Queensland is the state that does the most business with Papua New Guinea and is at the pointy end of Australian interactions with PNG's health crisis. Campbell Newman's visit, with its focus on business, health and police cooperation will probably have more immediate practical impact for Papua New Guineans than the agreements signed by the two Prime Ministers. The memorandum signed between Premier Newman and PNG Prime Minister Peter O'Neill calls for face-to-face meetings between PNG and Queensland every six months, something that Prime Minister Gillard could not promise.

Newman's commitments on behalf of Queensland are a good thing because they serve to further broaden and deepen the relationship. They should be seen as an integral part of the bilateral relationship, even if not driven by Canberra.

To her great credit, Prime Minister Gillard seized the opportunity in Port Moresby to champion the rights of women in Papua New Guinea, raising it during her state dinner speech and announcing a PNG Women in Business initiative. As I've argued previously in these pages, the first female Australian Prime Minister has responsibility to advocate for PNG's women, who endure appalling levels of domestic violence. 

Australian women are themselves standing in solidarity with PNG women, holding events to coincide with protests by women in Papua New Guinea itself. Encouraging more Australian women politicians on both sides of politics to provide personal support, with the assistance of the aid program, to their counterparts in the PNG parliament and to aspiring women politicians could be beneficial. More regular opportunities such as these meetings of women parliamentarians would help.

Papua New Guinea also has a responsibility to build momentum in the relationship. Prime Minister O'Neill is a frequent visitor to Australia and has demonstrated he knows us well and feels comfortable being frank with the Australian Government. He needs to maintain the high level attention he's captured from Canberra by staying in regular touch with the Australian prime minister and senior ministers. O'Neill's own children study in Australia, part of the next generation of PNG's friends of Australia, and representing the Prime Minister's personal stake in the bilateral relationship.

PNG's investments in Australia total $1.8 billion, which interestingly far exceeds the amount of annual Australian aid given to PNG ($463 million). Australia is also the most popular destination for PNG students completing their tertiary studies abroad, with 1268 students from PNG studying in Australia, mostly at post-graduate level, in 2012. Leveraging these elements of the bilateral relationship will help the PNG Government strengthen its influence in Australia.

Investing in this new stage of the relationship with Australia will help PNG establish itself as a modern and reputable partner and increase opportunities for PNG to broaden its bilateral relationships with other countries.

Photo by Flickr user UN Women Asia & the Pacific.

China's military muscle, the impact of its aid and its loans, its investment and its diplomatic leverage are commonly mentioned by analysts and officials interested in China's role in the region, who also speculate that China has geo-strategic ambitions in the Pacific Islands. Writings on China's influence in the Pacific Islands can be found here, here, here, here, here and at the Lowy Institute itself.

Yet a review of the three main elements of China's engagement with the region – trade and investment, aid, and diplomatic and military ties – provide a weak case for the argument that China is challenging Australia's dominance.

China is the region's second largest bilateral trading partner, but at US$2 billion, the value of its two-way trade is only about one-third of the value of Australia's trade with the region. Chinese investors are competing in, not dominating, an increasingly crowded business environment, which includes investors from Australia, New Zealand, the US, France, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan. Australian investment in Papua New Guinea alone is worth just over A$16 billion, almost as much as Australia's investment in China itself.

China's aid program to the region has attracted significant attention, not least at the Lowy Institute itself, which published four reports on Chinese aid in the Pacific Islands from 2008 to 2011. But my report, which draws on new research conducted by Lowy Institute Research Associate Philippa Brant for her published PhD, shows that China is only the fifth-largest donor in the region. 

The complexities surrounding the various agencies charged with delivering China's aid make it difficult to extract accurate annual records, so looking at five-year totals of expenditure is more likely to give an accurate representation of China's expenditure. A comparison with OECD donors over the 2006-2011 period shows that Australia is by far the lead donor in the region, disbursing US$4.8 billion over five years, followed by the US (US$1.27 billion), New Zealand (US$899.3 million), Japan (US$868.8 million), China (US$850 million), France (US$718 million) and EU institutions (US$595.8 million). Australia devotes 23% of its aid to the region compared with China's 4%.

China has invested in its diplomatic network in the Pacific and wined and dined Pacific leaders. But in a competitive vote-buying environment, there is no evidence that China's diplomats are any more successful in persuading Pacific Island governments to support China's international policies than the diplomats of other countries seeking Pacific Island votes in the UN or elsewhere.

China's military assistance to the region is limited to the provision of uniforms and non-lethal equipment and the refurbishment of barracks for the defence forces of Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Tonga. This pales in comparison to the A$53 million Australia spends on defence cooperation with Pacific Islands and the A$130 million spent on operations securing the neighbourhood.

China is engaged in economic competition in the region and there are undoubtedly significant benefits on offer for Pacific Islands countries from their close proximity to the global centre of economic gravity. Impressive GDP growth rates in Melanesian countries over the last five to ten years is testament to that. But there are also risks to absorbing a rapid rise of economic interest from China and other Asian countries; debt distress and a crowding out of local small business are two.

Australia's dominant role in the region is not under threat from China. Rather than speculating on China's future ambitions, Australia's priority should be to assist Pacific Island countries to maximise the economic benefits of China's new role, while helping to minimise the negative consequences that flow from some of China's commercial and development activities in the region. Australia's new strategic partnership with China could offer an opportunity to have more constructive conversations with China about our region.

Photo by Flickr user Ostrosky Photos.

The challenges faced by women in our nearest neighbour are unfathomable to the vast majority of Australians. They face severe obstacles in the way of achieving equal opportunities to men and in accessing health and education services and even personal safety and basic survival. Two-thirds of women in PNG are exposed consistently to domestic violence. Médecins Sans Frontières has estimated that 70% of women will be raped or physically assaulted in their lifetime.

Fortunately, Prime Minister Gillard herself is keenly aware of the problem, informing high school students on ABC TV's Q&A program audience on 6 May of the appalling levels of violence experienced by women in Papua New Guinea. The Prime Minister announced last year a new Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development aid strategy to support women's rights in the region.

A record three women were elected to Papua New Guinea's parliament in 2012. Loujaya Toni, Minister for Community Development, Delilah Gore and Julie Soso, also the Governor of Eastern Highlands Province, are under pressure to meet the impossibly high expectations of several generations of women as well as delivering on the demands of their electorates. 

The Australia-Papua New Guinea relationship is multi-faceted. The $493 million aid program was for many years the main focus of the relationship, but relations have broadened to focus more on the economic and trade relationship. Australian investment in Papua New Guinea is almost on a par with our investment in China, at over $16 billion. Bilateral trade is worth almost $6 billion. An Economic and Cooperation treaty has been finalised. Australia has been assisting PNG with the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund. Business to business links have deepened.

But in managing this broad agenda, Gillard's most important responsibility should be to Papua New Guinea's women. She can not only set a visible example of a strong female leader but she can speak out in support of Papua New Guinea's women to a wide audience of men who will listen to her because she is the Australian Prime Minister.  This is not an issue which the Australian Prime Minister should take up only in private meetings. Women in Papua New Guinea need Australian support and Prime Minister Gillard can be a very effective advocate for them.

Photo by Flickr user World Bank Photo Collection.

The Government also published feedback guidelines, outlining how to send feedback on the draft constitution by 5 April. The Government also announced that there will be public forums next week as part of the consultation process.

An important part of the ultimate acceptance of a new constitution in any country is the credibility of the process in producing the final document. The drafting process in Fiji would struggle to pass the credibility test because the Government trashed the draft proposed by the Constitutional Commission, abandoned its commitment to call a constituent assembly, and is allowing a very short time for consultation (over the Easter holiday period).

It is also not clear how feedback from the public will be absorbed and incorporated into the text. While there were over 7000 submissions to the original Constitutional Commission, the Government has not indicated whether it took these into consideration in its drafting. The restrictions on the media in Fiji constrain the role it could play in hosting national debate on the constitution.

As the example of Indonesia has shown, transitioning to democracy is a long process. Fiji's government may have met one of its own milestones, but there is still some way to travel in managing the transition.

Bainimarama has announced that he intends to stand for election in September 2014. His criticism of political parties suggests he may be preparing the ground to prevent the two parties which have already applied for registration from competing in the elections. And his proposed constitutional restrictions on candidate eligibility appear designed to prevent many of his popular rivals, who have been before the courts on various charges or living outside Fiji, from standing. 

It is still early, but the Prime Minister looks to have a strategy for removing any obstacles in the way of his claiming victory in the elections.

However clever this strategy is, it does nothing to build Bainimarama's image as a credible civilian democratic candidate for the prime ministership, and he does need to cultivate this image if he is to claim a truly popular mandate. If he wants to live up to his promise that Fiji will return to democracy in 2014 he would benefit from at least trying to introduce the appearance of democratic process now.

For the first time in Fiji, the draft constitution allows change to the constitution through referendum. If the Fiji Government is to trust the views of its citizens to change the constitution through referendum, why not trust them with the draft? Bainimarama says he wants feedback from the people. He should stand by his own words and put the draft constitution to referendum.

This initiative would have a number of benefits: he would be seen to be genuine about seeking public endorsement, which would help his questionable democratic credentials; it would give much needed legitimacy and credibility to the constitution-making process; and it would give the government an opportunity to test its new voting systems before the elections next year. The worst that could happen from Bainimarama's point of view is that the people reject the constitution and he has to go back to the drawing board and redraft it.

But does the Prime Minister have the courage to trust the people? Probably not.

Image of the Fiji coat of arms courtesy of Wikipedia.

It is perhaps too early to predict, but there are some clues to indicate the likely focus of Francis' papacy. Cardinal Bergoglio's choice of name invokes two of the Church's most important saints – St Francis Xavier, who with St Ignatius Loyola started the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and is known as the Church's greatest missionary for his work in Asia, and the highly venerated St Francis of Assisi, who was known for his humility and love of the poor — suggests he will prioritise issues of social justice.

As an Argentinian, Pope Francis represents the global 'south' so will likely take a proactive stance on global development issues and advocate the needs of developing countries to global forums and rich country governments. In US President Obama he may have a receptive partner, just as John Paul II found in Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Pope Francis' own humility, and a statement he made in 2009 in relation to Argentinian government policies — 'human rights are violated by unfair economic structures that create huge inequalities' — hints at an enduring commitment to advocating the rights of the poor. 

As a Latin American, he represents the region with the most practising Catholics but also one with vast experience of poverty. A Vatican that is much more vested in addressing poverty might see more concerted Church pressure on developed countries to improve their aid and trade policies and provide more opportunities to developing countries. In a world still beset by financial crises, this kind of advocacy from the leader of the world's largest faith could prove decisive.

If Pope Francis can be the best advocate for the south, restore the reputation of a severely battered church in the west and fulfil his Jesuit mission of building the Catholic flock, he stands a chance of being a very great Pope.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia. 

Other presumed turning points – the regime's abrogation of the constitution in 2009, its campaign against the Methodist Church, or its trashing of the Constitutional Commission – have not resulted in mass public protest or increased international sanctions beyond the region.

At first blush, it would seem unlikely that this video and the reaction to it will prove decisive in redirecting the regime from its plans for Fiji or in influencing stronger international action against Fiji. 

Bainimarama has responded by standing by his security forces, although Fiji's police have expressed concern (see video above) and are investigating the incident. As the experience in Papua New Guinea has shown, police violence is not necessarily related to the type of government in place, and it may not have government sanction. But at least in PNG the police force has been transparent about the extent of the problem: 623 acts of police violence were documented in 2011 and 2012. The police responsible for violence have been disciplined, with 87 dismissed for brutality since 2010 and a further 73 demoted. 

Bainimarama's first response was not to condemn this incident but to support his men, demonstrating once again that his regard for human rights in Fiji is subservient to the needs of his regime. As if to rub salt into the collective human rights wound in Fiji, police canceled a permit for the annual International Women's Day 'reclaim the night' march last week.

As Rodger Shanahan has argued, Australia's own record of consistency in condemning acts of violence abroad is patchy. It is a similar story the world over. Bainimarama knows he can ride out international criticism by blaming NGOs and outsiders for beating up the story and focusing on the law and order challenge rather than the nature of his government's response to it. His government has been given a soft ride outside the region thanks to Fiji's intensive and creative diplomacy. None of the new diplomatic partners Fiji has been courting (China, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, United Arab Emirates) has voiced concerns about Fiji's domestic affairs and are unlikely to be provoked into doing so by this video.

But in an age where social media plays such an important role in influencing the thinking of young people, Bainimarama would do well to consider the implications of his management of this incident on his country's image as a tourist destination and its dependence on the tourism dollar. At time of writing, the various YouTube videos depicting the police brutality incident had notched up over 145,000 views.

This is an issue Papua New Guinea has to resolve from within and there are limits to the influence outsiders can bring to bear. But given the extent of the violence, there is a case to be made that this is a humanitarian crisis that requires at least some international assistance.

Foreign governments and non-government organisations can help to sow the seeds of change and assist Papua New Guineans working tirelessly on helping women escape domestic violence. The focus of International Women's Day this year in highlighting violence against women is important. The Australian Government, to its credit, has taken a regional leadership role on ending violence against women through its Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development initiative. It has used AusAID programs to encourage and implement practical action. The Australian Foreign Minister last year announced funding for four Family and Sexual Violence Units in PNG.

Calls for action to end violence against women from then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she visited PNG in 2010 and the Duchess of Cornwall during the royal visit to PNG in 2012 were also important in reinforcing a strong global message.

The PNG Government appears more ready than its predecessor to admit the extent of the violence against women but the attention driven by media reporting and lobbying from social media forums is still necessary to ensure action.

These issues are not a distraction from the core business of governing. They are not second order priorities. Violence against women undermines democracy, economic growth, effective government and peace in Papua New Guinea. It contradicts the PNG Constitution's Preamble principles of integral human development and equal participation. It should not be hidden behind the veil of untouchable traditional cultural practices. Violence against women in any form is not traditional, nor is it cultural. It is unlawful and it is wrong.

Photo by Flickr user Jeremy Weate.

It is difficult now to see how the Constituent Assembly, even if it has a fair representation, will have a reasonable opportunity to provide independent advice on the new constitution. It seems likely it will be hounded into rubber stamping the regime's new draft, with only a month promised for consideration.

In his address, President Nailatikau said Fiji could not 'allow unelected people to make decisions for the rest of the general public in the new parliamentary system' and that Fiji could not 'allow elitism to take place'. That he could say this while Fiji's unelected leader and the commander of the military, the country's most important elite, was standing beside him is extraordinary. This is unlikely to be lost on the Fiji people.

But it is not possible to expunge from public consciousness the work of Yash Ghai and the Constitutional Commission or the detailed consultations that led to the production of the draft. There were over 7000 submissions to the Commission. The people of Fiji who contributed to the consultations, participated in debate and read the draft constitution now have a taste again for what it means to participate in a democracy. If the eventual constitution or future system of government does not give them a voice or trashes the ambitions they had proposed for their new constitution, they are unlikely to be happy about it.

The publicity generated by this stoush will also give the Fiji people the opportunity to compare the Commission's draft constitution with the document eventually produced by the Bainimarama regime. They can make their own minds up about the regime's credibility and its plans for Fiji. 

Despite this setback, international actors including Australia should continue to press for progress in re-establishing democracy in Fiji and engage where they can to maintain momentum in the process. New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully has criticised Bainimarama's decision as a 'backward step of some proportions'. The process will very likely continue to involve backward steps, but the forward steps (as long as there are some) still need to be encouraged. 

Fiji may end up with a flawed democracy but it wouldn't be the first flawed democracy to participate in international forums and enjoy stable diplomatic relations with the world's powers. Many flawed democracies have improved over time and even though Fiji has a way to go, there has at least been a public discussion about the future, which cannot be undone.

Photo by Flickr user oliverschultz.

But Melanesia-style cargo politics existed alongside this strong party system and gradually much smaller parties and independents emerged to contest elections in the 21st century, diluting the dominance of the major parties. Vanuatu's political scene has become increasingly similar to Papua New Guinea's complex politics. A record 34 parties contested the election for 52 seats, more even than the 22 parties which endorsed candidates for the 111 parliamentary seats on offer in PNG's July 2012 elections. 

As in PNG, a number of parties were formed as a vehicle for campaigning by a few individuals rather than for ideology or policies. Tales of cash changing hands and of influence from external players are hard to prove but if true, would be a further sign of Vanuatu adopting PNG-style politics.

The most damaging consequence of the fracturing of Vanuatu's political landscape is a familiar one to PNG and to Melanesia: the more time Prime Ministers have to spend holding their coalitions together, the less governing they get done. Even for PNG's Prime Minister Peter O'Neill, who has the luxury of an 18-month grace period before he can be challenged, holding his coalition together will occupy much of his time.

As in PNG, generational change at the top level of politics has been slow to come in Vanuatu. A number of old hands and former prime ministers – Sato Kilman, the Vanua'aku Pati's Edward Natepei, the UMP's wily Serge Vohor – were re-elected.

The country's young people, however, are likely to have their eye on 43 year old Ralph Regenvanu, the Port Vila-based Australian National University graduate and former Vanuatu National Cultural Centre Director who attracted in excess of 1000 votes more than any other candidate in the country. 

Regenvanu maintained a high profile in his first parliamentary term, serving as a minister at times. He is ambitious and offers a younger constituency a more effective voice in the parliament than that often delivered by the country's leaders. Whether he has what it takes to rise to the top job however, is less certain.

Photo by Flickr user PhillipC.

This thinking may just reflect the educated mindset of the small sample of participants at our conference. But if we consider that this group could very well be the future leaders of the PNG, the influence Australia is accustomed to exerting in Papua New Guinea may not be as durable as it seems.

The Australian Government's White Paper did not make mention of Papua New Guinea or other Pacific Islands. The economic status and tiny populations of Pacific Islands (PNG aside) tends to exclude them from Australian thinking about the rise of Asia. PNG's economy is forecast to grow at a respectable 7.7% in 2012, comparable to growth rates in the emerging economies of Asia. Its population of 6.7 million is also growing fast. Like Australia, PNG is positioning itself to build on Asian interest in its resources.

The White Paper was written for an Australian audience but Australia is also well placed to exchange ideas with an emerging and engaged audience in Papua New Guinea on the challenges of forging a prosperous future in the Asian century.

Photo by Flickr user 350.org.

The proof of Bainimarama's commitment to transparency and sound process is, as always, in the implementation. But for the moment, his words should be taken at face value. The start of a credible process should be welcomed.

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Julie Bishop said just this week that it was time for Australia to re-engage with Fiji and said a Coalition government would pursue such an approach. Carr has signaled he is committed to bipartisanship in foreign policy.

Trans-Tasman cooperation in foreign policy is important to both Canberra and Wellington when it comes to the Pacific Islands region. Bob Carr's first working visit is to New Zealand. New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully has welcomed Bainimarama's announcement as a 'real step in the right direction.' He will likely be keen to cooperate with Carr on using Australian and New Zealand policy to incentivise further reform in Fiji.

The timing of Bainimarama's announcement presents Carr with an ideal opportunity to signal a shift in Australian policy that fortuitously does not involve reneging on core Australian principles about democratic process. The alignment of the stars here is too rare to be missed.

Photo by Flickr user vapourtrails.

A visit by Rudd to PNG to meet with O'Neill and Somare and encourage them both to reach an amicable agreement (which may mean a concession from Somare and a gesture from O'Neill which restores respect for the courts and constitution) for the good of the country is worth considering. 

What's the worst that could happen? If there's no outcome, Australia would appear impotent and be accused of interfering (though that is hardly a new occurrence in the Pacific – look at Fiji). But it could work and at the very least would send a signal to the people of PNG that Australia cares deeply about their future. It would also tell the world that Australia is serious about its middle-power credentials and values stability in its neighbourhood — worthwhile signals, given Australia's aspirations for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council.

It may be easier to exercise creative foreign policy in countries and regions where Australia bears little responsibility but Canberra needs to bring that same creativity to its own neighbourhood if is to convince the world it is a serious middle power.

The Australian Government pragmatically and correctly opted to stay out of the heady days of the constitutional crisis in December. But the enduring nature of the crisis and the damage being done to PNG's international standing in the lead-up to important general elections mean it is time for a rethink in Canberra.

Image courtesy of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

His family's declaration that they will continue Somare's struggle to reclaim the prime ministership will also offend the population. PNG is a vibrant democracy with no tradition of dynastic leadership transfers in parliament. PNG's leadership may well have been dominated since 2002 by Michael Somare, who was also the founding prime minister, but the people will not sympathise with his family's desperation to stay in power.

For Peter O'Neill's Government (whose record since the constitutional crisis has not been blameless, with the controversial deportation of a New Zealand businessman and a diplomatic spat with Indonesia), the resolution of the mutiny is good news. It strengthens its legitimacy as a new generation government committed to stability.

One positive conclusion to draw from all the instability of the past couple of months is that PNG has not followed the path of many African states which have endured similar challenges. No civil unrest or even mass public protest followed either the constitutional crisis in December or the dramatic events of yesterday. No state of emergency was declared. Diplomatic missions have not had to evacuate staff. Business has proceeded largely as normal. The population has effectively looked on as politicians have engaged in battle for the spoils of office.

With elections due in June, there is, however, no certainty that the nation's politicians will turn their focus to the good of the nation rather than pursuing their personal ambitions.

Photo by Flickr user ComSec.

Importantly, the Fiji Government now feels secure enough to commence discussions on a new constitution. It needs to demonstrate to the nation that it is genuine about the consultation process that is promised to commence in February, explained here by Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and to do that it has to lift the PER.

For its part, the Australian Government has consistently said it would not engage with the Fiji Government until it made some credible steps towards restoring democracy. It is not clear from the statements of the acting Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister whether a 'step in the right direction' is enough to warrant any new overtures from Canberra to Suva.

But it is the only 'step' we have seen from Suva for some time. Canberra should use the opportunity offered by the lifting of the PER to initiate some serious conversations with the Fiji Government about assistance for the consultation process on a new constitution. If Australia can offer funding to allow some international experts in constitutional development to provide much needed advice on this process, without strings attached, it could go some way towards encouraging a more open Fiji.

Canberra could also demonstrate good faith by opening talks about the restoration of respective High Commissioners, waiving sanctions on officials who want to visit or transit Australia to engage in talks on constitutional development or elections, and encouraging the participation of potential leaders in international dialogue opportunities.

If the Fiji Government follows through on its intentions to commence early consultations on a new constitution, a 'wait and see' approach from Australia now could see Canberra's influence further marginalised. Our Fiji Poll showed that 83% of Fijians thought Fiji should be left to sort out its return to democracy on its own, as opposed to 16% who thought that foreign countries should put pressure on Fiji.

A proactive approach from Australia that is calibrated to help the Fiji people decide their own priorities for constitutional reform might just help the formation of a more sustainable democracy.

Photo, of the Fiji press in 2009, by Flickr user Jachin Sheehy.

A possible alternative is a national unity government or grand coalition that could govern in 'caretaker' mode until election writs are issued. As things stand, it seems unlikely Somare and O'Neill would agree to this because both would have to compromise and cede an advantage each perceives they have.

But there are advantages to this solution. Ministries could be shared equally among both cabinets or the cabinet could be extended temporarily to satisfy both sides. The budget and other vital legislation could be passed quickly. While it could increase the bounty available to members on the government benches prior to elections, it could also remove the political advantage that the dominant party has in the campaign, which would be no bad thing. 

A level playing field might just make for a better outcome in many constituencies. It might also restore some public and investor confidence in PNG's political system after the damage wrought this week.

Successive PNG governments have failed to deliver benefits to the population from the country’s immense resources wealth. Both sides in PNG would do well to remember that the growing youth population of their country is unlikely to tolerate politicians who pursue their own ambitions at the expense of the people. PNG needs a government that can convert revenue from natural resources into improving health and education for all and providing opportunities for young people.

Australian journalists have speculated on what Australia can do to help. For our nearest neighbour, 15th largest trading partner, second largest aid recipient and former colony, the Australian nation should bear some sense of responsibility. But there is little, if anything, Australia can do in the current impasse. So far, the public reaction has been peaceful.

If the deadlock is prolonged and triggers some violence, there may be some calls for assistance to maintain law and order — particularly if the division among PNG's police means they cannot respond effectively. Even in this situation, Australia may only be willing to offer the assistance of its existing Australian Federal Police advisers in PNG.

This crisis has been brought about by PNG's politicians and ultimately has to be solved by them. While the Australian Government can certainly encourage both sides to agree to talk to each other, Australia can really only watch with interest and hope for the best.

Photo by Flickr user goingslo. 

The quality of voter registration has been an issue in Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, so Fiji has to get this first step right if it is to persuade the international community it is serious about 2014. The features of the EVR system envisioned in the tender document may be ambitious for a developing country but if a high-quality registration system can be established in Fiji, that should be a positive development.

The tender document says voter registration will commence on 1 January 2012 (that's only a few weeks away) and be completed by 30 June 2012. It also indicates that the Fiji Government is following through on an earlier promise to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This means Fiji citizens who are currently 15 years old and have lived under a military dictatorship since they were ten years old may be voting for the first time in 2014.

Fiji does not have the same youth bulge as the rest of Melanesia. According to the 2007 census, those aged between 10 and 19 years made up 19% of the population — not enough, perhaps, to determine the eventual result but a significant proportion with no real memory of democratic government.

I'm no expert in electronic voter registration but I'm guessing that providers of this kind of technology would derive from democratic countries and would probably have some connection with democratic governments, having provided a similar service to them.

Donors would have preferred to have been asked to assist with voter registration and therefore gain greater confidence that Fiji was serious about election preparations. But the capacity of the Fiji government to fund this activity itself and to seek international expertise from democratic countries in establishing it should be welcomed, however cautiously, by those putting pressure on Fiji. 

Donors who want to influence Fiji need to stay engaged and keep offering assistance with future election preparations. The Fiji government is unlikely to accept future assistance from countries which condemn this first step but might be inclined to be open to those who indicate they are interested in the process.

Danny Philip, the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, resigned ahead of a no-confidence motion that looked certain to defeat him and has been replaced by Gordon Darcy Lilo. The protests that followed his election by the parliament hint that he may not be the most popular choice. But it would not be the first time that a politician accused of corrupt activities held the top job in Solomon Islands and so does not necessarily prevent Darcy Lilo, long a key power-broker in Honiara, from being an effective leader.

In this unfortunate confluence of instability in the region, tiny Nauru has to win the contest. The Nauru parliament has elected its third president in under a week. While the consequences of political instability in Nauru are arguably not as significant as in the vastly more populous Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, it is hardly conducive to building confidence in the nation's ability to address the needs of its people.

These events are of course not as threatening to the health of democracy in the Pacific as the prevailing situation in Fiji. In fact, they prove that the democratic process works and political crises can be resolved without recourse to violence, which is undoubtedly positive. What is troubling about them is that they suggest a continuing inclination to provoke instability to achieve political advantage.

Changes of leadership during election cycles are not uncommon in the Pacific nor are they inherently negative developments, but they don't help international perceptions of the region or encourage confidence in economies.

The events of the last few weeks highlight an inherent tension in parliamentary politics in the Pacific. Constitutions and parliamentary standing orders allow governments to be thrown out and replaced without reference to voters. This flexibility permits both poor and good leaders to be replaced and the make-up of coalitions to be altered – for good or for bad. Removing or constraining this flexibility would be anti-democratic. 

But strong oppositions which hold governments to account are also vital to the effective functioning of parliamentary democracy. As long as provoking instability to achieve or stay in office is more attractive than acquiring and practicing the skills to pressure the government from the opposition benches, the integrity of parliamentary politics risks impairment.

Photo by Flickr user hopscotch_mom.

Australia's Opposition also recognised the importance of the relationship with PNG. Foreign Affairs and Trade Spokesperson Julie Bishop had led the way with this speech to the Lowy Institute in June. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's participation in the lunch the government hosted for Prime Minister O'Neill on the same day the Carbon Tax legislation was passed in the House of Representatives reflected a welcome bipartisan commitment to good relations with Australia's nearest neighbour.

The occasion of the Ministerial Forum allowed both governments to announce the long-awaited results of the review of the PNG university system led by Sir Rabbie Namaliu and Professor Ross Garnaut. Both governments committed to funding the reforms proposed by the review. The PNG Government has also committed to providing free education to all students up to year 10 by next year, following similar initiatives for primary school in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands. If realised, this promises to make a big contribution to improving PNG's poor education outcomes of recent years.

The introduction of a Work and Holiday visa arrangement is probably not as exciting as it sounds. This type of arrangement is typically a political tool, offered to add breadth to a bilateral relationship but with only limited benefits for the young people of either country. Unlike the more liberal Working Holiday Visa available to young people from a number of European and North Asian countries, the Work and Holiday visa has a quota of only 100 in PNG's case and requires applicants to have the support of their government, putting the onus on students to convince their government they are worthy of inclusion in the program. 

Our nearest neighbour deserves visa arrangements a little more generous than this, and than the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme (which has so far not seen large numbers of Papua New Guineans participate). But it is nevertheless a good start to encouraging closer people-to-people relations.

As a sign that the official relationship is evolving beyond aid, both countries agreed to sign an Economic Cooperation Treaty. Australia committed to further assistance for the establishment of PNG's sovereign wealth fund. The much more significant role played by business in the Ministerial Forum and during O'Neill's visit is a further indication that Canberra acknowledges relations with Australia's 15th largest trading partner should be about more than aid. The establishment of a committee of senior government officials and business leaders is also a positive move.

O'Neill may only be Prime Minister until national elections are held in mid-2012, so he has little time to prosecute the reforms he promises before being subjected to the infamous uncertainty of PNG elections. But on initial impressions, he and his government appear to be serious about changing PNG and deserve the serious attention they are attracting from Canberra.

Photo courtesy of foreignminister.gov.au.

Conducting opinion polls in countries without democracy and freedom of speech is hardly new or controversial. The highly respected US-based Pew Research Center has conducted opinion polls as part of its Global Attitudes Project in 57 countries since 2002, including in China, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Russia, none of which has a proud reputation for encouraging freedom of expression and a free media.

Rather than labeling these polls as ridiculous, the US State Department uses the data to inform its public diplomacy. The Lowy Institute itself conducted an opinion poll in China in 2009. Reporters Without Borders recently labeled China the 'world's biggest prison for journalists, bloggers and cyber-dissidents', and ranked it 168 out of 178 countries in a 2011 index for press freedom. Despite the far more serious restrictions on freedom of speech that prevail in China than those in Fiji, there was no Australian government criticism of our China Poll. 

The refusal rate on the question that is bothering the Australian government – that relating to the performance of Commodore Bainimarama as Prime Minister — was only 2%. The poll did not 'purport' to show strong support for the Bainimarama government – the poll simply reported the results of the survey and 66% of the Fiji people said Bainimarama was doing either a very good or good job as Prime Minister, 25% said he was doing an average job and 8% said he was doing either a fairly poor or very poor job. We did not invent these figures.

Just because the people polled expressed views that conflicted with what the Australian government believes the Fiji people think does not make the poll ridiculous. Thanks in large part to the Fiji regime's restrictions on free speech, the Australian government has relied on the views largely of elites – academics, NGO leaders, Fijians with chiefly status, former politicians, some businesspeople, blogs written largely by Fiji citizens residing in Australia and New Zealand – to inform its views of what the Fiji people think. 

With the exception of the occasional taxi driver, the people diplomats rely on for information and opinions tend not to be gardeners, textile workers, nurses, teachers, shop staff or unemployed people. Such people probably don't come to the attention of the regime in Fiji, and they may not feel as fearful as outspoken critics of the regime about the consequences of expressing an opinion.

Unless there is clear evidence (not just an assumption) that the 1036 1032 people surveyed felt intimidated and lied about their true feelings, there is no reason to dismiss the poll. It wouldn't be the first time diplomats were confounded that public opinion did not equate with the views of the people they speak with. I have a feeling the occasional foreign diplomat serving in Canberra, whose contacts are public servants, ANU academics and press gallery correspondents, might raise their eyebrows at the results of Newspoll and Nielson from time to time.

Mr Marles also used his speech to lash critics of Australian policy towards Fiji. He argued there should be more criticism of the abhorrent Fiji regime and that those who criticise Australian policy need to ask themselves a fundamental question. Those who argue Australian policy needs reform should 'own their views', he said, and need to address the conduct of the Fiji government and ensure it is at the heart of the issue in anything they write about Australian policy. 

I'm a critic of Australian policy towards Fiji but only because I think it could be more effective in encouraging reform in Fiji and ultimately edging out the abhorrent regime, not because I support Bainimarama, whom I have criticised regularly. Questioning Australian policy does not equate to supporting a foreign dictatorship. This is not a matter of 'if you are not with us, you're against us.'

Mr Marles' comments were made in a speech to the Lowy Institute so we have to assume they are a true reflection of how the Australian government thinks about freedom of speech in Fiji. The lessons we have to draw are that the Fiji people should not be asked to express their views and that critics of Australian foreign policy towards Fiji are unreasonable. You have to wonder if Canberra really is committed to freedom of speech in Fiji or only to the kind of speech which confirms the views of the Australian government.

This is the first opinion poll conducted in Fiji since 2008 and the first to canvas the views of the Fiji people about Fiji's international relations. Rather than dismissing it, as opponents of Bainimarama have done, why not seize on it as evidence that the Fiji people are interested in expressing their opinions, an opportunity denied them by their own government?

Some of the results are inconvenient to opponents of the Bainimarama regime, but not all are. As Michael O'Keefe pointed out in an opinion piece in The Australian, there is some positive news in the poll that cannot be ignored. What about the 98% of people who say they think it is important to have the right to freely vote in national elections, the right to freely express yourself and the right to a fair trial? What about the 96% of people who say it is important to have a media free from censorship? 

Should we be dismissing these opinions as those of a fearful and intimidated people whose views cannot be trusted or should the international community try to assist them? As Prime Minister Gillard said, this is a question about values and whether you believe in democracy. Our poll presents clear evidence that the Fiji people do believe in democratic values; they do not deserve to be summarily dismissed.

From Australia's point of view, should we write off the 76% of people who want Fiji to have a good relationship with Australia or should the Australian Government try to capitalise on this strong support for Australia?

It has been suggested by no less than Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa that the Fiji people were too afraid to speak against Bainimarama. I have to admit that I thought exactly the same thing when I saw the results. It perplexed me that, despite Fiji's economic malaise, increasing poverty and the Public Emergency Regulation which suppresses people's rights, the Fiji people were still willing to say Bainimarama was doing a good job. I thought fear must be the explanation. 

But if this was the case, why did only 1% of respondents refuse to answer and only 1% say they did not know? Furthermore, the people who participated in this survey were not advised that it had been commissioned by the Lowy Institute so they did not necessarily know the results would be published. And lastly, while an approval rating of 66% seems high, it is still lower than the 73% approval rating (in a poll conducted by Tebbutt Research using the same methodology used for the Lowy Institute Fiji Poll) that Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase achieved in June 2006. Bainimarama is less popular after five years in power than Qarase was after a similar period, a result which Fiji's SDL party can celebrate.

Rather than attack the methodology or the motivations of the Lowy Institute and Tebbutt Research, it would be more constructive for Bainimarama's opponents (of which I am one) to debate why the Fiji people hold the opinions they hold. Do these results reflect the lack of information available to the Fiji people? Do they reflect the media censorship which controls the flow and quality of information and the lack of freedom of speech imposed by the Public Emergency Regulation, which means opposing voices are not heard in the public domain? Do they reflect lower public expectations of government brought about by a series of coups?

There is surely a case for greater civic education efforts in Fiji – by non-government organisations and by the international community. The poll shows that the Fiji people are less willing to approve of the military playing a permanent role in politics than they are of the military's current role, and they are not entirely convinced the Fiji Government is making progress in moving the country back to democracy. This shows a people thinking about their situation and what is in their best interests. To ignore them would be a missed opportunity.

Poll methodology

The methodology of the Poll is explained on p.23 of the publication but a summary and further information is provided here:

The poll was conducted by Tebbutt Research, a Suva-based company which has conducted polling in Fiji since 1992, published annually in conjunction with the Fiji Times. The Lowy Institute reported the results of the poll. The results are the views of the people of Fiji, not the opinions of any member of staff of the Lowy Institute, nor any member of staff of Tebbutt Research.

The Lowy Institute has a strong reputation for high quality opinion polling, having conducted 7 annual opinion polls on foreign policy in Australia and an opinion poll in China on foreign policy.

As with all opinion polls commissioned and published by the Lowy Institute and opinion polling conducted by Tebbutt Research in Fiji, participants in the survey were not paid a fee. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in the major urban and peri-urban centres of Viti Levu, consistent with previous polls conducted by Tebbutt Research. Fieldwork was conducted by the Tebbutt Research field team in accordance with global best practice, specifically the ESOMAR standard.

1,032 people were interviewed on a face-to-face, door-to-door basis, with one respondent aged 18+ per household. Start points were selected at random. Respondents were selected at random and respondents were selected at random from within the household, to quota. Data was post-weighted to the Fiji Bureau of Statistics population estimates. 

The breakdown of respondents was:

• Ethnicity: 48% indigenous Fijian, 44% Indo-Fijian, 8% other.
• Gender: 51% males, 49% females.
• Location: 23% Suva, 25% Nasinu, 5% Lami, 15% Nausori, 12% Nadi, 15% Lautoka, 5% Ba.
• Age: 18-20 (12%), 21-29 (23%), 30-44 (33%), 45+ (33%).
• Education levels: no formal education 2%, primary school 11%, middle high (10-11 years) 13%, upper high (12-13 years) 32%, technical or trade school 21%, some university 14%, university degree 7%.

The Lowy Institute has presented the results of an opinion poll of the Fiji people and has not manipulated them in any way. 

Photo by Flickr user Henry Work.

• The Fiji people recorded warm feelings towards Australia (74°) and New Zealand (72°) but relatively cool feelings towards their Pacific Island neighbours (50° to 55°).
• China attracted fairly warm feelings (64°) from the Fiji people and 60% of people strongly agreed with the importance of a good official relationship between Fiji and China.
• 79% disagreed with Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum and 76% disagreed with Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth.
• 83% thought foreign countries should let Fiji sort out its return to democracy on its own.
• Despite Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum, 77% believed Fiji's leadership role in the Pacific was either the same or stronger than it was five years ago.
• 51% said the Pacific Islands Forum was more important to Fiji than the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), while only 16% said the MSG was more important.
• 61% thought the Government was doing a good job of listening to the people.
• The Fiji Government's delivery of basic services attracted strong support (for example, 82% thought the Fiji Government was doing a good job delivering education).
• 67% said the Fiji Government was doing a good job ending racial divisions.
• A slight majority (53%) said democracy was the preferred form of government but:
  • 98% said the right to freely vote in national elections, the right to freely express yourself and the right to a fair trial was important to them.
  • 96% said the right to a media free from censorship was important to them.
• The poll coincided with Bainimarama's recent bans on Methodist Church activities but 66% said the Church should not be involved at all in politics.
• 68% approved of the Fiji military's role in politics at the moment but approval for a permanent role for the military slipped back to 53%.

* The figures with ° indicate where participants were asked to nominate their feeling, with 100 meaning a very warm, favourable feeling and 0 meaning a very cold, unfavourable feeling. 

Photo by Flickr user yuko_ppp2501.

...may be removed from office by the Head of State, acting in accordance with a decision of the Parliament, if the Speaker advises the Parliament that two medical practitioners appointed by the National Authority responsible for the registration or licensing of medical practitioners have jointly reported in accordance with an Act of the Parliament that, in their professional opinions, the Prime Minister is unfit, by reason of physical or mental incapacity, to carry out the duties of his office. (Section 142, clause 5[c].) 

To date, only one medical practitioner (Somare's personal physician) has examined Somare but the Governor-General was expected to appoint two medical practitioners to report on Somare's health. The lack of clarity around Somare's health has raised some doubts about the legality of yesterday's vote, and it could yet be challenged. Papua New Guinea rarely misses an opportunity to prove its reputation as the 'land of the unexpected' and there could be more surprises to come.

If, however, O'Neill continues in the job of Prime Minister and appoints a new cabinet, this will represent a break with the Somare era in PNG politics. O'Neill has an opportunity to make some credible cabinet appointments and start to recapture public confidence in government. 

With a number of highly ambitious and prominent members of parliament backing him, O'Neill will also need to manage high expectations within his cabinet. He will have to act quickly to assert the authority of his government and deliver real outcomes from the promises of great wealth that are on offer as part of PNG's resources boom — before the country begins to gear up for important general elections due in mid-2012.

Photo by Flickr user Contando Estrelas.

Dr Fraenkel and others have suggested I have abandoned opponents of Bainimarama in Fiji. I am somewhat astonished at the level of perceived influence this suggests the Lowy Institute has in Fiji. 

The Lowy Institute publishes research, generates ideas and convenes events to encourage discussion of Australia's role in the world. We do not serve a government, a political party, a corporation, a lobby group or a team aligned to one or another side of any argument in Fiji. We do not implement foreign policy, nor are we a player in Fiji. I have no personal or financial interests in Fiji. My professional interests are very simply focused on analysing the efficacy of Australian policy in the Pacific and offering ideas that might help policy-makers think about how to make it more effective.

Opponents of Bainimarama who do have vested interests in Fiji might be better served debating what they can do to restore democracy in their country and perhaps focusing on the real problem in Fiji, which is not the Lowy Institute but the illegitimate government of Frank Bainimarama. Outsiders, such as the Australian and other governments, can hope to influence change, which is what my paper advocates. But the ultimate responsibility for making it happen has to be taken by the citizens of Fiji.

I have been accused in various places of being an agent of the Australian Government and of Australian business. Neither is true. The Lowy Institute is an independent, non-partisan think tank that was founded by one of Australia's leading businessman, Frank Lowy, but receives funding from a variety of sources, including Australian and US-based foundations, the Australian and other governments and some Australian and international businesses. The Melanesia Program at the Lowy Institute is funded by the philanthropic Myer Foundation. 

I was not commissioned to write a Policy Brief by Australian or Fiji business organisations or by any government. However, I believe that foreign policy analysts should consider that the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a mandate to advance 'Australia's international strategic, security and economic interests, including through bilateral, regional and multilateral engagement on Australian Government foreign and trade policy priorities.' One of the reasons I did not advocate Australia impose full economic and trade sanctions on Fiji – which could certainly be a much more effective way of hurting the Fiji regime – is that I know the Australian Government would find it difficult to ignore the Fiji interests of two of Australia's big four banks, as well as other Australian financial sector and tourism investments, and to risk damaging the livelihoods of ordinary Fiji citizens.

I accept Jon Fraenkel's criticism that I did not provide a full assessment of where the situation in Fiji is likely to go. My assessment was that further entrenchment of authoritarianism and of Bainimarama's rule was likely, and I developed my recommendations as a way Australia could try to assist Fiji to avert this outcome. I set out to analyse how effective Australian policy had been in achieving the Australian Government's own objectives in Fiji. I outlined the very difficult environment in which Australian diplomats were trying to achieve these objectives.

I did not accept at face value Bainimarama's intention to hold elections in 2014. I argued the exact opposite — that we should be sceptical about the promise and put in place a strategy that puts more pressure on Bainimarama to hold elections that have a chance of being free, fair and workable.

Importantly, I also acknowledged the potential risks of following my recommendations. I said Bainimarama would likely reject an alternative strategy to influence him to restore democracy but that this rejection would have the benefit of solidifying crumbling international opinion against Bainimarama — one of the reasons current Australian policy is not as effective as it should be. 

I did not suggest abandoning sanctions, as the Samoan Prime Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect, seems to believe. I said travel sanctions should be maintained on Bainimarama and key members of the regime, but I did recommended that Australia adjust the travel restrictions so that non-political actors who might be strong supporters of democracy and friends of Australia do not get caught up in them, and so that Australia can create an environment where the Fiji Government might listen to Canberra. I also suggested Australia could consider imposing more effective sanctions in other areas against Fiji.

I do not believe Australia is omnipotent or driving events in Fiji, as Dr Fraenkel suggests in his article. The Australian Government, however, does believe it has influence in the region and pursues a policy approach designed to influence change in Fiji. If it did not believe this, it would not spend diplomatic resources implementing the policy and keeping the Pacific Islands Forum's position intact. 

I have acknowledged that the fault for the policy failings lie with Bainimarama. My concern, though, is that Bainimarama's actions and the greater ambivalence towards dealing with the Fiji regime on behalf of other governments are undermining Australia's influence.

But the challenging environment in Fiji is no reason to hold back on developing a more effective approach to influencing change. Effective and creative diplomacy the world over is conducted in order to influence change. Kevin Rudd, like Stephen Smith, Alexander Downer and Gareth Evans before him, goes to work every day because he believes Australian diplomacy can influence change. That is what inspired me to write my Policy Brief.

Photo by Flickr user Cak-cak.