Comments

James had his pulse on East - West sucos, asking probing questions about 1989-1994 underground resistance in Ambeno- Oekussi in between late night/ early morning euro 2004 matches. We shared a disappointment with actions, a slow motion car wreck, that Xanana and other parties took in their dealings with the (unfair) dismissal of disgruntled members of the army, Eastern - western resentments boosted by many sides of local politicos and subsequent political rivalry that arose between police units. Most of air con, cafe espresso, big $$$ consultants could only see the aftermath from their pampered perches in Dili, if they hadn’t just fled Timor. RIP

First of all, every nation in the world is multicultural, nations are prospering with people from different background and race. How can PNG isolate itself as a black nation? Such a speech from PM is unfortunately ill advised and from the get go the PM got it wrong. A better way to say it would have been "A successful Pacific Island Nation". No man is an island and I say, No country is an Island". Secondly, PNG needs to take a step back and relook at the development policy that was written for you. Is the policy in your favour and suits your traditional oral laws that guided your villages, tribes and communities? The Foreign Direct Investment Policy that you - PNG is operating on needs to be revisited. PNG should look at Malaysia and Singapore and learn from their development policy. PM Marape, you have good intention, every word you say is being watched and assessed by the globally, think globally, speak globally and act nationally.

(sorry for my broken english) i am not smart person. it's my personal opinion.. why it's not blowing up like BLM? i think it's because the people who want west papua independence are all staying in foreign country. like the funder.. the elite.. the ones that stay in west papua are just villagers who get gun supply from the foreign elite. then they had small contact/incident with indonesian military. these villagers are so simple.. they just want a better life. so now after indonesian government keep developing west papua.. these military villager keep coming back every year from the mountain / join back to indonesia and turned over their gun.. that's why i think it's impossible/not easy for them to get independence. there is no huge mass supporter in west papua just like in hongkong or taiwan. only small number but with loud voice. also there are lots of youth papuan that register themselves into indonesian military.. (??) even among west papuan itself divided.. some pro indonesian, some pro independence. if they want to get independence ALL people should unite.. if only some community or elite that want an independence.. it won't work.. wait.. east timor case.. it's the elite that want independence. until now the power is always held by these people .. in my personal opinion, their condition isn't better than when they were part of indonesian. they even become one of the poorest country now. the news i read recently.. lots of the kids there are stunting. until now they still depend on indonesia. i think it was just the greed of their elite.. while lots of the people keep suffering.. basically their nature are a savanna.. the land didn't offer much except oil. but now there is no more oil.. the oil are only enjoyed by the elite and australia. now their people demonstrated and asked for help from Indonesia. no good. but west papua are different. they have resource. they can survive. everyone know they are gem. if they are not smart, they will be tricked by the country that help to get their independence.. just like eat timor..

I who live in Indonesia do not feel there as you say. Papua and West Papua are safe until today. the problem is the separatists who make noise so that the world community sees them as being persecuted. lets share about Papua issues with me, it's my pleasure to hear you

Lest we forget, he emphatically stated in His maiden speech that He wants to make PNG become the RICHEST BLACK CHRISTIAN NATION. In this instance now he is challenging us to executing 2 significant notion simultaneously and that is to make PNG become: 1. Black Christian Nation 2. Black Richest Nation That is very challenging and it requires and calls for a UNITED fight for the citizens of this nation to take total Ownership and leadership where required to drive that Slogan into making it become real and tangible. First and foremost, if we are deliberately bringing the Almighty Creator into the equation then we have to be very mindful because He does not deal with sin and stain for a start. He has got His own standards and orders so amicably and clearly spelt out in His eternal Word. God is a God of Order and He requires us to follow His orders if we are to ever live up to His standards. Either we do that and Live under His Blessings or we sidetrack from that and live under Curse. That will eventually lead us to the second notion of becoming the Richest Black Nation and depending on How we interpret His Will/Standards/Order from His Eternal Word will make us rich and great. This is stipulated out clearly in: 1. Exodus 19:5/Deuteronomy 28/1 - If you heed My Words and obey My instructions I will keep you as a treasured possession above all the other nations 2. Deuteronomy 28:12 - You will be a Lender to many Nations and not a Borrower 3. Deuteronomy 28:13 - You will be the head and not the tail, top and not bottom Once again, the onus falls now back on the Executive Government of the day to Clearly spell out the VISION - (Habakkuk 2:2 - Write the VISION on the TABLET and make it PLAIN so that the one who SEES it will RUN.) through Major Policy shift/changes and Amendments going forward. Finally, the nation must be united and not fragmented to shoulder the responsibility as Psalms 133 says: " Where there is UNITY, God Commands His BLESSINGS."

I think it is necessary to reference the increased significance that this issue received at last years meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum leaders. Whether this momentum can be maintained or built upon remains to be seen but it is a significant element in a regional discussion of this sort: https://devpolicy.org/trying-times-in-tuvalu-20190820/

The Real History - and solution During the 1950s two groups wanted West Papua, American businessmen wanted its mineral wealth which they could not risk getting a Dutch or Papuan mining license for (i.e. they needed Indonesia to capture the territory to obtain a reliable and favourable license), and President Sukarno who wanted the lands and was already using West Papua as political diversion to blame ongoing poverty and corruption on the Dutch rather than his own administration and military. And in May 1959 friends of Freeport mining proposed an illegal use of the International Trusteeship System (Charter of the United Nations chapter XII) a scheme which would use "a special United Nations trusteeship over the territory for a limited number of years, at the end of which time sovereignty would be turned over to Indonesia" - ref https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v17/d203 In late 1960 after the Australian and Malaysian governments refused to take part as the 'temporary' administrator responsible for asking Indonesia to then assume administration, it was decided that the United Nations itself would have to act as the 'temporary' administrator that would ask West Papua's traditional enemy Java to assume administration. Making matters worse the Americans elected a John F. Kennedy who had had personal experience with the Melanesian of the Solomons during the Pacific and throughout 1961 Kennedy would not authorise the proposed acheme. None the less somebody, no doubt other friends of Freeport, told Indonesia of the proposal and by March 1961 Indonesian officials said they liked the plan so long as nobody called the trusteeship a trusteeship, ref https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d150 For the UN trusteeship or 'New York Agreement' to function as a defacto contract of sale selling the Papuan population to Indonesia it was neccessary to conceal the agreement and UN authorisation from the Trusteeship Council, and to ensure the UN Secretiat would ignore article 85(2) of the Charter of the United Nations which creates a legal obligation for the UN and its members to ensure news of agreement such as the 1962 'New York Agreement' which creates a trustee obligation is reported to the agenda of the Trusteeship Council. The problem in 1961 was that Dag Hammarskjold was the UN Secretary General and was opposed to colonial oppression. However Sukarno had two close allies a Burmese diplomat U Thant and India's PM Nehru who had become friends during the 1955 Bandung Conferrence the first time that Sukarno attempted to get African votes to support his demands in the General Assembly for possession of West Papua. Burma has a sufficent issue with 'separatists' (populations who have never consented to be part of Burma) as did India and Indonesia but India and Indonesia also had additional territories they wanted to capture if the UN could be silenced. Dag Hammarskjold's term was due to end at the start of 1963 and in 1961 the presumptive next Seretary General was Mongi Slim of Tunsia who in 1961 was standing for position as the 1961 General Assembly Preisdent, and Indonesia was providing the only alternative President candidate. Two weeks before the 1961 General Assembly, Sukarno and Nehru cosponsored a Non-Aligned governments meeting at it was proposed that U Thant should be the next UN Secretary General, and Indonesian two days before the Assembly announced it was withdrawing its candidacy thereby forcing Mongi Slim to accept the position as President when the world heard of Hammarskjold's death on morning of the 1961 General Assembly and Indonesia procedured to withdraw its candidacy. With SLim unable to be nominated, and with Non-Aligned support the pro-Soviet U Thant became the new UN Secretary General. Also with Non-Aligned support a Security Council resolution authorised UN military action on behalf of the Congo government against the Katanga Republic that had declared independence, then India invaded Goa and Daman & Diu, and Indonesia invaded West Papua. Indonesia had invaded West Papua several times during the 1950s and during 1962 the Indonesian soldiers were arrested again awaiting deportation, but the new UN Secretary General asked America and others to help Indonesia get the Dutch to sign the 'New York Agreement' that the Dutch had not known had been previously negotiated during 1961. The Dutch signed the agreement on 15 August 1962 and the UN Secretary General U Thant publicly endorsed the proposal that asks our governments to authorise United Nations occupation & subjugation of West Papua, and includes a clear intent to then allow Indonesia to assume administration without UN supervision. Technically the 'New York Agreement' is legal complying with Chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations although in apparant violation of article 1. Normally a General Assembly resolution must be provided at least 30 days before the vote; but on 19th September 1962 the Assembly was given two days notice that they were to address the matter on Friday afternoon 21st Sept 1962. Then on Friday afternoon, with U Thant personally attending watching members vote, the President of the 1962 Assembly told our governments to vote WITHOUT debate whether to authorise or oppose the new Secretary General's plan for West Papua. As the UN Secretary General controls which items are on the agenda and in which order of all Security Council and other UN meetings, no nations wishes to offend or insult the Secretary General. In other words, our governments were being blackmailed to vote yes for UN General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII) that is authorising today's ongoing occupation & subjugation of West Papua. The only illegal aspect is that the UN issue of resolution.1752 has still not been placed on the agenda of the Trusteship Council, and therefore the Council can not commence the yearly UN reports (Charter article 88) about West Papua's progress towards "self-government or independence" (Charter article 76(b)). Our government and every UN member as well as the current Secretary General have a legal obligation to place news of the UN invasion of West Papua and its authorisation General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII) on the Trusteeship Council's agenda without further delay. Please refer to our paper and some other historical links at https://wpik.org/a

Thank you very much Dr Armin Bauer for your feedback. Great to know that we share most of the suggestions. Grateful if you can share more information on your research in Vietnam. I will email you directly for the exchange. Cheers

I was in the Solomon Islands in March/April 1986 working on a rice project at SolRice. My wife and I were given a pick-up truck for getting around. We went one weekend to the Vilu War Museum. In those less troubled times I had no problem following signs and finding the museum. I have beautiful memories of this museum set in the middle of nowhere. The fact that Mags and I were the only visitors added to the atmosphere. For some reason we had the whole place to ourselves. We didn't see another living soul, still less the curators. Some years later I settled in Thailand and have visited the Bridge on the River Kwai and its associated war museums many times. With the throngs of tourists at the River Kwai I can safely that Vilu was far more poignant and atmospheric in its sad depiction of what the war was about on Guadalcanal.

Dear Tim. I fully agree that in developing Asia SMEs have structural weaknesses with productivity, not being able to pay high wages etc. Most IBs are actually innovative, commercially viable, dynamic medium-sized enterprises where the management is interested in finding solutions for the B40 which also make business sense. There are not so many IBs worldwide and in Asia, in our studies we typically find maybe 20-100 per country. but the number is increasing. Anyway, the number of companies and their sizes (IB can be small companies, medium sized, large, national or international companies) does not matter for the IB discussion, rather their transformative and systemic character of impact. And systemic change needs also some size and some commercial sustainability; in result, most IB are medium-sized firms. I am currently writing a more elaborated reply to the original blog. If you wish a copy let me know through email. Armin BAUER

Dear Ms. Nguyen Phuong and Mr. Alice Behan. A friend of mine sent me your blog, which I found quite interesting. As the former head of ADB's Inclusive Business initiative and having done in the last 3 years various policy studies and strategies on IB (also recently in Viet Nam), I'd like to respond to some of your points. I therefore wrote a more elaborated reply of which my main points are below. I am sure we share most of suggestions, and I would be happy to exchange more with you. Can you share your email address with me so that I can send you the text. Let's keep the exchange floating; the topic is so important. I am happy to share some information on the Viet Nam study I did by the way the company you refer to is an IB and if the government establishes some of the support policies we discussed that company will be included). I am happy to share also more information on Viet Nam. (and other countries). Thanks and best wishes. Dr. Armin BAUER (former head of ADB's inclusive business initiative) 1) IBs not defined by size but by systemic impact on the poor. 2) Smaller companies (and also social enterprises) can be IB. 3) Proposed IB support mechanisms - once set up are for smaller companies also. 4) In agribusiness not the employment size matters but the number of people for whom the company creates income opportunities above the market rate through their value chain. 5) IB accreditation is the best way for government and business association to ensure transparent selection of IB and targeting support mechanism to the private sector. 6) IB promotion must go beyond SME support policies. 7) Only a few incentives are relevant and access to funding is not the main problem. 8) Various countries (and their their governments and business associations) in ASEAN see the triple win opportunities of IB (for the poor, for society, for business) and now come up with IB support strategies. and programs. This needs to be further encouraged. 9) COVID 19 is a window of opportunity not to build back better but to transform some mainstream businesses and NGO-driven social enterprises into IB business models, initiatives and activities that serve in a more relevant way the BoP/B40 income groups. 10) But while more IBs are important for development, IB will not become (and does not need to) the new normal of private sector investments; it is one type of business, and others are also important.

Thank you for giving space to honor a woman leader whose shoulder we Papua New Guinea woman stand on today. Late Mama Nahau as we call her was our trail blazer who inspired and mentored many of us who are trying our best to advocate for gender equality in PNG. I wish to express my sincere condolences to her daughter Michelle who I have worked with in the UN in PNG for 4 years. I am thinking of her and her siblings, children, extended family members and the people of Manus at this difficult time.