The Manus factor: Lombrum base & the China connection

SAMUEL ROTH | Foreign Affairs Commentary

EARLY LAST WEEK, THE OUTSPOKEN African clergyman Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for George Bush and Tony Blair to be put on trial in the International Criminal Court for lying about weapons of mass destruction.

Millions of people believe that the war in Iraq was not fully justified by the evidences. Bush and Blair’s so-called preemptive strike on Iraq, not only left many intriguing questions but challenged stability and undermined respect for international bodies such as the UN and numerous treaties.

Tutu is a no nonsense preacher, both inside the church and elsewhere. The Nobel Peace Prize winner refused to share a platform with Tony Blair last week at a leadership summit in Johannesburg. His action sent shockwaves throughout Africa and the rest of the world.

Here in Papua New Guinea, the Gillard-O’Neill Manus collaboration emerged as a truly Pacific solution to Australia’s asylum seeker (‘boat people’) problem.

Many people in PNG are asking why a new prime minister, who promises to fight corruption head-on, decided to put a ban on international media covering this story on Manus.

Is there anything sinister to hide? Of course not! Then what is the fuss all about?

The issue of re-opening the Lombrum Naval Base on Manus, a suggestion by Hillary Clinton at the recent South Pacific conference in Rarotonga, is highly controversial and would probably contradict PNG’s commitment to the ‘Look North Policy’, designed to balance its foreign relations between China and the West.

The United States is strengthening its troop presence in northern Australia (Darwin) and, of course, Lombrum would be a step little closer to Beijing.

The preponderance of power held and enjoyed by the US after the Cold War is under threat as power politics takes a new shape in a rapidly globalising world. The rise of China is dominant. The world is no longer uni-polar with the US as the sole “international policeman".

Does China matter for PNG? Yes, because, as Hillary Clinton has said, "Wherever we go, China is at it, above it and under it".

Clinton was referring to the PNG-China resource deals. The US accuses China of ‘creeping’ into the PNG LNG project. It demonstrates that our region has now become the playground for power-balancing games.

Now, if Australia is the US deputy sheriff in the Pacific and responsible for the so-called Arc of Instability, where does this leave PNG?

Is the Manus asylum centre deal part of a solution or part of a problem? It does challenge the PNG-China relationship in a big way. Beijing will not let this go unchallenged, mind you, as the region awaits its next move.

Beggars cannot be choosers, it is said, and PNG chose to agree with Australia’s desired arrangement on keeping asylum seekers fenced in on Manus. There are power-plays implications.

Our dependency on foreign aid does hurt at times but Papua New Guineans do need to be assured of two things, both with asylum seekers and the US aspirations for Lombrum.

Firstly, what is at stake for Governor Charlie Benjamin and his Manus islanders?

Secondly, how will O’Neill play his cards rationally when he is sandwiched between two regional giants seeking global dominance?

National security and state sovereignty are fundamental to any country’s national interest and PNG must uphold these at all times.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu proved to the rest of the world that he does not compromise his values with short-term diplomatic talk that suits only the elites.

Samuel Roth is a lecturer of international relations and politics at Divine Word University. He has taught for 10 years in PNG and in Japan where he did his Masters degree. Samuel will provide PNG Attitude readers with a regular commentary on foreign affairs

Comments

[Peter Kranz]

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the UN has significant reservations about the re-opening of the Manus detention centre.
_________________

The United Nations refugee agency has detailed five major concerns about the Gillard Government's plan to send asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea's Manus Island in the coming weeks.

They include PNG's failure to sign international treaties against torture and for the protection of stateless people or to formally withdraw seven reservations it has about the refugee convention.

The agency is also worried by the absence of any national legal or regulatory framework to address refugee issues in PNG — or even laws or procedures for the determination of refugee status.

In a letter to Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, welcomes a commitment from PNG to withdraw reservations about rights that would apply to those found to be refugees, but says ''they remain extant at the time of writing''.

Dated October 9, the letter also describes an absence ''any national capacity'' in PNG to implement international obligations.

''We recognise that efforts are presently being made to identify and train a small cadre of officers in asylum and refugee issues,'' Mr Guterres wrote.

''Over time, capacity will improve but, depending on the scale and complexity of the task of processing cases and protecting refugees under the bilateral arrangements, it will likely remain insufficient for an important period of time.''

[Peter Kranz]

Is the ban on foreign journalists from visiting Manus still in operation? Was it ever enforced?
_________

It was certainly enforced and to my knowledge has not been lifted - KJ

[Mrs Barbara Short]

I think in the past it was customary for refugees to flee to a nearby country and there seek UN protection in refugee camps where they would be processed and sent off to various countries willing to take refugees.

But in this case, these people going to Indonesia, often pass through many countries on their way to Australia. They do not report in as refugees, nor do they seek out UN protection.

They are being persuaded to make these dangerous journeys to Australia on old fishing boats from Indonesia, by "people smugglers" who charge them large amounts of money.

These people may not be genuine refugees. Some are but others are people with plenty of money who want to enter Australia but not follow the correct procedure.

Australia needs some deterrent to stop them coming in their droves.

In the past we found that if they knew they would not be automatically looked after in Australian territory but instead sent off to Nauru or Manus for processing, then the flood of people subsided.

In case you didn't know, much of Australia is a desert or semi-desert and it is hard to make a living there.

Australia wants to stop these poor gullible people paying money to these international people smugglers who rip them off, put them on old leaking Indonesian fishing boats that are well past their use-by date,and they end up as shark fodder.

[Flinstone Segeben]

The point is why Manus? If asylum seekers' target destination is Australia, then Autralia should accept them and process them in Australia.

Im sure Australia has boundless plains to share with those people who come across the seas, some even for time being. For the welfare and safety of the asylum seekers Australia has all the resources necessary to make their stay comfortable and safe compared to PNG.

Therefore the point Im trying to make here is about the choice of location to keep the asylum seekers for processing. I mean why Manus when Australia has all the resources necessary to process them in Australia itself.

Thus by taking that into consideration I interpret the move to house the asylum seekers in Manus as more of a geo-strategic move. The asylum seekers deal is genuine however it is used as a cover for something that is more political in nature. If this is so, then in whose interest?

I believe that is what Mr.Roth is implying in his commentary.

[Mrs Barbara Short]

Andrew Pohun is right. Manus people have learnt a lot from being part of worldwide concerns.

Today there are millions of people on the move around the world looking for a "better place" for themsleves and their families. Some are genuine refugees fleeing for their lives.

There are many places around the world where there are civil wars of one kind or another. People like to flee these places, especially if they know they are on somebody's hit list.

In the past Australia ended up taking many refugees. In fact, other than the indigenous population, the people of Australia are probably composed of refugees of one sort or another!

At the moment it is refugees from the war in Afghanistan and the ones who are not happy with the way things turned out after the last civil war in Sri Lanka.

I guess there are also folk who are not happy with life in Iraq where there seem to be car bombings going off everyday and killing many innocent peple.

Manus will be a haven for these people until the Australian government can work out what can be done to help them.

Manus will certainly be once again playing an important role in working towards solving this constant humanitarian problem of helping war refugees.

Flinstone, I wonder how many refugees are rushing to live in China. Refugees usually choose a place where they feel they will have personal freedom to do what they want, such as Australia.

Manus should benefit in many ways from having the Refugee Camp set up. I doubt that it will worry the Chinese.

[Flintsone Segeben]

Yes it is true that Manus Province will benefit economically from the Manus Deal. However in the long run would there be some political repercussions for the country as a whole?

I ask this because Countries like the USA have records of manipulating domestic politics of other states through their state agencies like the CIA to suit their political desires. Look at the political history of Middle East Countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran etc..In the long run it is the host country and its people that suffers and not the manipulators!

Therefore PNG should be wary when courting such countries and their interests because they only know of their own national interests and will stop at nothing to achieve them!

If we (PNG) want to do something for an international cause it should be for our own national interest but most importantly it should be by our own decission alone debated thoroughly by the people's representatives at national level.

[Andrew Pohon]

Manus has a long history when it comes to global issues. It was a port of call for the US during the Vietnam war. Then the invasion by the Japanese and the battle of the Pacific again, Manus was at forefront.

Manus people have benefited more from these than any other way imaginable. We saw civilisation thereafter and brought us to where we are today. We will welcome the processing centre and the reopening of the Lombrum Naval and the Momotee Air Force Base.

PNG should be proud. We are part of the global world, cannot sit back and expect hand outs so let us take the risks and either enjoy the benefits or go down with rest.

[Zenitram Dee]

The so called smart PNG Politicians are pretending that they are blind to see the power play of resources by the Economic Giants right under their nose. The executive head of PNG is not rational with his instant way of making sensitive decisions at the political arena. He seems to make agreements overnight without looking at the future implications of the decisions or get the views of the people who make up the population of this resource rich land.

The economic giants who are competing against themselves did it for their economic benefit, who knows do they care about the negative impacts after their actions?

Only some smart people know, and are they going to protest against it? or just sit down and watch as if everything is normal.

[Francis Hualupmomi]

China may be affected indirectly, however, in my view the politics of it on the other dimension is to ensure PNG get an optimal outcome or benefit from the diplomatic deal. This is a humanitarian issue which at times can be seen as proxy for power politics. There are several key areas we need to consider in terms of immigration policies which Australia has since independence. These need to be negotiated at a greater height. China's bilateral relations with PNG may not be affected at greater degree. The ball is on PNG's court to play rational games in its political, economic and strategic interactions. PNG must ensure it does not affect all actors interest in the region - balancing interest should be played in the new field of geo-politics.

[Harry Gahare]

Sovereignty and National security are fundamental and when compromised we have lost our values, in fact our dignity and will surely become guinea pigs, SR you have made a point, advance and keep us posted.

[Bernard Yegiora]

Very good Samuel keep it coming.

We need more PNG writers and commentators on Foreign Affairs issues.

The more we write about it, the more we understand.

The challenge now is consistency in publishing on a day to day, or week to week basis.

I wish I had all the time in the world and access to free internet so I can become a blog addict.

[Samuel Roth]

Straignt on, FS.

We do not realize the consequences of our actions now but we will. Likewise, there have been fiery and bloody battlefields by proxy fueld by Super-powers (Vietnam War, Korean War, Afghanistan War, etc).

PNGuineans will soon realise the roles we are playing in such geo-political power-balancing and stand-offs.

However, when it comes to rationality, we have have not been doing good, esp, striking the balance between our short-term benefits and long-term costs, or vice versa.

[Flintsone Segeben]

I think the problem in PNG at this juncture is that most PNG politicians do not crtically appreciate the current geopolitical power plays that PNG is becoming entangled in and the impacts that this phenomenon would have on our state sovereignty.

Most of these politicians are making their decissions based on their own personal interests without considering the international political trends and its repercussions on national security and sovereignty.

The current Opposition bench lacks the numbers it needed to make it effective. I ask myself why the Government benches are so full of MPs. Its because they believe that by being in the Government they would be priveliged to access fundings as was and is the trend in PNG politics. The speaker of parliamemnt has also become partial and biased toward the government by not allowing lenghty debates on Government policies and decissions.

The consequence is that the government is now on a free lease to do things as it wishes thus making decissions that would have bad repercussions for PNG's national sovereignty and security. Consider this latest Manus Deal where PNG is making decissions at an other states bidding!!

Surely its a recipe for disaster when the battle intensifies!!