A major daily newspaper in Solomon Islands received nearly US$140,000 in funding from the Chinese government in return for pledges to “promote the truth about China’s generosity and its true intentions to help develop” the Pacific Islands country, according to a leaked document and interviews.

The revelation comes amid Western alarm over growing Chinese influence over the strategically located country, which switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 2019 and then signed a surprise security agreement with Beijing last year.

Solomon Islands journalists have complained of a worsening media environment, as well as what is perceived to be a growing pro-China slant from local outlets that have accepted funding from the People’s Republic.

A document obtained by OCCRP shows how one of these outlets, the Solomon Star newspaper, received Chinese assistance after providing repeated and explicit assurances that it would push messages favorable to Beijing.

Reporters obtained a July 2022 draft funding proposal from the Solomon Star to China’s embassy in Honiara in which the paper requested SBD 1,150,000 (about $137,000) for equipment, including a replacement for its aging newspaper printer and a broadcast tower for its radio station, PAOA FM.

The Solomon Star said in the proposal that decrepit equipment was causing editions to come out late and “curtailing news flow about China’s generous and lightning economic and infrastructure development in Solomon Islands.”

The document shows the Chinese embassy had initially offered SBD 350,000 in 2021, but revised this number upward in recognition of the newspaper’s needs.

A dozen pledges
In total, the proposal contains roughly a dozen separate pledges to use the Chinese-funded equipment to promote China’s “goodwill” and role as “the most generous and trusted development partner” in Solomon Islands.

In interviews, both the Solomon Star’s then-publisher, Catherine Lamani, and its chief of staff, Alfred Sasako, confirmed the paper had made the proposal, but declined to speak in detail about it.

Sasako said the newspaper maintained its independence. He said any suggestion it had a pro-Beijing bias was “a figment of the imagination of anyone who is trying to demonise China.”

Sasako said the paper had tried unsuccessfully for more than a decade to get assistance from Australia’s embassy in the country. Other Western countries, such as the United States, had neglected Solomon Islands for decades and were only now showing interest because of anxiety over Chinese influence, he added.

“My summary on the whole thing is China is a doer, others are talkers. They spend too much time talking, nothing gets done,” he said.

Press delivered
OCCRP was able to confirm that the printing equipment the Solomon Star had requested was indeed purchased and delivered earlier this year.

“I can confirm what was quoted was delivered in February and the payments came from the Solomon Star,” said Terry Mays, business development manager of G2 Systems Print Supply Division, the Brisbane, Australia, based supplier named in the proposal.

The Solomon Star funding is just one part of a regional push to get China’s message out in the Pacific Islands, as well as build relationships with the region’s elites, reporters have found.

Earlier this month, OCCRP reported on an aborted deal in the northern Pacific nation of Palau involving the publisher of the country’s oldest newspaper and a Chinese business group with links to national security institutions.

Bernadette Carreon and Aubrey Belford report for the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). OCCRP is funded worldwide by a variety of government and non-government donors. OCCRP’s work in the Pacific Islands is currently funded by a US-government grant that gives the donor zero say in editorial decisions.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Washington has announced plans to reopen the United States Embassy in Solomon Islands.

Inside the Games reports that the move is a bid to counter China’s increasing assertiveness in the region, which has seen Beijing fund infrastructure for this year’s Pacific Games which take place later this year.

The US Department of State has informed Congress that it plans to establish an interim embassy in Honiara on the site of a former consular property.

It said it would at first be staffed by two American diplomats and five local employees at a cost of US$1.8 million a year.

A more permanent facility with larger staffing will be established eventually.

The US closed its embassy in Honiara in 1993 as part of a post-Cold War global reduction in diplomatic posts and priorities.

The State Department warned in February 2022 that China’s growing influence in the region made reopening the embassy in the Solomon Islands a priority.

In October 2020, the Solomons and China signed an agreement for China to help build venues for the Pacific Games.

Last year, Honiara and Beijing signed a security pact after Chinese President Xi Jinping upgraded relations for a second time following a meeting with Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.

The agreement could allow Solomon Islands to request China send police and military personnel if required, while China could deploy forces to protect “Chinese personnel and major projects”.

Sogavare has assured the US and other Western allies that he would not allow China to establish a naval base in his country, but concern about Chinese intentions has not eased.

Solomons and Chinese police visit Games stadium
Representatives from the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force have met with Chinese officials and police to visit the 2023 Pacific Games stadium which is still under construction.

The stadium is being built by the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, while a dorm at the National University is being built by JiangSu Provincial Construction.

The police force acknowledged the work of the companies in providing employment opportunities to local residents.

Assistant Commissioner Simpson Pogeava said police assistance would be reaffirmed, instructing Central police and Guadalcanal police to provide security support to keep the projects safe.

• The Games are scheduled to take place from November 19 to December 2.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The head of the Solomon Islands state-owned broadcaster has defended its role in the face of the government tightening control — a move that critics say is squarely aimed at controlling and censoring the news.

The government said last Friday that the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) would retain editorial control and that government officials would not censor or restrain the outlet.

Earlier in the week, the government had lashed out at the broadcaster, accusing it of a “lack of ethics and professionalism” and saying the government had a duty to “protect our people from lies and misinformation” it claimed was propagated by the SIBC.

In an interview published by the VOA News, Johnson Honimae, the SIBC chief executive, said he was proud of the broadcaster’s award-winning journalism.

He said it was business as usual for the broadcaster and there were no government censors vetting stories before they were broadcast, contrary to what was reported by some news outlets.

The government’s move came at a politically tumultuous time in the Solomon Islands.

There were riots in the capital of Honiara last November, followed by a no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in December, which he survived.

Security pact with China
Then in April, Sogavare signed a security pact with China that has caused deep alarm in the Pacific and around the world.

The SIBC has reported those developments and has included the views of Sogavare’s opponents.

The broadcaster, which began as the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Service, has been a fixture for 70 years in the Solomon Islands.

Employing about 50 people and operating under the slogan “Voice of the nation,” the broadcaster is the main source of radio and television news for the nation’s 700,000 people and is listened to and watched from the capital to the smallest village.

In late June, the government moved to delist the SIBC as a state-owned enterprise and take more direct control, saying the broadcaster had failed to make a profit, something that had been expected of such state-owned businesses.

Opposition Leader Matthew Wale said the delisting was a scheme orchestrated by Sogavare as “a clear attempt to directly control and censor the news content of SIBC”.

“This will hijack well-entrenched principles of law on defamation and freedom-of-speech, thus depriving the public using SIBC to freely express their views, or accessing information on government activities,” Wale said.

Critical government calls
Honimae said the broadcaster took critical calls from Sogavare’s office in recent months.

“They believe we’ve been running too many stories from the opposition side, causing too much disunity,” Honimae said.

Honimae said the broadcaster and its staff won several journalism awards this year from the Media Association of Solomon Islands, including newsroom of the year and journalist of the year.

He also said the broadcaster plays the national anthem when broadcasts begin each morning at 6 am and again when they finish at 11 pm.

“We believe we are a great force for unity and peace in this country,” Honimae said.

Honimae added that the broadcaster needed to “balance our stories more” and leave no opportunity for criticism.

He said Sogavare — who is also the government’s Broadcasting Minister– had said in Parliament that the government would not tamper with the broadcaster’s editorial independence.

“There is no censorship at the moment,” Honimae said. “We operate as professional journalists.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned a media blackout imposed on events during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s 10-day tour of Pacific island countries.

Wang is today in Papua New Guinea at the end of an eight-country tour that began on May 26, but a “Chinese state media reporter is so far the only journalist to be allowed to ask him a question”, says the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog.

On the second day of his two days in Fiji this week, “the media briefing itself was run by the visiting government [and] the press passes were issued by the Chinese government,” Fiji journalist Lice Movono told The Guardian.

Movono and her cameraman, and a crew with the Australian TV broadcaster ABC, were prevented from filming a meeting between Wang and the Pacific Islands Forum’s secretary-general shortly after Wang’s arrival in Fiji the day before, although they all had accreditation.

She also observed several attempts by Chinese officials to restrict journalists’ ability to cover the event.

“From the very beginning there was a lot of secrecy, no transparency, no access given,” Movono said.

During Wang’s first stop in the Solomon Islands on May 26, covid restrictions were cited as grounds for allowing only a limited number of media outlets to attend the press conference and only two questions were allowed ­– one to the Solomon Islands’ foreign minister by a local reporter and one to Wang by a Chinese media outlet.

No interaction with the media was allowed during his next two stops in Kiribati and Samoa.

Resist Chinese pressure
“The total opacity surrounding the events organised by the Chinese delegation with several Pacific island states clearly contravenes the democratic principles of the region’s countries,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“We call on officials preparing to meet Wang Yi to resist Chinese pressure by allowing local journalists and international organisations to cover these events, which are of major public interest.”

Following the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa and Fiji, Wang visited Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste with the same aim of signing free trade and security agreements.

RSF has previously condemned the Chinese delegation’s discrimination against local and international media during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit held in November 2018 in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, with President Xi Jinping attending.

China is among the world’s worst countries for media freedom, ranked 175th out of 180 nations in the 2022 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Opposition People’s National Congress leader Peter O’Neill is urging Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape and the government to refrain from signing any agreements with China when their foreign minister visits Port Moresby today.

“Now is not the right time,” the former prime minister said of the visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and of any likely deals to be struck between the two countries.

Using more diplomatic words, he said: “A foreign minister of any nation visiting our country is an honour and as a gracious host, PNG would welcome the opportunity to showcase our culture, country, and investment opportunities, especially with a world superpower such as China.”

“Democratic processes such as National General Elections only come around every five years in PNG and the small window of eight weeks of our election timetable should be preserved without international, high-level visits,” he said.

The Chinese top government envoy, who is State Councillor and Foreign Minister, jets into Port Moresby just after midday today for a short visit to meet Prime Minister Marape and Foreign Minister Soroi Eoe.

China and PNG will sign off on a Green Sustainable Development Policy which also covers Trade and Investment and Energy, among other issues.

Foreign Affairs Secretary Elias Wohengu said yesterday that the visit would be brief as he would arrive in the night and would head back to China after meeting Eoe and paying a courtesy call on Marape.

Bilateral meeting tomorrow
He said that the official bilateral meeting would be held on Friday morning with Eoe.

“The meeting will be minister-plus nine on both sides,” Wohengu said.

“Thirty minutes after the meeting, he will make courtesy call on Prime Minister James Marape before he flies out of the country to China.

“He will sign one agreement, which is the Green Sustainable Development Policy.

“On the security status of PNG, we will deal with it ourselves.

“He is coming back on his return trip to China from his Pacific Islands Forum ministers meeting which was held yesterday, co-chaired it physically out of Suva.

PNG the ‘last lap’
“So on his return lap, his last country visit is PNG before he flies out.

“He was in Fiji and also visited other Pacific Island countries.

“There has been resentment over Pacific Agreement on security matters.”

China has said it is willing to make joint efforts with PNG to inject stronger impetus into the overall development of relations between China and the Pacific Island countries.

“Both as developing countries, China is also willing to, together with Papua New Guinea, strengthen strategic coordination, and jointly voice maintenance for multilateralism and support for free trade in various international arenas,” it has said.

O’Neill said in his statement that writs for the elections were issued on May 12 dissolving the current Parliament and Members of Parliament were now contesting the election and should not sign any agreements on behalf of the State, particularly with China.

“All election related preparations have been made or should have been made well in advance and any donations of security equipment or agreements for China to provide security or election support this late in the timetable is improper,” he said.

‘Superpower tensions’
“Tensions in the region between global superpowers from the West and China are driving foreign leaders to give a high amount of attention to the Pacific.

“These tensions that exist between larger countries are not our doing and we should not be unnecessarily caught up as these larger nations shadowbox.

“We desperately need partnerships with high quality investors to lift the standards of living for our people, but they must comply with our procurement laws and be done in a transparent way to ensure the best returns for our people.

“There are some Chinese companies and, indeed, some Singaporean and Australian companies, who have not been subject to normal procurement procedures that warrant urgent investigation.”

O’Neill said Marape should not have encouraged this visit which draws PNG into a regional and global matter that it does not have any business on choosing sides.

• Papua New Guinea’s general election is July 9-22.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Yet more proposed Chinese “security agreements” in the Pacific Islands have been leaked.

The drafts have been described by critics as revealing “the ambitious scope of Beijing’s strategic intent in the Pacific” and its “coherent desire […] to seek to shape the regional order”. There are concerns they will “dramatically expand [China’s] security influence in the Pacific”.

But does this overstate their importance?

A pause for breath
Australia and New Zealand should be concerned about China’s increasingly visible presence in the Pacific Islands. A coercive Chinese presence could substantially constrain Australia’s freedom of movement, with both economic and defence implications.

And Pacific states and people have reason to be concerned. The restrictions on journalists during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands demonstrate the potential consequences for transparency of dealing closely with China.

And there are questions about the implications of the Solomon Islands-China security agreement for democracy and accountability.

But before we work ourselves into a frenzy, it is worth pausing for breath.

The leaked drafts are just that: drafts.

They have not yet been signed by any Pacific state.

At least one Pacific leader, Federated States of Micronesia President David Panuelo, has publicly rejected them. Panuelo’s concerns are likely shared by several other Pacific leaders, suggesting they’re also unlikely to sign.

Fiji is joining U.S. President Joe Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, the White House said, making it the first Pacific Island country in the plan that is part of a U.S. effort to push back on China’s growing regional influence https://t.co/XByydU09IP pic.twitter.com/7xphYtRdv0

— Reuters (@Reuters) May 27, 2022

China wields powerful tools of statecraft — particularly economic — but Pacific states are sovereign. They will ultimately decide the extent of China’s role in the region.

And these drafts do not mention Chinese military bases — nor did the China-Solomon Islands agreement.

Rumours in 2018 China was in talks to build a military base in Vanuatu never eventuated.

What if some Pacific states sign these documents?
First, these documents contain proposals rather than binding obligations.

If they are signed, it’s not clear they will differ in impact from the many others agreed over the last decade. For example, China announced a “strategic partnership” with eight Pacific states in 2014, which had no substantive consequences for Australia.

So common — and often so ineffectual — are “strategic partnerships” and “memoranda of understanding” that there is a satirical podcast series devoted to them.

Second, the drafts contain proposals that may benefit Pacific states.

For example, a China-Pacific Islands free trade area could open valuable opportunities, especially as China is a significant export destination.

Third, the drafts cover several activities in which China is already engaged. For example, China signed a security agreement with Fiji in 2011, and the two states have had a police cooperation relationship since.

It’s worth remembering Australia and New Zealand provide the bulk of policing assistance. The executive director of the Pacific Island Chiefs of Police is even a Kiwi.

The drafts do contain concerning provisions. Cooperation on data networks and “smart” customs systems may raise cybersecurity issues. This is why Australia funded the Coral Sea Cable connecting Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea to Australia.

Provisions relating to satellite maritime surveillance may cause friction with existing activities supported by Australia and its partners.

Greater Chinese maritime domain awareness of the region – meaning understanding of anything associated with its oceans and waterways – would also raise strategic challenges for Australia, New Zealand, and the US.

But there is a risk of over-egging the implications based on our own anxieties.

The omission of #PNG from the new Indo-Pacific Economic Framework set up by the US to contest China in the region is a huge mistake & a missed opportunity, especially with China on the prowl in the Pacific Islandshttps://t.co/tRse7G3dvi

— Keith Jackson AM FRSA FAIM (@PNGAttitude) May 27, 2022

China’s interests
Much of China’s diplomacy has been opportunistic and not dissimilar to what Australia and other partners are doing.

Although the region is strategically important to Australia, the southern Pacific islands are marginal to China. And apart from Kiribati and Nauru, the northern Pacific islands are closely linked to the US.

China’s interest may primarily be about demonstrating strategic reach, rather than for specific military purposes.

So, amplifying narratives about China’s threatening presence may unintentionally help China achieve its broader aim of influencing Australia.

And framing China’s presence almost exclusively as threatening may limit Australia’s manoeuvrability.

Given the accelerating frequency of natural disasters in the region due to climate change, it is only a matter of time before the Australian and Chinese militaries find themselves delivering humanitarian relief side-by-side. Being on sufficiently cordial terms to engage in even minimal coordination will be important.

Indeed, Australia should try to draw China into cooperative arrangements in the Pacific.

Reviving, updating, and seeking China’s signature of, the Pacific Islands Forum’s Cairns Compact on Development Coordination, would be a good start.

If China really has benign intentions, it should welcome this opportunity. The compact, a mechanism created by Pacific states, could help ensure China’s activities are well-coordinated and targeted alongside those of other partners.

Amplifying threat narratives also feeds into Australia’s perceived need to “compete” by playing whack-a-mole with China, rather than by formulating a coherent, overarching regional policy that responds to the priorities of Pacific states.

For example, Australia has funded Telstra’s purchase of Digicel, following interest from Chinese telco Huawei, despite questions over the benefits.

What will Australia offer next?
There is a risk some Pacific states may overestimate their ability to manage China. But for the time being it is understandable why at least some would entertain Chinese overtures.

New Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong has rushed to Fiji days into the job with sought-after offers of action on climate change and expanded migration opportunities. Pacific leaders might be wondering what Australia will offer next.

Dr Joanne Wallis is professor of international security, University of Adelaide and Dr Maima Koro is a Pacific research fellow, University of Adelaide. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) has urged its members to boycott a media conference for a visiting Chinese delegation in protest over “ridiculous” restrictions.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi leads the high-level delegation which arrives in Solomon Islands today.

Wang is expected to sign a host of new agreements, including the security pact that has sparked anger in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

MASI president Georgina Kekea said it was disappointed that the media were only allowed limited access to the visit.

Kekea said Solomon Islands was a democratic country and when media freedom was dictated on someone else’s terms, it impeded the country’s democratic principles.

“The Chinese delegation’s visit is an important and historical one for our country and our members play an important role in making sure it provides the right information and awareness on the importance of the visit to our people,” she said.

She said only two questions could be asked, one from a local journalist directed to the Solomon Islands foreign affairs minister, and one from Chinese media, directed to their foreign affairs minister.

“How ridiculous is that? If we want to interview our foreign affairs minister, we can just do it without the event,” she said.

‘What’s the purpose?’
“What is the purpose of hosting such an event for the press when they are only allowed one question and directed to their foreign minister only?”

Kekea said even the discriminatory manner in which journalists were selected to cover the event did not bode well with the association.

“MASI thrives on professional journalism and sees no reason for journalists to be discriminated against based on who they represent. Giving credentials to selected journalists is a sign of favouritism,” she said.

“Journalists should be allowed to do their job without fear or favour.”

She said the reason given that the arrangements were done that way because of covid-19 protocols did not stack up.

“We have community transmission, people are crowded in buses, shops, markets, banks and so forth, so this is a very lame excuse,” she said.

Kekea said press freedom is enshrined as a fundamental element in the Solomons’ constitution.

‘MASI defending democracy’
“Same as the prime minister has defended democracy in Parliament after the November riots, MASI is also defending democracy in this space,” Kekea said.

She added that the boycott was not to disrespect the government or its bilateral partners in any way, but to showcase the media’s disagreement in this matter.

Solomons Islands opposition leader Mathew Wale has again raised concerns at the secrecy surrounding links with Beijing.

Wale said only a few top aides know what is in the agreements, and that there’s no justification for the secrecy.

“Solomon Islands is a democratic country, owned by the people and they are entitled to know what is being transacted in their name,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The United States would “respond” if China takes steps to establish a permanent military presence in the Solomon Islands, says a US official, noting the “potential regional security implications” of a newly signed pact between the two countries.

“We outlined clear areas of concern with respect to the purpose and scope of the agreement,” Daniel Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said at a press briefing yesterday following his trip to Honiara, where he led a US delegation last week.

US officials met with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and his cabinet following separate announcements by China and the Solomon Islands that the controversial Security Cooperation Agreement has been signed.

“We outlined that of course we have respect for the Solomon Islands’ sovereignty, but we also wanted to let them know that if steps were taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power-projection capabilities or a military installation, then we would have significant concerns and we would very naturally respond to those concerns,” Kritenbrink said.

However, the State Department official did not provide a clear answer when asked to explain how exactly the US would respond.

“I’m not going to speculate on what that may or may not involve, but I think our goal was to be very clear in that regard,” Kritenbrink said.

“I’m not in a position to talk about what the United States may or may not do in such a situation.”

US still worried
Despite Sogavare’s repeated assurance that the pact was intended only for domestic implementation, Kritenbrink said the US is worried about the “potential regional security implications of the agreement, not just for ourselves, but for allies and partners across the region.”

Kritenbrink said what troubled the US was “the complete lack of transparency” behind the pact.

“What precisely are the motivations behind the agreement? What exactly are China’s objectives and the like?

“I think they’re completely unclear because this agreement has not been scrutinised or reviewed or subject to any kind of consultation or approval process by anyone else,” Kritenbrink said.

He linked the Solomons-China agreement to Beijing’s relentless bid to expand the People’s Liberation Army’s footprint in the region.

“I think it’s important in this context to keep in mind that we do know that [China] is seeking to establish a more robust overseas logistics and basing infrastructure that would allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at greater distances,” Kritenbrink said.

He added that the US “would follow developments closely in consultation with regional partners.”

Opening US embassy plans
Kritenbrink was accompanied by Kurt Campbell, Indo-Pacific coordinator for the National Security Council; Lieutenant-General Steve Sklenka,deputy commander of the Indo-Pacific Command; and Craig Hart, USAID’s acting senior deputy assistant administrator for Asia.

During the visit, the US delegation announced Washington’s intention to expedite the process of opening a US embassy in Honiara, strengthen the ties between the US and the Solomon Islands.

“Our purpose in going to the Solomons was to explain to our friends there our approach to the region and the steps we’re taking to step up our engagement across the Pacific Islands, the specific programmes and activities that are ongoing in the Solomons and that we expect to expand and accelerate in the months ahead,” Kritenbrink said.

“We reiterated our commitment to enhancing our partnership with the Solomon Islands, including expediting the opening of the US embassy there, advancing cooperation on addressing unexploded ordnance, and increasing maritime domain awareness, as well as expanding cooperation on climate change, health, people-to-people ties, and other issues as well,” he added.

Mar-Vic Cagurangan is chief editor and publisher of the Pacific Island Times. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

If the coming election goes to Australia’s Labor party, Penny Wong is very likely to become Foreign Minister. So when she speaks, people across the region prick up their ears.

Without the least disrespect to her recent forebears, she could be one of the most acute, incisive and insightful FMs in recent history.

Whether she’ll be any more effective than them is another matter.

Australia has a long tradition of placing prominent front-benchers into the role, and then pointedly ignoring their efforts, their advice and their warnings. It’s as if government leaders find their greatest rival and send them trotting off around the globe, more to keep them from making mischief at home than to achieve anything noteworthy while they’re gone.

In Australia, it seems, foreign policy is domestic policy done outdoors.

If she achieves nothing more, Wong would be well served to look closely at the people supporting her, and to spend considerable effort re-organising and in fact re-inventing DFAT.

Its disconnection from other departments, especially Defence and PMO, has created an internal culture that spends more time feeding on itself than actually helping produce a persuasive or coherent foreign policy.

Ensuring foreign policy’s primacy at the cabinet table is a big ask, but it will be for naught if the department can’t deliver. There are significant structural matters to be dealt with.

‘Worst failure of foreign policy in the Pacific’: Labor launches scathing attack on government over Solomon Islands-China pact https://t.co/efbU2tM6Iu

— ABC News (@abcnews) April 19, 2022

Rolling development and aid into the department was a significant regression that hampered both sides. Volumes can be written about the need to distinguish development assistance from foreign policy, and many of them could be focused on the Pacific islands region.

The two are mostly complementary (mostly), but they must also be discrete from one another.

It’s far more complicated than this, but suffice it to say that development aid prioritises the recipient’s needs, while foreign relations generally prioritise national concerns. The moment you invert either side of that equation, you lose.

Exempli gratia: Solomon Islands.

It’s well known that Australia spent billions shoring up Solomon Islands’ security and administrative capacity. Surely after all that aid, they can expect the government to stay onside in geopolitical matters?

Applying the admittedly simplistic filter from the para above, the answer is an obvious no.

Aid is not a substitute for actual foreign relations, and foreign relations is definitely not just aid.

So is Penny Wong correct when she calls the CN/SI defence agreement a massive strategic setback? Sure.

Is she right to call Pacific Affairs Minister Zed Seselja “a junior woodchuck”, sent in a last minute attempt to dissuade Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare from signing the agreement?

The idea of a minister responsible for the complex, wildly diverse patchwork of nations spanning such a vast space has value. But in terms of resources and policy heft, Seselja rides at the back of the posse on a mule.

There are good reasons to devote an entire office to Pacific affairs. There are also blindingly good reasons to keep the Foreign Minister as the primary point of contact on matters of foreign policy.

That means the role—and yes, the existence—of the Pacific Affairs ministry needs a ground-up reconsideration. Notionally, it fulfills a critical role. But how?

It’s fair to say that Wong is more insightful than those who describe Solomon Islands as a fly-speck in the Pacific, or a Little Cuba (whatever the F that means). But in the past, Labor’s shown little insight into the actual value and purpose of foreign policy.

For the better part of four decades, neither Australian party was fussed at all about the fact that there had been few if any official visits between leaders. Prime Ministers regularly blew off Pacific Islands Forum meetings.

In Vanuatu’s case, the first ever prime ministerial visit to Canberra was in 2018. Why aren’t such meetings annual events?

Australia is rightly proud of its pre-eminence in development assistance in the Pacific islands. But that never was, and never will be, a substitute for diplomatic engagement. And you can’t have that without a functioning diplomatic corps whose presence is felt equally in Canberra and in foreign capitals.

But even that’s not enough. Penny Wong has yet to show in concrete terms how she plans to address what could accurately be called the greatest strategic foreign policy failure since WWII: Leaving Australia alone to guard the shop.

In 2003, George W. Bush was rightly vilified for characterising Australia’s role in the region as America’s Sheriff.

But the Americans weren’t the only ones who walked away, leaving Australia alone to engage with the region. The UK and the EU (minus France in their patch) rolled back their diplomatic presence substantially.

Even New Zealand agreed to restrict its engagement in large areas in deference to its neighbour. The most enduring presence was provided by organisations without any meaningful foreign policy role: UN development agencies and multilateral financial institutions.

Since the beginning of the War on Terror, there has been a consistent and often deliberate draw-down on the capital provided by democratic institutions, multilateral foreign policy, and indeed any collective course-setting among nations.

Post Cold-War democratic momentum has been squandered on an increasingly transactional approach to engagement that’s begun to look alarmingly like the spheres of influence that appeal so much to Putin and Xi.

This hasn’t happened in the Pacific islands alone. The UN has become an appendix in the global body politic, one cut away from complete irrelevance. ASEAN and APEC are struggling just as hard to find relevance, let alone purpose, as the Pacific Islands Forum or the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

Australia has “led” in the Pacific islands region by being the largest aid donor, blithely assuming that all the other kids in the region want to be like it. But that “leadership” masks a massive gap in actual influence in shaping the agenda in a region that’s larger and more diverse than any other in the world.

Want to know more? I have a whole chapter in my last book about it: https://t.co/RjggiClW5Z

— Joanne Wallis (@JoanneEWallis) March 30, 2022

The data’s there if people want it. This isn’t a particularly contentious… er, contention, if you’re among the far-too-small group of people who actually live in and care about the future of the region.

In a regional dynamic defined and dominated by transactional bilateralism, China holds all the aces. The only hope anyone has of slowing its growth in the region is through meaningful multilateralism that treats Pacific island countries as actual nations with national pride and individual priorities. Instead of silencing them, their voices should be amplified and defended, not by Australia alone, but by every other democratic nation with the means and the will to do so.

If we can’t respect the equal standing of nations, we can’t protect their integrity.

Scott Morrison may indeed be one of the worst exemplars of this blithe disregard for actual foreign policy engagement. He’s certainly won few friends with his world-class foot-dragging on climate change. America’s suddenly renewed interest in the region is an indication that they’ve woken up to the Bush administration’s mistakes.

It’s also clear they don’t trust Australia to play Sheriff any more. Kurt Campbell’s upcoming visit to the region is just the latest in a series of increasingly high profile tours of the region.

So yes, Penny Wong is justified in saying that China’s advances in the Pacific derive at least in part from Australia’s lack of a coherent and effective foreign policy.

But foreign policy is not made at home. It’s not Australia’s interests alone that matter. And subjugating Pacific nations in compacts of free association isn’t a substitute for actual policy making.

Pacific island nations will not defend Australia’s national interests unless they share those interests. The only way that Australia—and the world—can be assured they do is by actively listening, and by incorporating Pacific voices into the fabric of a renewed and revitalised global family.

Dan McGarry was previously media director at Vanuatu Daily Post/Buzz FM96. The Village Explainer is his semi-regular newsletter containing analysis and insight focusing on under-reported aspects of Pacific societies, politics and economics. His articles are republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Solomon Islands prime minister is adamant a security co-operation agreement his government has signed with China will not undermine regional security.

In Parliament yesterday, Manasseh Sogavare confirmed the controversial security agreement with China had been signed despite strong opposition to the deal from the other side of the house.

The pact, a draft of which was first leaked online last month, raised domestic and regional anxieties about Beijing’s increasing influence in the South Pacific.

It is feared that it could open the door to China’s military presence in Honiara — a claim rejected both by China and Solomon Islands.

Sogavare has defended the intention behind the move, saying its aim is for the nation to diversify its security ties “to improve the quality of lives” of its people and to “address soft and hard security threats facing the country”.

“I ask all our neighbours, friends and partners to respect the sovereign interests of Solomon Islands on the assurance that the decision will not adversely impact or undermine the peace and harmony of our region,” Sogavare said.

In response, opposition leader Matthew Wale called on Sogavare to make the signed document public “to allay any regional fears of any hidden parts of it”.

‘Disclosure of the agreement’
“And now that the agreement has been signed whether the Prime Minister will allow a disclosure of the agreement so that members may have a perusal of it,” Wale said.

Wale’s sentiments were echoed by another opposition MP, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, Peter Kenilorea Jr.

Kenilorea Jr said Sogavare’s decision to strike a military cooperation deal with China lacked transparency and he believed whatever efforts partners were putting in from the region were not going to make a difference.

But he also expressed concern, now that the two countries have made the agreement official, that it could become the source for domestic tensions.

“It will just further inflame emotions and tensions and again underscores the mistrust that people have on the government,” Peter Kenilorea Jr said.

“It is cause for concern for many Solomon Islanders, but definitely a certain segment of the society will now feel even more concerned and might want to start to take certain action which is not in the best interest of Solomon Islands in our own unity as a country.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had raised “serious concerns” about the security pact when the news initially broke two weeks ago.

‘No need’, says Ardern
And following the announcement on Wednesday that the deal was done, Ardern reiterated her concerns.

“We see no need for this agreement,” Ardern said.

“We’re concerned about the militarisation of the Pacific and we continue to call on the Solomons to work with the Pacific with any concerns around their security they may have.”

The Solomon Islands prime minister is adamant a security cooperation agreement his government has signed with China will not undermine regional security. https://t.co/SxP21e1lKu

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) April 20, 2022

RNZ Pacific’s Honiara-based correspondent Georgina Kekea said the issue had divided public opinion in the country.

Kekea said people were already anticipating the signing of the pact.

“From what we’ve seen there are some who are with the signing, there some who are not. Some who are a bit sceptical about what the future will be like in the Solomon Islands with such an agreement being signed with China,” she said.

“So, there’s mixed feelings I would say on the ground, especially with the signing.”

US officials confer with Honiara
Meanwhile, senior US officials are meeting with Solomon Islands government this week with the security deal expected to be a major point of discussions.

Writing on his Village Explainer website in an article entitled “Pacific stuff up?”, Vanuatu columnist Dan McGarry writes that “if the coming election goes to Australia’s Labor party, Penny Wong is very likely to become Foreign Minister. So when she speaks, people across the region prick up their ears.

“Without the least disrespect to her recent forebears, she could be one of the most acute, incisive and insightful FMs in recent history.

“Whether she’ll be any more effective than them is another matter.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A senior Solomon Islands MP has warned that the controversial security agreement with China could result in action among local opponents of the deal.

The government in Honiara signed a controversial security agreement with China despite concern from local political figures, as well as Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

There are regional concerns the deal could open the door for Beijing to base its military in Honiara, but Prime Minister Manasseh Sovagare denies that that is the purpose of the security pact.

Solomon Islands parliamentarian and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee Peter Kenilorea Jr said Sogavare’s decision to seal the deal — despite significant opposition — could lead to domestic ramifications.

He said certain sections of the nation’s population have been strongly against China since the diplomatic switch from Taiwan in 2019.

Kenilorea said some people would not take this lightly and it was going to cause further tensions that were already at play locally.

“It will just further inflame emotions and tensions. And again underscores the mistrust that people have in the government,” he said.

‘A cause for concern’
“And it is cause for concern for many Solomon Islanders, but definitely a certain segment of the society will now feel even more concerned and might want to start to take certain action which is not in the best interest of Solomon Islands in our own unity as a country.”

Kenilorea said the government needed to make the security document signed with China available to the public.

“It is that important that it should be made public. We have a security treaty with Australia, and that can be accessed online.

“So why couldn’t this be and I will be calling for that signed copy to be made available so that all Solomon Islanders as well as a region can see what is in there,” he said.

Opposition Leader Matthew Wale made that a formal request in Parliament “to allay any regional fears” and received a non-commital response from Sogavare.

Australia’s disappointment with Honiara
The Australian federal government has declared it is “deeply disappointed” that Solomon Islands has pressed ahead and signed the security pact with China.

The announcement came just days after Australia’s Minister for the Pacific Zed Seselja travelled to Honiara and met Sogavare in a last-ditch effort to dissuade him from going ahead with the deal.

Senator Seselja and Foreign Minister Marise Payne said the government was “disappointed” by the agreement and that it was not reached in a transparent way.

“Ultimately, this is a sovereign decision of the government of Solomon Islands and we absolutely recognise that, but … declarations and these engagements on security issues have been dealt with in a Pacific-wide manner,” Payne said.

“That is the traditional approach for these issues and it’s why some Pacific partners have also raised concerns.”

Senator Payne said the government’s position was still that Pacific neighbours were the best to delivery security in the region and said it was an “unfair characterisation” to say the region had become less secure while Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been in power.

The ministers said while Solomon Islands had the right to make sovereign decisions about national security, Australia still believed the “Pacific family” was best placed to provide security guarantees.

In Washington, the White House, which is sending a high-level US delegation to Honiara this week, said it was concerned about “the lack of transparency and unspecified nature” of the pact.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss how numerous countries have committed aid, intelligence expertise, military hardware and weapons to a multilateral effort in support of Ukraine.

What does this 2022-style of military diplomacy mean for the independent foreign policies of countries like New Zealand – with its style of incremental contributions in aid of the defence of Ukraine?

For example, the New Zealand Government this week confirmed the deployment of a C-130 Hercules with 50 personnel to Europe; a further eight logistics specialists based in Germany; $13 million in further support to procure equipment for the Ukraine military.

On announcing the move, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said: “Our support is to assist the Ukraine Army to repel a brutal Russian invasion because peace in the region of Europe is essential for global stability.”

Ardern added: “The global response has seen an unprecedented amount of military support pledged for Ukraine, and more help to transport and distribute it is urgently needed, and so we will do our bit to help.” (ref. ForeignAffairs.co.nz, https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/04/11/mil-osi-new-zealand-new-zealand-sends-c130-hercules-and-50-strong-team-to-europe-to-support-ukraine/ )

So today, we examine how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with its method of total annihilation, has drawn once relatively independent nations into the fold of western security alliances. And we will consider whether such moves will become a permanent configuration?

Also in this episode, we will discuss the South-West Pacific strategic balance. Specifically, why has the People’s Republic of China, and the Solomon Islands bilateral security agreement, upset Australia, New Zealand, and the United States of America?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

It has been an interesting couple of weeks for Solomon Islands, with stories of policing, weapons, replica weapons and a security agreement with China dominating the local and regional media.

Let’s start with the issue of arming the police. After the tensions, for a long time Solomon police did not carry arms but this is an exception in our history.

Indeed, the precursor of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) created during the early colonial era was known as the “BSIP Armed Constabulary”.

For as long as I can remember, our police have had access to some form of arms stored in the armoury. Their use traditionally was ceremonial, mostly during parades.

In fact, many of us who used to watch their parades loved to hear the sound made when the police and marine units lifted the guns as they responded to the orders of the parade commander.

The only time the weapons were used in my lifetime was during the Bougainville crisis and during the ethnic tensions.

The Bougainville crisis necessitated the importation by the Solomon Islands government of high-powered guns because of incursions by armed Papua New Guinean soldiers across the border and their use against Solomon Islands citizens at the PNG-Solomon Islands border.

Weapons bought via US broker
I recall that importation as at that time I was a legal adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The weapons were purchased from the US via a broker in Singapore.

Some questions were asked but, given the circumstances, their importation was justifiable.

A diplomatic request was made for their temporary storage in Australia before they were shipped to Honiara. These were government-procured arms and the procurement procedures for their acquisition duly complied with government procurement processes.

I have been advocating for some time the rearmament of the RSIPF and I am also supportive of the RSIPF to be trained by whoever can provide it. Many police officers have been trained in the US, Taiwan, Australia, UK, Singapore, New Zealand and Fiji.

Thus, I have no particular issues with them being trained by Chinese advisers as was the case recently.

However, I do have issues if the RSIPF is going to equip itself with high-powered guns, whether real ones (as supplied by Australia) or fake ones (as supplied by China). These concerns are exacerbated by the current level of secrecy and confusion around the security arrangements.

Firstly, it is questionable whether it is necessary for the RSIPF to be armed with high-powered weapons. Perhaps there are still a number of guns that were taken from the armoury that are still in the hands of former MEF (Malaitan Eagle Force) militants.

Moreover, this information might be known by a key member of the current political coalition who is a former MEF commander. Perhaps the police just want to be prepared.

Memories of the ethnic tensions
However, we also should not forget what happened 22 years ago during the ethnic tensions, when the armoury was compromised by police giving weapons to militants and militants raiding the armoury for weapons — weapons which were then used by Solomon Islanders to intimidate and kill their fellow citizens.

Members of the public are also genuinely concerned about the manner in which the Chinese fake guns were imported into the country — via a logging vessel which is, to say the least, an unusual means of transporting official government goods.

The shifting narratives from the Police Commissioner about this incident have raised more questions than they have answered.

There are also broader questions. Is security created through arming the police? Or should we instead focus on an approach to security whereby the community is recognised as a partner in building and maintaining peace, and build on the long history Solomon Islanders have of brokering conflict among themselves?

While, as I said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with arming the police, the focus needs to be on using community policing, chiefs, and youth leaders to broker conflicts. It is unfortunate when the ordinary citizens of the country are viewed not as partners in development, but as threat to the hegemony and hold on power by some people.

Last year’s riots and covid-19 have revealed many underlying governance weaknesses. As I have argued earlier, they are symptomatic of a society that has become increasingly less pluralistic, and of political and economic institutions that have become less inclusive.

Then there is the leaked security agreement with China, which has exacerbated existing unease among the public about China. The increasing engagement with China is explained by the Prime Minister as an attempt by the government to diversify its engagement on security.

Chinese naval base unlikely
It is unlikely that China will build a naval base in Solomon Islands. The agreement does not specify that it will and, although it could be construed that way, the reality is that it is not going to happen.

Australia is already building a patrol base in Lofung, in the Shortland Islands which borders Papua New Guinea, and has announced that they will build another one in the eastern Solomon Islands. I would venture to suggest that the capacity of these investments should cater for a naval base if the need ever arises in the future.

What is unprecedented about this security arrangement is that it allows China, with the consent of the Solomon Islands government, to send armed personnel to protect its citizens and assets.

It also prohibits any publicity around these arrangements. It is ironic that a prime minister who invariably extols the virtues of national sovereignty should agree to cede a fundamental sovereign function — the protection of lives and property — to a foreign force.

It is not clear if this is inadvertent, but it would seem that its ramifications have not been thought through.

The security arrangement has also raised concerns in the region. The President of the Federated States of Micronesia has written to Prime Minister Sogavare requesting that he reconsider it.

There is perhaps nothing intrinsically wrong with Solomon Islands signing a security agreement with China. There should, however, be coherence with similar arrangements with other countries, which focus on the capacity of the Solomon Islands Police Force to deal with internal security uprisings, and preferably all assistance should be within a regional framework supported by the Pacific Islands Forum.

Cannot choose neighbours
While a country may choose its friends, it cannot choose its neighbours.

In Solomon Islands today, there is no opportunity for policy debate by the public except on Facebook. The public and constituents do not have the same ease of access to our ministers and prime minister as embassy officials, and mining and logging CEOs.

Such is the current degree of polarisation that any criticism or comment is viewed by the current political coalition as “anti-government”. There does not seem to be any scope for dissenting views, or even constructive ideas from outside the inner circle, to be accommodated.

Unless a more pluralistic society is promoted where people’s views are welcomed, and there are more inclusive political and economic institutions, the government will be forced to depend on regional troops to support it.

At some stage, regional partners must hold Solomon Islands politicians to account for the economic and political situation they have created and the resulting violence such as the rioting last year.

The current focus on arms, without attention to rights and responsibilities, cannot and should not be sustained.

Dr Transform Aqorau is CEO of iTuna Intel and founding director, Pacific Catalyst, and a legal adviser to the Marshall Islands. He is the former CEO of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office. This article was first published by Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre at The Australian National University and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fourteen officers of the Royal Solomon Island Police Force (RSIPF) have completed the first public order management (POM) training conducted by Chinese instructors.

During the two week course, the Police Response Team (PRT) and Operational Safety Training (OST) officers were trained in unarmed combat skills, advanced use of long sticks, round shields, tactical batons, T-shaped batons, handcuffs, basic rifle tactics and crowd control.

They were trained by the Chinese Police Liaison Team (CPLT) at Rove Police Headquarters.

All the training was “relevant and practical” aimed at increasing the capability of RSIPF officers to respond to different kinds of emergencies, a statement said amid controversy over a leak of a security pact between China and Solomon Islands.

At the end of the training last Friday, the instructors from CPLT and RSIPF assessed all 14 officers.

A second POM training course will be conducted for Central Response Unit (CRU) and Provincial Response Unit (PRU) officers from May 2-15.

Deputy Commissioner (National Security and Operation Support) Ian Vaevaso said he was “extremely happy” that the RSIPF was receiving such policing capacity development training.

This would help boost the capability of police officers to handle various situations during public disorder, he said.

Deputy Commissioner Vaevaso thanked the Chinese instructors for the commitment and dedication in making making the first training a success.

Robert Iroga is publisher and editor of SBM Online. Republished with permission.

China pact leaked by ‘lunatics’ and ‘agents of foreign regimes’
RNZ Pacific reports that Solomon Islands Prime Minister Mannasseh Sogavare says the leak of a draft security pact between Beijing and Honiara was done by “lunatics and agents of foreign regimes” with “no regard for secrecy”.

The Pacific country has drawn criticism from Australia and New Zealand after a draft copy of the security agreement being brokered with China was leaked.

In a parliamentary statement today, Sogavare brushed off accusations that a new China-Solomon Islands security treaty would diminish the role of its traditional security partners in the region.

Sogavare said his country’s relationship with allies in Australia and New Zealand will “always remain important”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz