By Gerald McGhie

Chairman of Transparency International, New Zealand and a former diplomat

Until recently, especially during the Cold War, New Zealand and Australia saw the Pacific pretty much as an area of their own particular interest. Things have changed. Has New Zealand's policy changed in response? Does it need to?

There are now many more - and richer - donors in the Pacific, particularly the EC, the two Chinas and Japan.

In spite of this greater involvement, problems in the Pacific's widely dispersed states continue. Standards of living remain low while economic and environmental forces alone are compelling people who have for centuries lived in viable communities to radically adapt their traditional lifestyles and expectations. Long-term solutions remain elusive but on present projections will require not only a continuation of traditional development assistance but, more importantly, shifts in perspective and attitudes not only from metropolitan powers but from Pacific states themselves.

How do we in New Zealand think, or not think, about our immediate neighbourhood? Over the many years of our contact have we really developed the capacity to listen to the Pacific and to acknowledge their values? Too often Pacific peoples see us as complacent and insensitive.

Perhaps this sort of patchy performance was acceptable during the Cold War. But we no longer live in a stable, predictable international environment able to be understood from a single perspective. The Pacific is not isolated from current shifts in the geopolitical tectonic plates. And our own population is diversifying: 6.1% is of Pacific Island origin - roughly 20% is Polynesian. Inevitably, the reality behind these statistics will lead to pressures to shift our own external priorities as a more empowered Polynesian-Pacific community seeks a more rounded response. It will no longer be sufficient simply to state our Pacific awareness. We must reach a point where the Pacific itself acknowledges our understanding of and engagement with their priorities and values.


Pacific deserves more

That engagement must reflect our view that without the Pacific we cannot be "us", and we cannot be "us" without expressing ourselves as New Zealanders with a full Pacific awareness and not as an extension of an international agency or as a "me too" adjunct to the foreign policy aspirations of our allies. The Pacific deserves more from us than derivative rhetoric.

New Zealand must seek to identify those issues and values, in the troubled areas of the Pacific, that fall within a shared middle range. This means both sides making concessions, with the aim of developing genuine partnership. Unethical compromises would be excluded.

Pacificness

Embracing our Pacificness will not be an easy process. Does Pacificness mean that we give priority to the views of an informed "palangi", of a westernized Pacific Islander or of a parochial and rather ethnocentric Pacific Islander? Or, perhaps, a sort of synthesis of all these? As yet we have not made up our minds.

Let's acknowledge that the transition to real "democracy" takes time. In the Pacific the process will only succeed, and then only slowly, by drawing on creative developments in the already existing cultures.

Fiji

For instance, does a resolution of the upheaval in Fiji really turn on the holding of elections? Demonstrably, the Fiji situation is more complex than that. Have we asked Fijians to identify the critical conditions that produce regular coups? Is it the racist electoral system? Why has the military achieved such dominance in Fijian society?

Further, in Tokelau, was independence the only route available for this distant and sparsely populated community? Is a referendum the only way to find out?

In Solomons, why did such severe rioting break out after the last general elections? Criminal elements may have taken part but they drew on popular and deep discontent. Have we analysed the source of that discontent?

Human Rights

Cultures differ, yet we continue to emphasise the centrality of Human Rights. But can we really expect a full uptake on this issue when dealing with societies, as in the Pacific, that are essentially not "rights" based? There is much discussion to be had here but perhaps a way forward could be to adopt a formula involving "rights", responsibilities and human ethics as complementary terms with the ultimate aim of promoting respect for persons.

There are some encouraging developments. The Law Commission's recent publication "Converging Currents" states that the role of custom must inform Pacific Islands' legal systems. MFAT refers to the value of "soft" knowledge in diplomacy. Whatever the new buzz word, it must be acknowledged that the post Cold War world must accommodate complexity, contradiction and uncertainty.

Changing attitudes will not be easy. Politicians and policymakers have a tendency to shape what they see to their own world view. But it would be a start to acknowledge that experts (particularly consultants) can reach the wrong conclusions if local knowledge and history are not taken into account.

Conflict resolution

New Zealand has some relevant experience. The value of our role in conflict resolution in Bougainville is internationally recognised. At home we have the knowledge developed (particularly in relation to the role of spirituality) and negotiating skills gained through the Treaty of Waitangi process which we could, or should, draw on in developing our relations with Pacific partners.

A recent submission to the Parliamentary Enquiry on the Pacific commented on the need for a meeting, with broad-based representation, to discuss (after the Referendum imbroglios) an accepted and viable way forward for Tokelau. Perhaps the enquiry itself could convene such a meeting. Pockets of expertise exist on Tokelau culture. New Zealand must be prepared to draw on these and have sufficient courage to seek Tokelauan views, as well as to establish checks and balances to ensure that no group hijacks the process. Tokelau deserves the best New Zealand can give, not a programme based on United Nations decolonization rhetoric.

Pain without gain

Similarly, it is time to seek a long term basis to our relations with Fiji. Many Fijians are disappointed with the narrowness and insensitivity of New Zealand's response to the Bainimarama coup. There is a need for a new vocabulary and approach. As a Fijian said to me recently, an election without basic change will mean the prospect of more pain without gain. He also expressed disappointment at New Zealand's lack of initiative in seeking a solution to the present crisis. For its part Fiji must demonstrate that autonomy brings with it an equal measure of responsibility and responsiveness to all members of society.

Tokelau and Fiji are just two states in our very large near abroad. The comments here can provide a start - an underpinning perhaps - to promoting more productive relations with our other Pacific partners. This could include a closer and less agenda-driven relationship with the new government in Canberra on Pacific issues.