Comments

Hi Jason, Thanks for taking the time to fill out the survey. We made the decision to hold back the survey results for two reasons. The first being that there simply wouldn't be enough time to process the results before the election (which, at the time of designing the survey, we expected to be September 14). And second we wanted to limit participants from self-censoring their responses for fear that the results could be politicised. We are interested in frank and constructive discussion that will benefit the Australian aid program regardless of who wins the federal election. On your second point, that is something we will have to think about going forward if we decide to run the survey again. Regards, Jonathan

Thanks for this fresh perspective, Grant. I wonder to what extent 'negative nationalism' is a legacy of how countries were treated prior to independence? Looking at Pacific regionalism for example, I'd argue that one reason Polynesian leaders (and Fiji) have historically been more assertive than Melanesian leaders is their different treatment by colonial powers (incl. Australia), which must have had an impact on how the population views itself. (Fortunately, this is now changing with the increased prominence of MSG etc).

Thanks to Jonathan & Robin for this post which highlights an aspect of donor support that is relatively under-examined. I think there are a couple of other issues that arise in this regard. One is that in the Pacific we have seen a marked increase in the presence and activity of these large INGOs - not necessarily new country offices but certainly an increase in resourcing. This certainly brings an added level of capacity in their areas of activity but as with those much-maligned 'consultants' we also see a lot of 'cookie-cutter' approaches to program design and delivery with nowhere near enough attention paid to loca,l social and political contexts (as with everything there are exceptions). Another issue is that the availability of increased AusAID funding seems to have led to a homogenisation of these organisations - it is increasingly hard to tell them apart as they all work in the increasingly crowded spaces of disaster reduction, climate change adaptation and other areas framed by the funding mechanisms determined by AusAID. And finally, what of the role of civil society in holding governments, including the Australian government to account for decisions and (in)actions? How assertive can we expect these organisations to be if they are increasingly beholden to AusAID for funding?

... I have just taken the survey. I note that the survey results will not be made available until after federal elections. Why is this? Surely the time for development policy to be aired is before an election, not after. This smacks of self-censorship, a counterpart to notions of the "chilling effects of aid." Also, the survey lacks an option for those who are happy to stand by their opinions and be counted. I would have been happy to have had my name published.

Hi Tess I was in the audience and my recollection is that the depth of Q&A may not have yielded all that you may be hoping. The event was very positive, as were the contributions by both Senator Wong and Julie Bishop, amongst others. My sense is that this is all part of the beginnings of broader and ongoing conversation, thinking and debate - and in line with Stephen's comment about Julie Bishop's speech deserving more coverage, so too do I think this aid/trade/private sector etc debate deserves (and in fact benefit from) more voice, and voices. Mel

Tess, I think that is unfair and unduly negative. What could be more important to the Pacific than an endorsement of labour mobility and a commitment to improve the SWP? Perhaps a commitment to re-think PACER Plus and move from a regional to a bilateral approach. It's a very important speech in my view, and it deserves a lot more coverage than it has got, and certainly a warm reception. Stephen.

On first reading, I found this summary extremely unsatisfactory because of the numerous gaps so I read the transcript of Julie Bishop's speech to discover that the reason there are gaps in the summary is because there were huge gaps in what Ms Bishop said recently in Adelaide. On a positive note, it is good to see that the Pacific actually rated a mention in this 'thinking about our thinking' which is an improvement on the 'thinking' we got <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/02/foreign-policy-julie-bishop-coalition" rel="nofollow">last month</a>. It would be good to know if there was an opportunity for people to put questions to Ms Bishop following her speech in Adelaide. If there was, I hope someone asked her what the 'external constraints' to trade the coalition was planning to abolish might be bearing in mind that among the most significant are distance from major markets and vulnerability to natural disasters. I also note that no reference was made to issues such as amendments to the ROO and phytosanitary regulations that have long been acknowledged to be significant barriers to PICs wishing to export to Australia.

I am rather surprised at the comment by Ron Duncan. Was it necessary for Australians to be placed into positions of authority when they should have been sitting beside Solomon Islanders to advise and help and train? Why was it necessary to have tough Australian prison guards placed in charge of the central prison when an adviser/trainer would have been better for the long term? Why did RAMSI officials consider it necessary to have such fences around their houses while other European residents did not? Why did so many RAMSI officers maintain a "distance" from Islanders? Why were postings so short that officers did not have time to appreciate island ways? Certainly armed force stopped the fighting but has it changed the situation? I doubt it.

Thanks Stephen for this clear exposition of some of the aid-related issues. It would appear that not only has the 'realignment' led to a commitment to capex spending but that these projects have been fast tracked with scoping activities already underway (although as you say, it will be a while before sods are actually turned). In addition to how this affects Australian aid to PNG we have yet to see what if any will be the knock-on effects elsewhere in the region - in the short term it would seem from your analysis that there are unlikely to be many but if support to resettled refugees is deemed to be ODA then it seems to me that there could likely be cuts elsewhere...would be interested to know your thoughts on that.

Stephen, Whilst you refer to a minor incident the day before precipitating the retaliation the following day there may be some history to the events. In addition it seems interesting that the medical students, disproportionately comprised of offspring from the countries elite,were set upon by elements - one could say rogue elements - of the defence force. The lower echelons of the defence force are poorly paid, arguably poorly led and there are more of them and their wontoks nearby to call upon for disproportionate rent a crowd retaliation for real or imagined slight. So,without putting a Bolshevik interpretation on events there is growing inequality in PNG, particularly in POM. Cheers Alex

Just for the record. The statement "The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration was first initiated out of a 2004 review of the Forum Secretariat by an Eminent Persons’ Group" is not technically correct. If records still exist then one will see that the seed was first sown during the 2003 Heads of CROP meeting. 2004 was identified as the 10th Anniversary of the Madang Vision Statement and it was thought appropriate to review and revise the vision for the Region. (Look at the 1994 Madang Vision and you will understand why). The PIFS (Noel Levy) ran with the idea to the Auckland Forum meeting. Before you could catch your breath we had an EPG crafting an aspirational Plan without a clear implementation Strategy. The rest as they say is history. Be interested to see the results of this most recent repair job. With a diverse region and grouping of countries I believe that less is more. Provide a simple vision which we all can agree on rather than a detailed, prescriptive plan which attempts to incorporate every exception. For a resource and capacity poor region we seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time and effort planning and reviewing and not enough implementing the very different and often unique priorities. Just check out the situation on the ground if you think I'm off the mark.

PNG has just entered the technological way of life from the interpersonal way of getting ahead. Many Europeans have stories of how they came out on the wrong side of dealings with the natural citizens of PNG who are born experts, not in farming as many suppose, but in the interpersonal jockeying for preferment. I think that Stephen Howes' article "Rampaging soldiers at the Moresby medical school: implications for Rudd’s PNG solution" is the key to understanding the situation. Mr Rudd will find that he has been outmanoeuvred in a dangerous game. He will end up giving far more than he receives. Peter O'Neill will have far more excuses than Kevin Rudd as to why he cannot complete his part of the bargain. By design or systemic inability-who knows? Papua New Guineans are usually the losers in relationships dealing with Chinese and other Asians. Asians are even better at these interpersonal relationships, having honed their skills among the hundreds of millions: PNG has a mere 7 million. What does this mean for Australian relationships with China? Tony Flynn