Comments

I find the opinions of Jon Frankel to be rehashing a lagging perspective that is laced with half-truths and turgid talking points, as if they were generated from Canberra and Wellington: "While starved of legitimacy at home, Bainimarama enjoys being able to strut on the international stage as the plucky Pacific Islands strong man willing to stand up to the region’s bigger powers. Neighbouring countries like Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu have shown sympathy for Bainimarama’s use of the Melanesian Spearhead Group as a platform to criticize Australian heavy-handedness." There is no evidence to support the Frankel's claim of Bainimarama being starved of legitimacy at home -- if there were any there would be Arab-spring like protests erupting in Suva. If Bainimarama's attendance to numerous UN events like chairing the G77 et al. is considered 'strutting the international stage', in Frankel's eyes; then Bainimarama would be guilty as charged. Yes, Bainimarama is standing up to Australia and New Zealand but he is only voicing what Fiji has experienced and what many island nations have been too timid to do. Courage is contagious, as the saying goes, and Fiji's assertiveness is rubbing off with more island countries and their leaders are slowly voicing their dissatisfaction with the neo-colonial type of relationships experienced heretofore, with Australia and New Zealand. Tonga's response to New Zealand withdrawing its Tourism Aid over a new plane donated by China, as <a href="http://www.islandsbusiness.com/2013/8/business-intelligence/stop-interfering-tonga-tells-nz/" rel="nofollow">reported by Islands Business</a>, is a case in point. Other events, like the revelations by Edward Snowden, on Australia and New Zealand's hand in the NSA/Prism wiretapping and internet surveillance have raised some concerning eye brows in the Pacific. Other corroborating sources, have pointed out that, this same NSA surveillance, is being used to spy on the South Pacific island leaders and the activities within the Pacific island Forum nations. There is a looming crisis of confidence in the South Pacific and it was not brought about by actions of Frank Bainimarama, but is the culminated blow-back, a karmic reaction from the very actions of some of our so called, anitpodean 'friends'.

Indeed. So we should stop pretending that such imbalances do not exist and instead do something to manage them. Hence my analogy with the teacher-child relationship. (Though I reckon plenty of NGO folk might see themselves more as a teacher dealing with child-like donor staff ignorant of almost everything outside their embassy bubble.)

Thanks MJ. I agree although I guess I'd add the caveat that it's not totally binary. And some donors are better than others. That said the power imbalance is never 0. Nor could it be I guess. cheers Terence

Thanks Mr. Andrew Anton Mako for your marvelous update. As a PNG Citizen and as an upcoming leader of Papua New Guinea, I declare that what you have posted is all the TRUTH and no one will against this.

Hear hear! Very few partnerships in development are partnerships of equals.A kid being unfairly treated by their teacher (hardly a relationship of equals) has more opportunity for redress than does anyone 'partnering' with a donor.

Technology is a tool, that is true, however what some of the DIFID, USAID and World Bank programs are beginning to recognise is that technology strategies also represent a different approach to solving problems. The web and communications technology have enabled mass participation like never before. The culture within technology communities i.e. Open Source communities is one of collaboration. As such you see a number of these 'technology strategies' focus on 'participatory development' over an above the tool its self. Participatory development recognises that we have a shared problem and that we need to collaborate to solve that problem. For the most part this is the attitude of many technologists and the deep important strategic imperative they bring to the table.

Not only increasingly crowded, but increasingly dysfunctional, it would seem to me.

Amazing work on your part. Thank you for increasing awareness of the issue.

While less impressive, the International Organisation for Migration has a <a href="http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home/about-migration/world-migration.html" rel="nofollow">visualisation</a> that tracks people movements. Perhaps it's obvious, but it's interesting to see how the remittance flows compare to the movement of people.

I have just discovered that the Guardian put together a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/interactive/2013/jan/31/remittances-money-migrants-home-interactive" rel="nofollow">similar visualisation</a> earlier this year. While it doesn't provide time-series information like the visualisation discussed above, I think it does a better job mapping where exactly money flows between countries. The way it visualises migration patterns is also very interesting!

The relationship between Gulf Politicians and Administrators over the years was a mixed one. Service delivery machanism was affected and in the end the people suffered the most. The current MPs now have the crucial task to sort this out and make the system work...Maybe I'm barking the wrong tree here. But thank God for missionaries.

It seems true. And it is a shame. AusAID could play a much more interesting role than the one it plays at present. Its <a href="http://wp.me/pYCOD-1aO" rel="nofollow">Knowledge Sector Initiative in Indonesia</a> is quite an innovation. Something DFID has not dared to do -not at that scale at least. More interestingly, AusAID's <a href="http://ausaid.govspace.gov.au/2012/08/02/ausaid’s-approach-to-revitalising-the-knowledge-sector-in-indonesia/" rel="nofollow">willingness to engage with the public</a> during the procurement process constitutes yet another innovation in the industry. In this sector (of knowledge and the role of research in policy), at least, we need new voices and ideas. Too few actors are quickly capturing the attention of the same funders. AusAID has the opportunity to be the innovative partner in the partnership it has with DFID. It has access to great researchers (quite literally around the corner from its HQ), to a 'new' class of foreign policy/development workers without the hang-up of British history, it is undoubtedly seen as more equal (more 'southerner') across the developing world, etc.