Pacific should not be used as a testing ground

Tuesday, 1 March 2011, 2:36 pm

Press Release: Pacific Network on Globalisation

Pacific should not be used as a testing ground

1 March 2011

Two campaign organizations, based in Fiji and Papua New Guinea, have joined forces to denounce plans for the Pacific to be used as the testing ground for deep-sea mining. ACT NOW! and the Pacific Network on Globalization say the Pacific region has already suffered the negative social and environmental impacts of industrial mining on land and should not take further risks with the marine environment. “Rather than allowing ourselves to be the testing ground for
multinational companies and foreign governments,

Pacific countries should focus on new approaches to our own development that are consistent with our lifestyle, history and social and political realities”, says Effrey Dademo, Program Manager with ACT NOW!

Nautilus Minerals has already been granted a license by the PNG government to develop the worldʼs first deep-sea mine and the European Union has announced plans to help 15 Pacific island countries to develop laws and policies to
facilitate such operations across the region. Maureen Penjueli, coordinator for PANG, says Pacific island countries do not have the resources, capacity or experience to effectively manage and monitor large resource projects and
government should focus on supporting their own people rather than large corporate interests.

“We have had an alternative development model forced upon on us by outsiders but it is clear that model is not working for us and, indeed, is failing in the West as well. We, as Pacific people, need to find our own voice and return to a focus on our own strengths and knowledge base.”

“Deep-sea mining is likely to be another catastrophic failure for the region and
we don’t need it.”

Statement on Gender, Economic and Climate Justice by Pacific Women Activists

We are local and young women activists in various countries of the Pacific,  gathered in Suva, Fiji on 6-9 September 2010 for the Regional Training and  Consultation on Gender, Economic and Climate Justice that was convened by the Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) and the Pacific Network on Globalization (PANG). The Pacific region is confronted by the onslaughts of market forces through processes of trade, financial and services liberalization, and the implication of environmental changes on food security, water scarcity, sea level rise and intrusion. These are
causing major upheavals and chaos in our social relationships, communities and societies at large.


In this context, we need policies and programs that empower communities, families and individuals, rather then exposing us to market assault and the changes in climate that affect land, livelihoods, handicrafts, indigenous medicines, staple food, symbolic wealth and our caring social relationships
that include women’s informal networks of mutual support.

While we are in solidarity with the struggle of people’s movements and nongovernmental organizations, a political response based on a feminist interlinkages perspective on gender, economic, and climate justice, is yet another way by which we can contribute to the development of an alternative paradigm of sustainable development in the Pacific. Such a feminist approach utilizes concepts of social reproduction and women’s right over our bodies and sexualities as core principles in our political analyses and actions. By this we mean that care of individuals should not be bargained away by governments when they negotiate trade and environmental agreements like PACER PLUS, WTO, UNFCC, CBD, etc. In guaranteeing social reproduction, such as health, education, water, livelihoods, etc. the state must also protect and promote the right of women to control our bodies and our sexualities in all places -our homes, schools, communities, etc.This means putting in place a policy, legislative and program environment that:

(a) gives justice to women who are physically and sexually abused and denied
their sexual & reproductive health life & rights;

(b) provides equal access, control and ownership of resources of both land
and the sea;

(c) ensures women’s meaningful participation in decision making in politics
and citizen’s mobilizations;

(d) supports the empowerment and voices of Pacific women to confront aspects of our culture that are hampering our development and autonomy; and

(e) ends all forms of discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, class,
gender identity, sexual orientation and abilities.


We will therefore adopt various strategies aimed at promoting a feminist inter-linkages analyses and activities aimed at: our organizations; constituents and allies; and regional platforms facilitated through
intergovernmental or social dialogues.


We also strongly commit to continue networking with each other as we continually strengthen and recreate a vibrant regional Pacific feminist women’s movement that engages in a politically interlinked way - locally, nationally, regionally and internationally.




Dated: 20 October 2010


This statement has been endorsed by:
Lice Cokanasiga, Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), Fiji;
Nerida-Ann Hubert, Nauru Youth Council, Nauru;
Josephine Kalsuak, SPC/RRRT, Vanuatu;
Rosa Koian, Bismarck Ramu Group, Papua New Guinea;
Eweata Maata, Kiribati;
Arieta Moceica, Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC); Fiji;
Reeti Onorio, School of Development Studies, USP, Kiribati;
Ender Rence, Solomon Islands Development Trust, Solomon Islands;
Lu'isa Samani, Women's and Children's Crisis Centre, Tonga;
Kairangi Samuela, Cook Islands Women's Counselling Centre: Punanga
Taturu, Cook Islands;
Filomena Tuivanualevu, Fiji Women's Rights Movement, Fiji;
Sainimere Veitata, Nesian350, Fiji.

NZ Govt ambushing Pacific on trade - ARENA

Wednesday, 06 May 2009, 7:49 am Press Release: Arena

Arena accuses NZ Govt of ambushing Pacific on trade deal

This weekend’s meeting of Pacific trade ministers in Auckland to progress the launch of PACER+ trade negotiations has all the hallmarks of an Australian and New Zealand ambush, the Arena network said today.

“Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said last Friday that he and the Australians have agreed on a joint strategy to link aid and trade ahead of a meeting with Pacific trade ministers on the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER),” Arena spokesperson Dr Jane Kelsey said.

“This sounds like the bullying tactics of old, with aid used as a carrot or stick to get Pacific Island Countries to agree to what the ‘big brothers’ are demanding.”

“The current Solomon Islands ‘roadmap’ for PACER+ has two sets of square brackets – one for the slow process proposed by the Pacific Island Countries, and the other for the rapid timeline sought by Australia and New Zealand.”

The agenda for the weekend’s meeting suggests they plan to push Pacific ministers to agree to a date for launching the negotiations before the senior officials meet in Vanuatu in mid-May, Jane Kelsey said.

“The studies on PACER+ that will be discussed on the weekend have mainly been commissioned by Australia and New Zealand to bolster their case.”

“The ‘consensus’ approach to decision making means once Pacific countries have been pressured into an agreement even informally, Australia and New Zealand will insist on a consensus to change it.”

“At this stage not all the Pacific trade ministers have agreed to come to Auckland, which will further undermine any claim to consensus.”

“Fiji also thinks it is still invited, although New Zealand says otherwise.”

“The government pretends that its aim is to promote Pacific development. NGOs and churches in the region point out that it is really about ideology and old colonial powers using trade agreements as a weapon to dominate the region.”

Arena supports the call for the PACER negotiations to be abandoned in favour of a genuine development programme for the region, Jane Kelsey said.

Ends.

About Arena:

Arena is an Aotearoa/New Zealand network of individuals and organizations committed to resist corporate ‘globalization’ in all its forms. Arena stands for an alternative development model based on self-determination, social justice, genuine people-centered development and environmental sustainability.

PORGERA IN FLAMES: Mining Multinational Ordered Military Force burns down hundreds of homes in PNG

By Sakura Saunders and Tanya Roberts-Davis
Hundreds of homes in the Porgera valley of Papua New Guinea are being set aflame. Local human rights organizations in Porgera claim that these fires are part of a strategy to clear people out of the way for the expansion of Barrick Gold's Porgera mine.

On April 27th, without prior warning, the indigenous land owners of the villages surrounding Barrick Gold’s Porgera open pit mine were violently evicted by a police and military operation with 200 troops. “Operation Ipili” was launched during the middle of the day to allegedly make way for the expansion of a Barrick gold mine. This effective State of Emergency in Porgera was motivated by situation reports presented by Barrick (PNG) Limited, according to Laigap Porgera Member of Parliament Phillip Kikala.

Households of third generation landowners were purposefully razed to the ground, causing residents to flee for fear of their lives. According to eyewitnesses, eighty houses in Ungima, two houses in Yokolama and four houses in Kulapi had been torched within the first 2 days of the operation. By April 30, community reports put that number at close to 600.

Click on image for a larger version

PORGERA IN FLAMES: Mining Multinational Recommended Military Force burns down hundreds of homes in PNG

Click on image for a larger version

PORGERA IN FLAMES: Mining Multinational Recommended Military Force burns down hundreds of homes in PNG

According to the Akali Tange Association, a human rights organization in Porgera, none of the residents were given time to gather any of their possessions. Anyone who spoke up was reportedly physically attacked by the security forces and some were arrested.

Increasing numbers of people are reporting injuries, as are those who are being detained. Although the landowners received no formal warning that they were to see their houses destroyed – according to the ATA – Barrick Gold had demanded that the land be cleared of local villagers, some of whom are small scale artisanal miners eking out a living beside the mine.

Barrick Gold’s personnel claim the land owners are ‘illegal’ and last week, issued a memorandum calling on them to stop their subsistence activities and leave their homelands. The chief landowner, Nixon Mangape, recently alerted their local Member of Parliament as well as media outlets about the impending threats from the mining company. To date, there has been no acknowledgement that villagers have been demanding compensation from Barrick if the confiscation of their land was to move forward, given their resulting loss of livelihood, possessions and ancestral territory. Now, these communities are suffering from brutal attacks by security agents and faced with the situation that their homes – with all their possessions – have been burned to the ground, in clear violation of national and international legal precedents.

Jethro Tulin, Executive Officer of ATA traveled to Canada this week – along with other international affected communities – to tell shareholders at Barrick Gold's annual general meeting about the on-going human rights crisis in Porgera. As Mr. Tulin traveled to Canada to attend Barrick's AGM, the Papua New Guinea government sent 200 heavily armed troops to the Porgera area. He has since been receiving regular updates about landowner's houses being searched for incriminating materials and burnt to the ground.

"Barrick Gold and the Government of Papua New Guinea must immediately start to address the catastrophic problem in Porgera pro-actively rather than over reacting with high level security installations and branding it as a law and order problem. Calling a State of Emergency is not the right method to fix these extensive and irreversible damages, the ordinary people are already victims of what as gone wrong."

Last year the Norwegian Pension Fund divested $230 million CAD from Barrick Gold for ethical concerns related to the Porgera Mine.

Related

• http://protestbarrick.net/
• http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/04/30/18592070.php

Viewpoint: Labour mobility deals

Under pressure to sign on to new free trade agreements, Pacific Islands governments interested in securing positive outcomes for their peoples see deals on labour mobility as potential development gains. But is this the right approach? And what are the potential costs?

---

Islands Business (Suva) | August 2008

Viewpoint: LABOUR MOBILITY DEALS

Wesley Morgan

Under pressure to sign on to new free trade agreements, Pacific Islands governments interested in securing positive outcomes for their peoples see deals on labour mobility as potential development gains. But is this the right approach? And what are the potential costs?

For much of the past decade the Pacific Islands Countries have faced pressure from developed-country partners and aid donors to move towards trade liberalisation through new free trade agreements (FTAs).

Free trade agreements involving the region include the Pacific Islands Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union, and the extension of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) with Australia and New Zealand to include deeper “economic integration”.

The move towards free trade is driven largely by the interests of business (exporters, service suppliers and potential new investors) based in the Pacific’s developed-country ‘partners’.

Businesses in Australia and New Zealand, in particular, want to see tariffs reduced on their exports to the Pacific and changes to laws in the region to allow multinational corporations to establish new enterprises and invest (and remove profits) without obligations to the countries in which they invest.

Concerns have been raised by many in the region, particularly civil society and academics, that these free trade deals will lead to rising inequality, dramatic losses in government revenue, de-industrialisation, business closures, job losses, a reduction in the quality and supply of essential services and the closing off of important ‘policy space’ that governments use to stimulate development.

Pacific governments have approached this push towards FTAs from a defensive position-understanding that trade liberalisation with much larger economies will have very real costs for the Pacific Islands, but hoping to win some concessions in areas of key interest to the region.

The link between labour mobility and FTAs

One of the areas Pacific governments have been keen to gain concessions in is in the area of labour mobility. The unique challenges faced by most Pacific Islands (small size, distance from markets, high transport costs, etc.) means that relatively few investors are interested in putting their money into the region.

Understanding that capital is not coming to labour in the region, governments are calling for the introduction of carefully regulated labour movement schemes that would see unskilled and semi-skilled workers temporarily move to developed countries to work-increasing remittance flows to the islands, improving skills for returning workers, and easing economic and social pressures created through unemployment (especially youth unemployment).

The temporary movement of labour (not permanent migration) is linked to FTAs through agreements on trade in services.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) generally forms the basis for bilateral FTAs that include agreements on services-trade.

The ‘temporary movement of natural persons’ (people who travel to another country to deliver a service) is known as Mode 4 under the GATS.

Pacific governments have spent much of the past decade arguing that concessions on Mode 4 labour mobility should be included in any FTAs with the EU, or with Australia and New Zealand-and this has become a central negotiating position for the region.

So important does the Pacific hold temporary labour movement that current negotiations with the EU for a comprehensive FTA (called an Economic Partnership Agreement) have stalled because the EU is refusing to offer any new concessions on Mode 4 labour mobility. This has become the ‘red line’ non-negotiable regional position in the EPA negotiations.

At a recent seminar on EPA negotiations, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea, Pacific trade ministers and regional trade negotiators told EU ambassadors they have “no mandate” to discuss services liberalisation until the EU gives way.

PNG Foreign Minister Sam Abal said the EU was “hearing, but not listening to the Pacific Countries” when it came to their key demand.

The EU forced Fiji and PNG to initial an interim free trade deal (covering goods trade) in late 2007, under threats the EU would raise tariffs on tuna and sugar exports to the EU, and is seeking to conclude a full FTA in 2008 (covering issues like services and investment, government procurement and intellectual property rights. At the time of writing, Pacific states had in fact requested a suspension on EPA Trade in Services negotiations with the EU, with a view to potentially returning to the negotiating table in the future.

An unrealistic option?

The EU has made it clear they will not offer concessions for movement of the categories of workers proposed by the Pacific, largely because immigration is the responsibility of Member States. In a letter from the European Commission’s deputy director for trade, Karl Falkenberg and the director-general for development, Stefano Manservisi, to the (then) Pacific lead negotiator (dated October 20, 2006), the EC stated the Pacific’s “ambitions in this area go far beyond the possible offers we will be able to make in the end”.

Evaluating the costs

The Pacific prepared a raft of proposals for the EPA negotiations to try to blunt some of the more damaging aspects of a free trade agreement with the EU and to argue for movement on issues of key interest to the Pacific (including labour mobility, but also improved Rules of Origin for tuna exports, innovative proposals for targeting investment at small enterprises, and duty/quota free access to EU markets for exports).

Not only have most of the Pacific’s proposals been rejected, but also, by focusing on what ‘concessions’ the Pacific could gain from FTAs (including labour mobility), Pacific governments have been drawn into the notion that FTAs will offer benefits for the region-ignoring the very real costs that will be incurred by signing these deals.

Pacific civil society, church groups and trade unions have all pointed out that FTAs will have negative consequences for Pacific societies that should not be underestimated.

Organisations like the Pacific Council of Churches, the Pacific Network on Globalisation, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM), the Ecumenical Centre for Research, Education, and Advocacy (ECREA) and Oxfam NZ have highlighted the fact that FTAs will lead to dramatic falls in government revenue, business closures, job losses, an undermining of access to health, education and basic services, increased pressure for privatisation, restricted access to medicine and educational materials (through strict intellectual property rules), a reduction in policy options for creating local employment and stimulating local business, and restrictions on the ability of Pacific governments to regulate foreign investment in the social interest. These negative consequences arising from FTAs cannot simply be ignored, while looking for illusive gains-like new labour mobility schemes.

Separating development and free trade

When Pacific governments consider ways relationships with developed countries could be improved with positive development outcomes for the Pacific, it should be noted that there is no need for new proposals to be included within FTAs.

At the moment, Australia and NZ are looking at ways to induce Pacific governments to enter into a new FTA (dubbed ‘PACER+’) and are looking at using seasonal worker programmes as a ‘bargaining chip’ in negotiations set to get underway later this year.

Certainly New Zealand Trade Minister Phil Goff sees New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employment (RSE) scheme, initiated in April 2007 as leverage for the creation of the PACER+ agreement.

In March this year, he explained; “it’s something the Pacific nations have been seeking and would be a major inducement for those countries to become part of an integrated economy in the Pacific region”.

NZ’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs sees RSE as “an excellent example of the benefits of regional integration. It may help stimulate deeper economic integration through the Pacific Plan and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations”.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will formally announce a pilot seasonal workers’ scheme (similar to the NZ scheme) at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Niue in August. Australia can be expected, like NZ, to link this scheme implicitly, if not explicitly, to the PACER negotiations.

Pacific governments should be extremely wary of any such linkage.

The NZ seasonal labour scheme is employer driven - horticulture operators in NZ are struggling to find workers domestically, and are keen to find reliable labour from the Pacific.

In Australia, the National Farmers Federation has come out fully in favour of a similar scheme, anticipating a shortfall of 22,000 unskilled workers in Australia’s $7 billion-a-year horticulture industry as the drought ends.

With farmers in Australia and NZ desperate for workers and Pacific countries keen to supply them, such a scheme is a ‘win-win’. It would be completely cynical for Australia and NZ to use a seasonal workers’ scheme as a bargaining concession in negotiations.

Pacific governments should be asking whether it’s more feasible to pursue labour mobility agreements completely separate from FTAs. New Zealand’s RSE is an example of a temporary labour migration scheme (employing thousands of Pacific Islanders) that is not linked to an FTA.

As the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions explains: “If the seasonal labour development plan is a genuine development opportunity, then it should not be linked to discussion around free trade agreements”.

Some close followers of the labour mobility debate have argued that labour mobility needs to be included within an FTA in order to make any workers scheme binding-and thereby preventing governments in Australia or NZ sending thousands of workers home when unemployment rises, or if political relations sour with a particular country (like Fiji’s exclusion from NZ’s current seasonal workers scheme).

But we know already the EU, Australia and NZ do not believe GATS Mode 4 is supposed to cover workers in seasonal labour schemes, and it seems the binding nature of an agreement is likely to be more apparent than real.

The recent NZ/China FTA relegates short-term access to NZ’s employment market for Chinese on a working holiday to a side-letter with onerous qualifications. NZ can suspend the scheme for political reasons (in the event of a military coup for example) or end it with three months notice if unemployment rises dramatically. The issue here is the separating out of what should be a mutually beneficial labour mobility arrangement that has development benefits from FTAs that could have a whole raft of negative consequences for the Pacific.

Development in the Pacific: new visions required

One advantage of the Pacific’s defensive position in relation to the current free trade agenda is Pacific governments have (to a degree) had to ask what development outcomes can be gained through trade arrangements.

There seems to be a growing acknowledgement that the Pacific’s key offensive priorities, such as setting Rules of Origin for exports, development of regional fisheries, attracting investment, labour mobility, quarantine requirements or regional assistance, are not necessarily best served by FTAs at all.

The insistence of government and trade officials in Australia, NZ and the EU on linking aid with a free trade agenda is a form of neo-colonialism that ignores the Pacific’s right to set its own trade agenda.

Pacific people need a model of development that is sustainable and culturally and environmentally suitable. We need a renewed focus on addressing the real constraints in the Pacific-like access to health and education services, improving key infrastructure (transport, electricity, telecommunications, etc.), building service industry capacity (in tourism for example), supporting niche agricultural and industrial products, developing new markets (and improving market access) for Pacific exports, improving management and local value-adding for Pacific resources (in areas like mining, fishing, and forestry) and targeting investment at small and medium enterprises.

Labour mobility schemes can improve remittance flows, provide skills training, and ease unemployment pressures in the Pacific.

However, addressing the constraints faced by Pacific societies should not be linked with selling our sovereignty and exposing our markets to unequal foreign competition in binding FTAs.

source: Islands Business

see also

Australia Bully of the Pacific

Australia Bullying Pacific Over Free Trade Deal

Race is on for minerals

20th anniversay of Ouvea incident to be commemorated

To the fallen Melanesian freedom fighters and their families, love & solidairty from across the ocean.

In New Caledonia, a Kanak organization is preparing a commemoration of an important moment for the French Territory's pro-independence movement. Last Wednesday, the Committee of the 20 Years organized a gathering in the capital, Noumea, and more is planned for the next days at Ouvea. In April and May 1988, a clash between Kanak pro-independence activists and French authorities ended with 25 people dead. The incident led to talks between Paris and the pro-independence movement which lead to the Matignon agreements signed in June 1988.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/programguide/stories/200804/s2222609.htm

"The Kanak women have well understood how important it is that they take part in the struggle for liberation. They take part in the political struggle not only to defend the rights of the people, but also to defend their own rights and to better their situation. They did not stop at political discourse, but they have taken an active part in the field and on the front lines such as barricades against colonial military forces and guerilla tactics." --Bertha Nare. Kanaky/New Caledonia

FIRST PEOPLES

The Melanesian Kanaks arrived in the islands 3,000 years ago from Papua New Guinea.

They are related to their northern neighbours both ethnically and culturally.

The mountainous main island and scattered islands have resulted in distinct cultural groups, represented by the 20 distinct languages that existed when Europeans first arrived.

POPULATION

Kanaky, also known as New Caledonia, is home to the Melanesian Kanak people.

There are presently 187,784 (1996) people living in Kanaky. Only 42.5% of them are Kanaks, making them a minority in their own lands. They are joined by Europeans, mainly French (37%), Wallisian 8% and Polynesians, Indonesians and Vietnamese.

THE LAND

Other names for Kanaky are New Caledonia or Territoire des Nouvelle-Caledonie et Dependances.

A Melanesian nation, it lies off the north-east coast of Australia.

Kanaky consists of five inhabited islands. The largest is New Caledonia, or La Grande Terre. It is the second largest island in the Pacific, after Aotearoa/New Zealand and hosts the capital Noumea.

There are also two island groups, the Huons and the Loyalty Islands which includes Ouvea.

The nation is about 250 miles long and 30 miles wide.

POLITICAL STATUS

Kanaky is not independent. It has been an Overseas Territory of France since 1956.

In 1988, the Matignon Accord promised a degree of political and economic self-autonomy, with France maintaining control of foreign and military affairs, treasury and immigration.

The Matignon Accords were to lead, in 1998, to a referendum on independence. But in 1998 another agreement, called the "Noumea Accord", was signed. Setting guidelines towards independence in 2013 oe 2018, the Accord was brokered between the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), the loyalist Rally for Caledonia in the Republic (RPCR) and the French government. A Kanaky-wide referendum in November 1998 will ask the 200,000 population whether they agree with the Accord.

If accepted the Accord would lead to new elections in mid-1999 for three Provincial assemblies and a New Caledonia Congress. France will then transfer some powers in the first five year term to the Congress - labour legislation, local employment and foreign trade. Other powers that would be handed over in the following decade include mining rights, regional relations and social services.

But France will retain control of crucial sovereign powers such as defence, foreign relations, police, justice and currency for the entire 15 to 20 year period.

Those entitled to vote in the independence referendum would include all those who would have been entitled to vote in the 1998 referendum - Kanaks and people who had lived in the nation at the time of the Matignon Accord - and others who had been born in Kanaky, or had one parent born in Kanaky or those who, in 2013, could prove 20 years continuous residence.

This Agreement would eraze the Kanaks' sole right to self-determination as the Indigenous people. The UN promised in 1960, and repeated in 1980, that Indigenous peoples alone have the right to decide the future political status of their nation.

This promise is outlined in the UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of December 1960, and supported by resolution 65/118 of December 1980.

The referendum at the end of the 15-20 year period will focus on the sovereign powers of Kanaky/New Caledonia, accession to an international status of full responsibility and the transformation from citizenship to nationality.

Presently the French President is the Chief of State and is represented in Kanaky by a High Commissioner appointed by the French Ministry of the Interior. That High Commissioner is President of an eight member Counseil de Gouvernement which are elected by the Territorial Assembly, which deals only with issues internal to the nation. The High Commissioner controls all government services.

Kanaky/New Caledonia's involvement in its national affairs is limited to one representative in the French Senate and two Deputies in the French National Assembly.

ECONOMY

Kanaky is dependent on French financial aid. Most of Kanaky's income is derived from nickel, of which it has the world's largest known reserve (20%). Other minerals are also mined including chrome, iron, cobalt and manganese.

The economy is threatened by the global drop in demand for nickel.

The 1988 Matignon Accord committed France to improve infrastructure and services and to stimulate economic growth of its colony. This was only carried out in a limited form. Economic power continues to reside with the European settlers in Noumea, while the Kanak areas are under resourced.

MILITARY

Kanaky/New Caledonian military affairs are controlled by France and hosts a French naval base.

HISTORY SINCE EUROPEAN INVASION

British Arrive

When the British Captain Cook arrived in 1775 he estimated 70,000 Kanaks lived in the islands. Cook named the islands "New Caledonia" after the Scottish highlands.

French Arrive

The protestant London Missionary Society followed after 50 years, leading the way for the French Catholics in 1843. Increasing tensions between the religious factions led to the French Catholics winning control over the islands.

France annexed the island nation in 1850.

Then, between 1864 and 1897, France established a penal colony. The majority of the 20,000 convicts transported to the islands chose to remain and settle there.

This coincided with the development of the nickel (1864) and copper (1875) industries.

As a result the Kanaks were pushed off their lands and into infertile reserves on the edges of the mountains. By 1900, the Kanaks had access to only 10% of their islands.

Loss of land, and therefore livelihood, coupled with diseases introduced with immigration, decimated the Kanak population until only 27,000 survived.

The Kanaks did not give away their sovereignty. They resisted the colonial presence. The Canaque Revolt of 1878 was only one example. But the Kanaks were repressed by the European superior weaponry.

Independence Stopped

Following Second World War, the UN placed Kanaky on its Decolonisation List of Non-Self-Governing Territories. But France unilaterally removed it from the list and made it an Overseas Territory.

In 1951 France granted the Kanaks and French settlers the right to vote and allowed Kanaks to move out of the reservations in which they had been contained.

In 1957 the French established a Territorial Assembly, a move which was seen as a first step towards independence.

But then, in 1958, General De Gaulle was elected as French President. He abolished the Territorial Assembly and reinstated the regime of repression.

Resistance

The Kanaks had long resisted the French colonialists.

In 1878 the Canaque Revolt called for independence. The French successfully suppressed the indigenous endeavour to re-establish their sovereignty.

The independence movement re-orgranised in 1981 when the Kanak leader of the Union Caledonienne was shot in his home.

In 1984 the Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak Socialiste (FLNKS) was formed. It called for a boycott of the Territorial Assembly elections and established a Provisional Government.

The French settlers responded by massacring Kanak youth.

On January 7, 1985, the FLNKS announced a referendum on independence to be held in July 1985, and to be followed in January 1986 with self-government in association with France.

Again the French settlers responded with violence. French President Mitterand moved to establish greater autonomy in the colony but this was barely implemented when Prime Minister Chirac stationed troops in the islands.

The UN re-inscribed Kanaky on the Decolonisation List of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1986 but the repressive French regime continued. Tensions mounted and another massacre of Kanak youth took place in 1987.

Ouvea

Then in 1988 the Ouvea Massacre occurred.

Responding to a pending election for the Territorial Assembly, Kanak youth took French gendarmes prisoner. The French government responded with 300 troops. Fifteen youth were killed, including those who were surrendering.

Matignon Accord

International outrage at the massacre resulted in talks between the French government, French settlers and the Kanaks.

The Matignon Accord was signed by the Kanaks in August 1988. It was then voted on in France by 80% of French citizens.

Tension continued to mount however and resulted in the assassination of Kanak leaders Jean-Marie Tjibaou and Yeiwene Yeiwene, the two Kanaks who were involved in signing the Matignon Accord.

The Matignon Accord promises a referendum on self-government in 1998, but as the Kanaks are a minority in their own lands, independence is considered an unlikely outcome.

Many Kanaks were angry that independence will not be guaranteed after a ten years wait. They argued that the Matignon Accord gave France time to change the political power structure, gearing it even more so towards the Caldoches (pro-French settlers).

The Accord divided the country up for shared administration by the Caldoches and the Kanaks. The Caldoches maintained control of the predominantly white urban and militarised area around Noumea, while the Kanaks gained control over the less developed rural areas. Establishing a limited local autonomy, France retained control over foreign and military affairs, land ownership, treasury and immigration.

Noumea Accord

The Matignon Accords was to lead to a referendum on independence in 1998 but another agreement was signed.

If accepted this agreement progressively hand political power to the Kanaky population until full independence is achieved in 2013 or 2018. France however would continue to control military and foreign affairs, immigration, police and currency until that time.

A referendum will be held in Kanaky in November 1998 to determine whether or not the Agreement is acceptable to the people.

Colonisation Continues

The French value Kanaky not only for its mineral deposits but also for its position which enables them to maintain political, military and economic power in the Pacific.

After the US, France has the second largest military presence in the Pacific. A naval base in Kanaky helps them to keep that control.

The Kanaks are determined to reclaim sovereignty over their own lands.

ISSUES

Sovereignty

A recent agreement, called the "Noumea Accord", will be taken to a public referendum in December 1998. This Accord replaces the Matignon Accord which guaranteed that a referendum on independence would be held in 1998. It is the result of negotiations between Kanak, European settler communities and the French government.

If accepted at the December referendum the Noumea Accord result in reforms leading to a referendum on independence in between 15 to 20 years.

This will include progressive changes to the local political control and structure. While Kanaky will gain greater control over internal and regional affairs, France will retain sovereign rights including control over military and foreign affairs.

Economy

Unemployment is rife among Kanaks. In 1996, of 18,000 jobs only 5,000 went to Kanaks people. Public sector jobs are open to all citizens but Kanaks tend to be less qualified.

SOURCE:


KANAKY (New Caledonia) - http://www.planet.apc.org/pacific_action/national/g_l/kanaky.html

See also:http://uriohau.blogspot.com/search?q=kanaky

Pacific trade ministers slam EU bullying in trade

Saturday, 19 April 2008, 11:45 am
Press Release: Pacific Network on Globalisation

PRESS RELEASE


Pacific trade ministers slam EU bullying in trade deal

Pacific trade ministers have slammed the European Union's approach to negotiating a new trade deal with the Pacific island countries as divisive, harsh and unnecessarily domineering.

A resolution passed at a meeting of Pacific Island trade ministers and officials from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat last month pointed out the "harsh and unnecessarily domineering attitude" of the European Union Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson when Pacific trade ministers met with him to discuss negotiations for a new Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) in late 2007.

The anger of the Pacific Island trade ministers is highlighted in letters between the Cook Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs Wilkie Rasmussen, and the EU's top trade official, Trade Commissioner Mandelson. In those letters, Pacific trade ministers warn that the EU is pursuing a harmful strategy of divide and rule in negotiations for a new EPA with the Pacific Island states. The letters indicate Pacific trade ministers feel the EU forced Papua New Guinea and Fiji to sign an interim-EPA in late 2007 by threatening to raise tariffs on Pacific exports of tuna and sugar.

The concerns of Pacific trade ministers echo those of trade ministers in Africa, where some countries have been forced to initial interim-EPAs with the EU under a threat of tariff increases on key exports, while others have already said they will refuse to sign any EPA, because the deal would be bad for their national development.

Minister Rasmussen, who is also the co-president of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly between the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and the EU, first complained about Trade Commissioner Mandelson's "insensitivity" to the Pacific at the most recent ACP-EU Joint Parliament, held in Slovenia last month.

In response, Commissioner Mandelson wrote to Minister Rasmussen suggesting that Rasmussen had been misquoted and that he might consider making a public correction. Mandelson also threatened that if Pacific Ministers made more comments like these they would get less from the EPA negotiations. Mandelson wrote, "you are perfectly entitled to take a different view from me about the conduct and content of these negotiations. But personal and public attacks on your negotiating partner are unlikely to do much to improve the prospects of strengthening our relations looking forward".

In Rasmussen's reply, dated April 11, 2008, the minister re-iterated that comments made at the Joint Parliament "reflected the general feeling of the Pacific region that has dealt with you." In strong diplomatic language, he wrote to Mandelson that "the common impression you left on all of the Pacific Island Trade Ministers and the PACP/Forum Secretariat was that you were insensitive to our protocols and issues, and the result was that division occurred between the Pacific Island Countries. I can assure you that the general feeling is that Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled the Interim Agreement because of fear that they would lose their preferential trade arrangements with the European Union."

Mr Rasmussen said he was trying to explain "why two countries of the Pacific initialled an agreement that the rest of the Pacific was not ready for". He wrote, "the solidarity of the Pacific was our strength and you have managed to break that with your particular agenda in the negotiations".

The letters, made public today by the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), indicate that Pacific trade ministers have deep concerns about the negotiations for a new EPA between Europe and the Pacific. In November 2007, Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled interim agreements in order to preserve access for their goods to the EU, but negotiations continue on unresolved issues, with the EU pushing for a comprehensive free trade deal with all Pacific governments by the end of 2008.

PANG coordinator Maureen Penjueli said the EU's proposals for a new EPA meant Pacific governments would have to give away the policy space that allows governments to support local firms and suppliers, and to regulate widely to meet the social and environmental needs of Pacific peoples. She said a new EPA, which was designed to aid European big business and EU exporters, would also have implications for the ability of Pacific governments to meet their human rights obligations – particularly the right to the highest attainable standards of health, the right to housing, and access to essential services like water, health and education.

Mrs Penjueli called upon the EU to allow a re-negotiation of the interim agreements with PNG and Fiji, adding that in forcing PNG and Fiji to sign, the EU had ignored its commitments to the Pacific under the Cotonou Agreement. Ms Penjueli also called on Pacific ministers to listen to the concerns of Pacific civil society, and to refuse to sign any new EPA.

"The Pacific is under no legal obligation to conclude an EPA with the European Union," said Ms Penjueli. "This deal is actually about the EU making sure it still has access to raw materials from all of its ex-colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. The Europeans want to make sure raw materials are not diverted to trade rivals like China, or even to value-adding processes in the ACP countries themselves."

She said that if it really was in the Pacific's development interest to reduce trade 'barriers' in particular areas, then Pacific governments "could do so at any time they liked." "A binding agreement designed by a foreign power [the EU], and potentially leading to massive pressure for trade liberalisation from Australia and New Zealand, is frankly unnecessary and detrimental to the realisation of the Pacific's development interests," said Ms Penjueli.

ends

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00306.htm

Australian Unions worry about adverse effects on Pacific of trade liberalisation

Posted at 17:12 on 30 March, 2008 UTC

The Australian Union movement is pushing to raise awareness among Australians of what it believes will be the adverse effects of trade liberalisation on Pacific Island states.

A workshop in Melbourne was attended by representatives of Australian unions, churches and NGO groups.

Alison Tait, the international director of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, says Australia’s own experience with economic liberalisation shows that free trade is not an entirely positive story.

“Whilst the economic properity of Australia has improved over many years, there are many people who lost their job, industries changed etc, and we know that is the future for the Pacific.”

http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=38851

Court push to jail New Caledonia’s USTKE leader

28 March, 2008 UTC

The prosecution in a New Caledonian court case wants the leader of the USTKE union, Gerard Jodar, to be jailed for six months for his role in clashes with police in January.

Noumea’s daily newspaper reports that the court has been told that Mr Jodar was giving orders during the confrontation which left police officers and unionists injured.

Mr Jodar says the union is just the victim of a police intervention which was political move decided by the French high commission and the then minister in charge of overseas territories, Christian Estrosi.

The court is expected to deliver its verdict on April the 21st.

http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=38831

BP in West Papua

Shattered illusions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/19/fossilfuels.indonesia

When BP set out to build a £3.5bn natural gas plant in remote West Papua, local villagers hoped for a bright future. But all is not well.

• John Vidal

About this article

This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday March 19 2008 on p8 of the Society news & features section. It was last updated at 00:10 on March 19 2008.

Recently, with hundreds of Indonesian troops just out of sight in scenes of intense security, Prince Andrew, the government's official business envoy, dropped in on Bintuni Bay, one of Indonesia's mots remote corners. The plan was to inspect BP's new £3.5bn natural gas plant. What the Duke of York probably did not know was that he had walked straight into a row between the giant oil company and local villagers.

The British firm had promised its new neighbours, who live on the edge of the pristine Papuan rainforest, better homes, long-term jobs and full environmental protection when it started several years ago to build its giant plant to extract 14 trillion cubic metres of gas. But with the gas about to flow, village leaders have now complained bitterly that the company has reneged on its agreements.

In a long letter sent to the Guardian and in telephone conversations, Papuan leaders requesting anonymity have complained that the company has blocked off their fishing grounds, attracted a flood of migrants to the villages, provided very few jobs for local people and is now siding with the Indonesian authorities against native Papuans who are engaged in a long struggle for independence.

"Everything we feared when BP came to the area has come true," claims one community leader. "People are not allowed to catch any fish or shrimps in the exclusive zone established by BP. More and more migrants are coming because of the plant. There is very high inflation because there is lots of money around. The number of local people from Bintuni Bay who work in the project is very low. Local Papuans are never recruited as full-time members of staff."

BP has been desperately keen to avoid the experiences that it, Shell and other oil companies, have had in Africa and Latin America, where oil and gas extraction has left a trail of pollution, human rights abuses and distressed people with no share in the wealth extracted from their land. The company pledged from the start to set new social and environmental standards, and to be a model of corporate social responsibility. It hired some of the best development NGOs to offer advice.

Papuan leaders say they were initially impressed when BP completely rebuilt one fishing village, poured money into the nearby communities, and employed leading environment, human rights and health groups to advise them on how to avoid conflict and bring prosperity to the villages. But as the project has come closer to opening, people have flooded into the area. "Conflicts between local communities and migrants have begun," says the leader. "The migrants [from all over Indonesia] have come here to look for jobs, and are staying. There are about 1,500 in the village of Babo and 1,200 in Bintuni. They are the majority now in all the villages," he says.

The Tangguh gas field, believed to be eventually worth more than £100bn to BP and the Indonesian government, is one of the largest in the world. Known as a "super giant", it is contracted to provide gas for China, Mexico and the US, and should last 30 years.

But the Papuan leaders, who have long been pressing for independence from Indonesia, say they fear that BP is taking sides with the Indonesian government, as they are bypassed from all the lasting benefits. According to documents seen by the Guardian, less than £30m was budgeted for the Tangguh social programme over six years, including money for resettlement and security; nearly £15m was earmarked for "consultants" and administration. The nine most affected villages in the area are being given £15,000 a year for five years, and others in the area £5,500 a year.

"BP has built 100 houses for 100 heads of families. All looks wonderful," another village leader says. "But the people actually suffer mentally from their new settlement. Their access to the sea is limited because of the company's exclusion zone, and they cannot expand their gardens. They do not have enough [space] to expand their families."

Criticism of BP's employment policy was levelled at the company last year and the Tangguh Independent Advisory Panel, chaired by Lord [David] Hannay, to monitor the project, encouraged BP to employ more Papuans and to educate the local population about the "demobilisation" process when the construction work is complete.

Although nearly 6,000 people have been employed in constructing the plant, fewer than 500 will be employed by the company after the building is complete later this year. Of these, only around 50 are expected to be Papuan.

"People's dependency on BP is very high. There will be problems when the work ends. There will be economic and psychological degradation," say Papuan leaders in their letter to the Guardian.

"We predicted that BP and Indonesia would not care about the very survival of the Papuans on their land and their nation. We expected that BP and Indonesia would continuously destroy our forests and our trees and pollute the rivers and seas," they says. "And we feared that BP and Indonesia would bring misfortune for the Papuans by employing skilled workers from outside West Papua, claiming that we Papuans are not 'skilled workers'. I have to tell you that our worst predictions and fears have come true."

BP denies that it is causing environmental damage, or that it is favouring non-Papuans. The company said it is bound by strict guidelines about how many Papuans should be employed. A spokesman says: "We think about 30% of the construction workforce is Papuan. The intention is that there will be long-term employment for Papuans. We are prioritising the most affected villages," says a BP spokesman.

But he also concedes that Papua is large and that it has been difficult to identify who is an original inhabitant of these villages. On the fishing situation, he points out that BP has provided outboard motors to some people so they can travel further to fishing grounds. "We believe we have set new standards for the BP group. There has been a lot of progress but there is no complacency," he says.

NZ Work Scheme a “Mutton-flap Gesture”

PANG is calling NZ’s seasonal work scheme a “mutton-flap gesture.”

“This scheme is little more than being offered the ‘mutton-flaps’ of the NZ job market” said a PANG representative in Fiji today. “What we need is substantive development in Pacific economies. We need to up-skill our work force and be able to set up value-added production in our own countries; not merely export raw materials or unskilled labour.” On the last day of the 37th Pacific Islands Forum, Helen Clark announced a seasonal work scheme to allow up to 5000 Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu nationals to work for up to seven months in the New Zealand horticulture sector. However, work opportunities will depend on NZ labour shortages and NZ horticulture industry needs; not the needs of the Pacific.

“New Zealand’s seasonal work scheme is fools gold, because it does not address any of the underlying causes of the economic problems that Pacific economies are currently facing, furthermore it must not be seen as a potential benefit under PACER. There is a huge imbalance in free-market globalisation because labour cannot move with the same freedom that capital can.

This work scheme from NZ is by no means the labour mobility plan that Pacific policy makers want, nor should we assume that labour mobility will provide the economic solutions Pacific Island people need” said a PANG representative.

“We should see this scheme for what it is: We’ve been thrown a politically strategic bone to ease Pacific policy-maker angst over unemployment due to the surplus of semi- and unskilled labour. In reality 5000 jobs across six countries for only seven months will ease nothing! It’s a joke, yet Fiji’s Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and Minister of Foreign Affairs and External Trade Kaliopate Tavola have said they are ‘pleased’”.


Exporting a miniscule fraction of our semi- and unskilled labour is a bandaid, not an economic policy that will lead to substantive growth. It accentuates the dependency that we have on first world nations through the remittances cycle, as it does not create jobs, rather it disguises the lack of economic opportunities in our own countries. At the end of the day a job created in a Pacific Island country is better than a temporary, minimum wage, low-skill job in New Zealand.

http://www.pang.org.fj/doc/PR061030muttonflapjobs.pdf