1
THE PACIFIC PLAN
AND NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
Nic Maclellan
PO Box 338, Fitzroy, Victoria 3065 Australia
Email: [email protected]
The decision of the Pacific Plan Review team to include New Caledonia and French Polynesia in its
list of country visits is a welcome development.
A decade ago, the Forum Eminent Persons Group led by Sir Julius Chan saw closer integration
between the Pacific Islands Forum and the US and French territories as a crucial part of their vision
for the region. Sadly, the future status of the Pacific territories was effectively dropped from
successive revisions of the Plan and ignored in annual Pacific Plan declarations issued by Forum
leaders - the latest Pacific Plan Annual Report (2012) makes no mention of the Pacific territories.
The next version of the Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Co-operation and Integration
should make regional co-operation with the Pacific territories a central priority, with a clear
strategy, timetable and work program to achieve this goal.
Although the remaining Pacific territories have significant differences in population, economic
resources and political viability (see appendix), the Plan should reaffirm explicitly that Pacific
territories have the right to self-determination (whether to choose integration, greater
autonomy, free association or political independence). The Pacific Plan work program should
be directed towards achieving this political right, as well as broader economic, social and
cultural rights.
In 2004, one of the key themes from the Eminent Persons Group was the need to promote closer
links between the Forum member countries and the remaining Pacific territories.
“There is also a strong view that the Forum needs to better connect with Pacific communities
that currently do not have a voice in the Forum process. The key omissions are the French
and US Pacific territories. Observer status at the Forum for these entities would be a useful
step towards enhanced regional inclusiveness and cooperation. We ask Leaders to consider
integrating all the French and US territories into the Forum as observers, and to be open to
approaches from other non-sovereign Pacific territories. New criteria for participation
should be developed, grounded in the region’s interests.”1
The Special leaders’ retreat of the Pacific Islands Forum in April 2004 adopted these ideals:
“Encourage closer contacts with non-sovereign Pacific territories, through progressively
guaranteeing them observer status at Leaders’ meetings and associated meetings of the
Forum Officials Committee. New criteria for participation should be developed, grounded in
the region’s interests.”2
This vision reflected the reality that issues of self-determination and sovereignty in the territories had
been on the regional agenda in the years leading up to the creation of the Plan:
1
Statement by Rt Hon Sir Julius Chan GCMG, KBE, Chair of the Eminent Persons’ Group: The Eminent Persons’
Group Review of the Pacific Islands Forum, April 2004
2
Leaders’ decisions, Pacific Islands Forum Special Leaders’ Retreat, Auckland, 6 April 2004 [www.forumsec.org.fj ].
2






the 1998 Noumea Accord set New Caledonia on a path to self-determination, with the French
dependency gaining Forum observer status in 1999;
conflict in Bougainville during the 1990s led to the 1998 peace agreement and the 2005
Autonomous Bougainville Government;
the 1999 INTERFET intervention in East Timor was followed by the 2002 independence of
Timor-Leste, and the granting of Forum Special Observer Status;
the 2000 Biketawa Declaration linked conflict and development and flagged a greater role for
the Forum in regional security;
the “Jayapura Spring” in West Papua in 2000 raised awareness of self-determination in postcolonial nation states, as Indonesian President Gus Dur introduced Special Autonomy
policies and West Papuan nationalists gathered at a special Congress in Jayapura (with West
Papuan delegates attending the 2000 Forum in Tarawa as members of the Nauru delegation);
the Taui in French Polynesia in 2004 saw the election for the first time of a pro-independence
President and the granting of Forum observer status later that year.
The February 2005 working draft of the Pacific Plan circulated to Forum members proposed that:
“Closer association between the Forum and non-sovereign Pacific island countries and territories
will expand membership of regional agreements and associations for broadening and deepening
regional cooperation.” 3
Under Implementation strategies, the working draft listed just one element: “membership of regional
groupings, such as PICTA, PIASA etc. by Pacific territories for improved regional integration.” 4
However, by the time the actual Pacific Plan was adopted at Madang in 2005, the issue of the
territories had disappeared from the agenda. In the Kalibobo Roadmap (2005), there was no
discussion of the territories in the sections on governance and security (indeed the report stated that
the key regional security objective was “to ensure safety and security of maritime and aviation and
borders”5, a reflection of the Australian government’s concerns over border security at the time).
In Pacific Plan Declarations issued by Forum leaders in subsequent years, at Nadi (2006), Vava’u
(2007), Cairns (2009) etc., there was no mention of the integration (let alone decolonisation) of
Pacific territories.6
The revised version of the Plan (November 2007) lists a number of areas “For immediate
implementation (2006-2008)”, but action on the territories was not included. Under milestones, the
revised Plan noted “Further analysis may be needed for requirements of some of the wider
partnerships before proposals are submitted for consideration in later years.”7 The 2007 Plan
detailed “Success Indicators for Monitoring Progress”, but the only indicator for the territories was
that “An increasing number (to be determined) of Pacific Plan initiatives include Pacific
Territories.”8
These initiatives never eventuated: the 2012 Pacific Plan Annual Report makes no mention of the
Pacific territories.9 In the latest Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Annual report, there is no mention
3
From February 2005 working draft of “The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration”, p.7
[www.forumsec.org.fj ]
4
Working draft of “The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration”, February 2005, p25
5
Kalibobo roadmap on the Pacific Plan, Kalibobo Village, Madang, Papua New Guinea, 26 October 2005
6
Nadi decisions on the Pacific Plan, Nadi Fiji, 25 October 2006; Vava’u decisions on the Pacific Plan, Vava’u Kingdom
of Tonga, September 2007; ANNEX C Recommendations for Progressing the Pacific Plan, Cairns 2009
7
Attachment A. Implementation Strategy: Initiatives for the First Three Years (2006-2008), Pacific Plan (2007), p21
8
Attachment B. Pacific Plan 2006-2015: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, Pacific Plan (2007 version), item 58
9
Pacific Plan Annual Report 2012.
3
of the territories in sections relating to: Security (regional and international issues); Elections
monitoring; Human Security and Conflict Prevention; or Partners.10
Previous versions of the Pacific Plan failed to map out any practical short, medium, and long
term steps that could provide benefits to the people of the territories and the region as a whole.
The new version of the Plan should address this gap, making integration of the territories in
regional affairs a key priority.
The failure of Pacific Plan officials to include the territories in their work program is all the more
surprising given the systematic integration of the territories’ political leadership in annual Forum
meetings, as observers, special observers and associate members (see appendix). Beyond this, some
CROP agencies (such as SPC and SPREP) are actively involved in the US and French territories.
Australia and New Caledonia have held two rounds of formal dialogue between officials, a model
that could be extended to other territories.
The key challenge for the current review is to link the political with the developmental. SPC Director
General Jimmy Rodgers has recently stated that the Plan must: “consider how best to involve nonForum members in the governance arrangements at the political level, to ensure it is inclusive of all
island countries and territories.”11
Some Forum member countries like Australia have advocated that Pacific territories like New
Caledonia should become full members of the Forum, even before their final political status is
determined.12 Instead the Plan should mandate relevant CROP, donor and Pacific-based UN agencies
to develop a clear work plan for each of the territories, addressing their economic, social and cultural
development, as well as their political relationship with the independent nations of the region and
options for decolonisation.
Some of the remaining non-self-governing territories will never be viable political entities (such as
Pitcairn) while other administering powers will be reluctant to address self-determination issues
(such as the United States in Guam, which plays a crucial strategic role in the northern Pacific). In
spite of this, it’s clear that the issue of greater autonomy or political independence will be on the
region’s agenda over the coming decade:
 New Caledonia is moving to a decision on its political status after 2014 under the Noumea
Accord;
 Tokelau may revisit its decision on free association with New Zealand, after two previous
referenda under UN supervision gained majority support but not the necessary 2/3 majority;
 there will be potential changes to French Polynesia’s autonomy statute, with the UPLD
coalition pushing for re-inscription on the UN list of non-self-governing territories;
 Bougainville’s decade-long transition under an autonomous government ends in 2015 with
debates over future options underway in Port Moresby and Buka;
 Jakarta’s failure to effectively implement its own Special Autonomy Law in West Papua is
causing ongoing debate, with human rights violations continuing against the Melanesian
population.
10
See report of Political Governance and Security program, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Annual report 2011.
Implementing the Pacific Plan: SPC highlights its role, Pacific Plan Review Team press statement 17/13, Monday 6
May 2013
12
For example, Australia’s former Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs Richard Marles publicly called for
New Caledonia to be granted full Forum membership now, even before a decision on New Caledonia’s political status
after 2014. This call echoes the request by a number of senior leaders of the Government of New Caledonia, including
President Harold Martin. For discussion, see « Partenariat stratégique entre l’Australie et la France », Tahiti-Pacifique
magazine, August 2012.
11
4
In the short term, there are a number of practical actions that could be taken by the Pacific Islands
Forum Secretariat and Forum member countries to build closer links with Pacific territories, and
assist the transition process to greater autonomy or independence:
Working with UN specialised agencies
The unprecedented visit to the 2011 Forum leaders meeting by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
has begun to expand UN-Pacific relations.
In June 2012, the heads of UN missions operating in the Pacific met in Suva for the first time with
representatives of CROP agencies to strengthen collaboration and coordination: the issue of CROP
and UN collaboration in the territories should be added to the agenda of the next meeting, and
agencies should review their current programs and develop new initiatives.
The Forum should work to ensure that UN institutions and specialised agencies in the Pacific play a
greater role in furthering the process of self-determination in the remaining US and French
territories. With a few honourable exceptions, most UN specialised agencies operating in the Pacific
are not fulfilling their mandate to provide assistance to Non-Self- Governing Territories and “take all
appropriate measures, within their respective spheres of competence, to ensure the full
implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and other relevant resolutions.”13
It is encouraging to note the efforts of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to coordinate and integrate its program for Tokelau with New Zealand’s aid agency, supported by
AusAID (although the Australian aid agency cut 2/3 of its tiny budget for Tokelau in 2012-13, as
part of the diversion of $375 million from the aid budget towards Australia’s detention of asylum
seekers). More work could be done by UNDP offices in Port Moresby, Suva and Apia to integrate
other non-self-governing territories into their work program.
This could also involve greater efforts by UNICEF, UNFPA and other agencies to facilitate the
participation of appointed and elected representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories in meetings
and conferences in the Pacific.
Practical actions could include:




Formal dialogue on NSGTs between UN Resident Representatives, specialised agencies,
CROP members and Pacific governments
Extend and integrate work with UN specialised agencies
Lobby for observer status for the territories in relevant UN commissions such as the
Commission on Sustainable Development, the Commission on Social Development, etc.
Fund and support participation of the NSGTs in world conferences and special sessions of the
UN General Assembly in the economic, social, cultural and development sphere, Permanent
Forum on Indigenous issues etc.
Scholarships and training
With the mandate of a revised Pacific Plan, the Forum could better co-ordinate and promote offers by
member states of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories (in
13
Some agencies and programs, like the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNISDR take this mandate in the
territories seriously, recognising that health and natural disasters don’t respect colonial boundaries. However other key
agencies like UNICEF, UNFPA and UNDP do not have extensive operations in the territories (with the exception of
Tokelau which is well integrated into regional affairs).
5
line with the UN Secretary-General’s report and the December 2003 UN General Assembly
Resolution on the issue).
Human resource development is a central challenge for decolonisation, as the UN Special Rapporteur
on the rights of indigenous peoples James Anaya has noted in relation to New Caledonia: “While
there are 528 Kanaks in the civil service today (out of a total of 3,660), only 57 are in positions of
middle or upper management…There are no Kanak lawyers, judges, university lecturers, police
chiefs or doctors, and there are only six Kanak midwives registered with the State health system, out
of a total of 300 midwives in New Caledonia.” 14
The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat has an under-utilised scholarship scheme for students from
New Caledonia, but few people know about it. The Forum should encourage key donors to the
Pacific to increase scholarships for students from the territories to attend regional institutions such as
the Fiji School of Medicine, the University of Papua New Guinea and the University of the South
Pacific.
Major donors like Australia should be encouraged to review their scholarship programs to allow
students from the territories to attend Pacific institutions as well as Australian ones. While students
from the territories have obtained Australian Awards scholarships (AAS) to study at Australian
institutions15, the granting of Australian Awards Pacific Scholarships (AAPS) to study at regional
institutions like USP and FSchM can only be used by Forum island countries and not by young
people from the territories.
There are ways that larger Forum members like Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea
could extend this work. Australia currently holds a rotating seat on the UN Security Council, while
Fiji and Papua New Guinea are members of the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation. Subregional bodies like the Melanesian Spearhead Group and Polynesian Leaders Group can also play a
role, with the FLNKS of New Caledonia about to assume the role of MSG Chair and the PLG
welcoming non-sovereign Polynesian delegations from Rapanui, Hawai’i and Aotearoa to its
meeting in 2012.
The Plan could encourage practical support. Australian initiatives like the Kiribati-Australia Nursing
Initiative (KANI), which trained some 40 young i-Kiribati nurses in recent years, could be duplicated
for territories like New Caledonia or Tokelau which have significant shortages of health personnel.
Volunteer programs from Australia, NZ, PNG and Fiji could contribute to changing mandates in the
territories (e.g. the government of New Caledonia is now responsible for primary and secondary
education, and there is a role for native English speakers to assist with teacher training and
curriculum as English language courses are introduced throughout the school system).
Practical actions could include:
 Integration and co-ordination of aid programs (as with Australia, NZ and UNDP in Tokelau)
 Targeted scholarships and training
 Extend volunteer programs to NSGTs
 Granting observer status to delegates from non-sovereign Pacific territories and communities
and funding participation at relevant Pacific meetings.
14
“The Situation of the Kanak people of New Caledonia, France, Report by UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous
Peoples James Anaya, UN Human Rights Council, 23 November 2011, A/HRC/18/35/Add.6
15
In 2011 for example, there were 3 Australian Award Scholarships to New Caledonia; 3 to French Polynesia and one to
Wallis and Futuna (together with one short term Endeavour award for New Caledonia). No scholarships were issued that
year to Tokelau, Guam, American Samoa or other territories.
6
Political co-ordination
There are many other actions that could be taken by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and Forum
member countries to build closer links with Pacific territories, and assist the transition process to
greater autonomy or independence at the political level:




Provision of information on decolonisation options, to improve understanding of choice
between integration, autonomy or independence
Funding and support of UN Special Committee on Decolonisation regional seminars in the
region
Special Missions to the territories co-ordinated between the UN, MSG and Forum
Extend the Forum Ministerial Committee on New Caledonia to other NSGTs
Appendix:
Administering
power
Political Status
Tokelau
New Zealand
Territory
New Caledonia
France
Statut
particulier
(Sui generis
collectivity)
French
Polynesia
France
Collectivité
d’outre-mer
(Overseas
collectivity)
Collectivité
d’outre-mer
(Overseas
collectivity)
United States of Unincorporated
Guam
America
organised
territory
United States of Unincorporated
American
America
unorganised
Samoa
territory
Commonwealth United States of Unincorporated
America
organised
of the Northern
territory
Mariana
(US
Islands (CNMI)
Commonwealth)
United Kingdom British Overseas
Pitcairn
territory
Wallis and
Futuna
Listed as NSGT
with UN
Special
Committee on
Decolonisation
YES (1946)
Forum
relationship
YES (1986)
Observer (1999)
then
Associate
member (2006)
NO
Observer (2004)
then
Associate
member (2006)
NO
Observer (2006)
YES (1946)
Observer (2011)
YES (1946)
Observer (2011)
NO
Observer (2011)
Observer
(2005)
France
YES (1946)