doing about West Papuans?

This is where I let you write your own story. What are you doing about it? What am I doing about it? I hope we write a story that our children and grand children will read and be proud of our contribution in defense of humanity, and our Melanesian brothers, and for some of you, your relatives.

Pruaitch vs Marape: And Many More Unanswered Questions…

Pruaitch has been criticized on social media for seeking Supreme Court interpretation of the legality of O’Neil’s withdrawal as nominee for the PM post after it was closed on the 30th of May, subsequently led to the election of James Marape as the Prime Minister. As this matter is before the court, we cannot say anything until SC deliver their opinion.

But when you look at it, there are so many issues that need clarification. Whether a vote of no confidence should follow the majority requirement after national elections, whether MPs switching between parties at will is helping PNG at all, whether the MPs who resigned from PNC and the coalition followed procedures set in the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC)? etc. These are recurring issues, and won’t go away anytime soon unless we deal with it. Read below.

1. Only 3 MPs followed the procedure for resignation when they resigned en-mass from PNC & PNC coalition.

Procedures for resignation from a party is set under the OLIPAC: Procedure is for the MP to render his resignation letter to the Registrar of Political Partie & Candidates (RPPC). Announcing that you’re resigning if not sufficient, and not even recognized by the RPPC. You need to have it in writing, signed and delivered. Only then can the RPPC change your status. And if you intend to join another party, there much be a letter of acceptance from the party you’re joining. More than 20 MPs changed parties between April and May 2019, but according to the Registrar, only 3 MPs followed this procedure before new government was formed (Ipatas and two others who followed him). Technically, the others were still MPs of the party they resigned from when the new PM & government was formed.

2. OLIPPAC section 63: This section requires that after the national elections, party with the largest numbers of winning candidates are invited to form the government by the GG. This provision has been followed without fail since 2002 when it was enacted. However, the same provision doesn’t apply for the election of the PM during a vote of no confidence or in the case where PM resigns/dies and there is a vacancy. This inconsistency doesn’t help. Michael Somare’s NA had the majority to form the government in 2007, but was removed and Peter O’Neil with only 5 MPs in his PNC party became the PM. PNG Party has 25 MPs in the same coalition, the largest, when they replaced Somare. In the recent political crisis, Marape was nominated as opposition candidate for PM even though he did not belong to any party after announcing is resignation from PNC. If he were elected, he would have been the first PM without a political party in PNG, but I assume the world as well (though he was technically PNC MP even after resignation as he did not tender his resignation to RPPC – which would have been interesting because you would have had a PNC MP as PM leading the other side of the government – supported by other parties).

3. Fluidity: when you look at the MPs who change sides during political impasses like the one between April & May 2019, you begin to wonder if the Supreme Court has helped by declaring provisions of the OLIPPAC in 2010 invalid. Under the OLIPPAC, MPs were restricted from moving from one party to another like yo-yos. The court relied on ss. 50 of the Constitution that says individuals are free to run for office, vote, be elected etc., and that the OLIPPAC was restricting these movements. But what you have now as a result of this is, MPs moving at will, killing innocent animals in the process, and all these yoyo is legal, its constitutional. Imagine this, the Sohe MP moved sides 5 times under one month. Counting the fact that he moved from opposition to government after elections, that’s 6 movements before half his term in parliament is up.

I understand that the SC ruled to protect the MPs rights. But what about the rights of voters. Reason why voters voted out PNC MPs in Morobe was because they did not want any association with PNC, but Sam Basil led his 15 MPs, most of whom replaced PNC over to the PNC led government after government was formed. According to Supreme Court interpretation of ss.50 of the Constitution, these 15 MPs had the right to do that… But what about the rights of the voters who didn’t like PNC in the first place? Once you become an elected MP, you’re a custodian of your people’s rights, you have forfeited your individual rights….and the courts should treat the MP as corporate person and not necessarily an individual. Even if he wants to move sides, because of the voters rights invested in him, he should be restrained, unless the voters consent, maybe through a referendum of some sort.

The claim that they sought their people’s approval and they agreed is bullshit. You campaign the breath and length of your electorate over a month during elections but you get their views overnight? And what kind of people would change their views 6 times in one month?

PNG’s fluid politics: Winners & Losers from O’Neil to Marape

What determines ministerial portfolio allocations in PNG? Do MP numbers per region matter? Why do parties with big numbers allocated few portfolios or no portfolios? Winners and losers in from O’Neil to Marape.

Click the link below to read.

PNG’s fluid politics: winners and losers from O’Neill to Marape

Dear Mr Prime Minister, As for me and my house……

This I promise, As for me and my House…..

Dear Prime Minister James Marape, congratulations on you ascension to Prime Minister position. I share your dream of transforming this nation. So I promise you this:

I will go to work tomorrow, on time!

I will let the mother and her daughter get on the bus ahead of me.

I will get my morning coffee, and let the young girl keep the change.

I will take yesterday’s trash out and throw it in the bin as my first chore.

I will not chew buai whilst at work, and make sure my assistant follow.

I think my wantoks who come to my office to charge their mobile phones is wrong, including my uncle who uses the office machine to print his land appeal papers.

I’ll pay the full bus fare fee, and pay the bus fare for the high school student who rides on the same bus I get to work.

I promise to get home early to help my child with his math assignment.

My pick for the position vacant in our organization is the young graduate who has volunteered for NGOs for two years, even though my nephew graduated this year with the same qualification.

I will refund the extra change the trade store down the road gave me last Wednesday (I need the money but I guess its not fair to cheat a fellow Papua New Guinean, right?)

I can go on, but to put it in short, Mr Prime Minister, the challenges ahead are tough, so I promise you this:

As for me and my house, we will do the little things right

As for me and my friends, we will be transparent,

As for me and my organization, we will be accountable,

As for me and my church, we will love and care for the widow and the orphan,

I think we have given enough advise to the PM, so my fellow Papua New Guineans, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” JFK.

God bless PNG