PACIFIC ISLANDS REPORT

Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Center
With Support From Center for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawai‘i

Dear Sir,

Regarding [October 1 story] "AUSSIES SAID TO HAVE HUNG 213 PNG VILLAGERS IN WWII," it is useful to have a record of such matters. Although this has been researched thirty years ago by Hank Nelson - "The Swinging Index: Capital punishment and British and Australian administrations in Papua and New Guinea, 1888-1945" In the Journal Of Pacific History, Vol 13, No. 3-4, 1978, 130-152, the numbers of executed and hidden from the Australian Federal Government appear to be more than Dr Nelson was able to discover. Jude Hiari may well shed new light on this sad episode of wartime rough justice meted out mainly by ANGAU [Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit].

[PIR editor’s note: According to Dr Alan Powell of Northern Territory University, military government supplanted the civil administrations of both Papua and the Mandated Territory of New Guinea in February of 1942. Administrative control of both Territories was combined under the Australian New Guinea Administrative Unit (ANGAU) and remained so for the duration of the Pacific war.]

I look forward to his publication in due course.

Regards,

Judith A Bennett
Associate Professor of History
Department of History
University of Otago
Dunedin
New Zealand/Aotearoa

Letter to the Editor

With reference to Sept. 28 article "U.S. ATTORNEY SEEKS NUKE COMPENSATION FOR MARSHALLS:"

Any balanced news story of the nuclear compensation issue for the RMI, I believe, needs to at least make note of both sides of the question.

The Marshallese did suffer greatly from nuclear testing conducted by the US in the RMI, no question. That said, the article makes it appear that all Marshallese have been exposed to harmful radiation as a result of nuclear testing. This is a distortion of reality. Per the US National Cancer Institute ( http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t050719a.html ), between 1946 – 2003, there were an estimated 240 cancers in the Marshall Islands that occurred due to fallout, with an additional 290 cancer cases anticipated after 2003.

The US govt states it has provided over $500 Million to the RMI and the victims of nuclear testing. The RMI is seeking additional nuclear compensation in excess of $3 Billion. See reference ( http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32811.pdf ).

Over 500 Marshallese have or will have cancers that resulted from nuclear testing and many if not most of these people will die as a result. It is a tragic legacy. I believe the RMI has demonstrated Changed Circumstances since the original Compact was signed and compensation package agreed to. I also believe a full and final review of the compensation question is warranted.

The RMI has set a figure of $3 Billion plus as the additional compensation target; between that figure and $0 there is a lot of room for negotiation. The views of both sides need to be considered. Unfortunately, it appears the Pacific press sees the need to only present the views of the RMI and its supporters.

Mike Pettitt

Ocean, New Jersey

Letter to the Editor

Malaita, Solomon Islands

Aug. 29, 2007

MALAITA, Solomon Islands (Aug. 29, 2007) - Much has been said about the Julian Moti affair, a sad state of affairs I might add, which for me is of little or no significance at all to Solomon Islands and its people. Except one aspect. I will expound on this below.

Why it was allowed to preoccupy as it did so much time and energy of the Grand Coalition for Change Government is truly amazing. And even more amazing is the array of people offshore whose personal and official assistance the Solomon Islands government had secured to help Moti get to Honiara.

As an observer and a Solomon Islander, the issue in this case that matters to me most is the need to establish whether or not Prime Minister Sogavare and his government were misled over the status of Moti’s case in Vanuatu? The Government has bombarded us with reports that the case against Moti in Vanuatu had been cleared. But has it? Similarly, I am eager to know too who might have misled the government, if indeed the people of Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea have been misled.

Prompted by these and other questions, I did my own research. What I found as I’m sure many others have is truly amazing. As it is a legal matter, it is prudent to go to the source.

The source is none other than the Registrar of the Vanuatu Supreme Court. His letter of 20 February 2007 confirmed that the criminal matter of DPP vs Julian Moti "is still pending before the Supreme Court of Vanuatu".

The notice of exparte application was filed on 8th September 1999. It sought leave to apply for order of certiorari to remove from the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court into the Supreme Court and quash the decision of the Senior Magistrates’ Court dated 23rd August 1999 in dismissing charges against Mr. Moti and not committing him for trial upon information. The Notice of Application was accompanied by affidavits in support.

The next paragraph of the Registrar’s letter is pretty telling. It says this and I quote:

"The application is pending because the defendant in the matter had not returned to the Vanuatu jurisdiction and therefore [is] unavailable to be heard by the Supreme Court of Vanuatu and the Public Prosecutor had not applied for the withdrawal of the application which is therefore pending hearing and determination by the Supreme Court of Vanuatu.…".

The Registrar’s letter makes clear two irrefutable facts. First the case against Moti is pending [open, awaiting trial] in the highest court in that jurisdiction, the Vanuatu Supreme Court.

Secondly, Moti has not set foot in Vanuatu since 8th September 1999. Why?

No one knows whether avoiding Vanuatu is deliberate on Moti’s part. I shall leave that to his conscience.

Here, I find myself in a quandary. Whose story should I believe in this matter – Moti’s and the proponents of his line or the Registrar of Vanuatu Supreme Court who has the oversight of all cases before that court?

In other words, it’s Moti’s word against the Registrar of the Vanuatu Supreme Court.

Of equal importance is the nagging question as to why Moti had never set foot in Vanuatu since September 1999 when the Senior Magistrates ruling is being questioned. The other fact too is that Moti once had a law firm office in Vanuatu. Has that office now ceased or has it been remote-controlled offshore for obvious reason? This question begs an answer because if indeed Moti had been cleared of the case in Vanuatu, he should have no problem returning to that country.

If he has nothing to hide or fear, it is the expectation of every thinking Solomon Islands citizen that their Attorney General goes to Vanuatu to clear his name in that jurisdiction’s Supreme Court of the alleged wrongdoing for which he stands accused. Refusing to do so, invites more questions than answers from the public.

This brings me to my next point. It is this.

The suggestion that Australia instigated Moti’s woes is just as laughable as it is ludicrous. And it is grossly untrue. First, the dates don’t reconcile. This is a point that’s been made amply clear in the Registrar’s letter. The Registrar confirmed that the case was filed by the DPP on 8th September 1999. Australia’s application for Moti’s extradition was only made last year – a good seven years apart.

Australia has shown interest in the case because of its own Child Sex Tourism law passed in 2003 and that Moti, since leaving or escaping from Vanuatu, has become an Australian citizen. In fact, Australia’s pursuit of Moti is strengthened by the fact that the case against the man is alive and well in the Supreme Court of Vanuatu.

It is important to note a number of things mentioned in the Registrar’s letter. For example, the exparte application sought, first of all to remove the case from the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court and into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that the Supreme Court can deal with it. Once this is done, the Supreme Court will then hear the second part of the application, which is to quash or make void the decision of the Senior Magistrate who dismissed Moti’s case. Once this phase is successfully concluded, the next thing is for the Supreme Court to hear Moti’s case.

Strangely, Moti has been avoiding Vanuatu. Why?

The case in Vanuatu could have been closed a long time ago. But it did not.

Two reasons were given why the case is still open in Vanuatu. The defendant has not returned to Vanuatu since September 1999 so he could face the Supreme Court. Secondly, the DPP who filed the initial application has not [not] applied to withdraw the case.

So whose story should Solomon Islands ordinary citizens believe – Moti’s or the Registrar of Vanuatu Supreme Court? The credibility of the two men is at stake. You be the judge.

For me, enough is enough. It is important Moti clears his good name before holding the nation’s top legal post. He has nothing to lose if he has nothing to hide. Let’s get out of pushing ourselves on to the listing of the laughing stock nations of the world in this mad case controversy. It is total madness to continue with it.

The suggestion that Solomon Islands should take the matter to the International Court of Justice is just as laughable as it is unbelievable. Gee, there must be something in Moti most Solomon Islanders don’t seem to see that we are prepared to throw in every ounce of the nation’s resources to back the man up all the way to The Hague?

Especially at a time when our national airline is surviving on a hand-to-mouth situation, the much-touted Constituency Development Officers have not been paid following their appointments about a month ago. And the list goes on.

My conclusion is that if Moti is indeed the jewel of the crown for the Government, let him go to Vanuatu to clear his name. Until this is done, serious doubts remain over the government’s line that Moti has been cleared by a Vanuatu court. All the evidence show the opposite is true.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (July 10) - The Save Japan Dolphins Coalition and Earth Island Institute have called upon the leaders of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to deny granting of import permits allowing dolphins from the Solomon Islands to enter the UAE.

According to confidential government sources, twenty wild live dolphins captured in the Solomon Islands are planned for export to Dubai, reportedly to be used for a "swim-with-dolphins" tourist park in the UAE.

The capture of these dolphins in the Solomon Islands was done in the cruelest manner as part of a local Solomons "drive fishery," wherein dolphin schools are chased into shallow water and killed for food. Twenty of the "best specimens" for captivity were culled from the hunt to be sent to Dubai for captive display; the rest were killed.

The scientific arm of the international trade body that regulates trade in dolphins has denounced plans by the government of the Solomon Islands to allow export of these live dolphins to other countries. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), in a letter to the Solomons government, insists that any export of wild dolphins would violate CITES because studies on the status of local dolphin populations have never been done.

The IUCN is the world's premier scientific expert on wildlife, including marine mammals. CITES takes the recommendations of the IUCN as their basic scientific data on the status of endangered wildlife. The Solomon Islands joined CITES as a new member nation. The United Arab Emirates have been members of CITES since 1990.

The Save Japan Dolphins Coalition and Earth Island Institute are asking that the 20 dolphins be released back into the wild. The government of the United Arab Emirates should block the import of such dolphins and join the world in denouncing the cruel capture and exportation of these intelligent marine mammals.

The Save Japan Dolphins Coalition includes Earth Island Institute, Elsa Nature Conservancy of Japan, Animal Welfare Institute, and In Defense of Animals. For further information on dolphins in captivity and the coalition's efforts, go to: http://www.SaveJapanDolphins.org

BARTON, Australia (July 10) - I read with surprise that the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands is continuing with his unconstitutional behaviour in having Mr Moti sworn as Attorney General, even though the Judicial and Legal Services Commission have said he is unsuitable to hold that office. Put aside the idea that this somehow displeases Australia, the fact is the PM shows no respect for the Constitution of the Solomon Islands.

Just three days ago the PM reaffirmed his commitment to following the laws of Solomon Islands in the celebration of independence. What he meant was only the laws that suit him. A leader who abuses the Constitution of his country is a person who does not know the meaning of "rule by law" but prefers "rule by men".

Mr Sogavare has consistently disregarded the Constitution over the last year. He sought my removal, which was contrary to the constitution.

[PIR editor’s note: The writer, former Solomon Islands Director of Public Prosecutions John Cauchi, left his post in June 2006 when his two-year contract expired. Cauchi, who last year prosecuted two members of parliament - Charles Dausabea and Nelson Ne’e – for their alleged rolls in the Honiara riots, then criticized Prime Minister Sogavare for publicly dispelling the charges.]

He removed the Attorney General in an underhanded way; the Solicitor General left when a deportation order was signed against him; the Police Commissioner was not allowed to return to the Country. The appointment of the new Police Commissioner was contrary to the constitution and did not follow the proper procedure; this is the same with the appointment of Mr Moti, it is unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister shows no respect for the Constitution. He had Mr Hewagama dismissed because as President of the Bar association he is a member of the JLSC [Judicial and Legal Service Commission]. Mr Moti is being sworn in while the Chief Justice is out of the country. What is not well known is that Mr Sogavare attempted to have the office of the Chief Justice searched, in the same way as Mr Hewagama's office was searched. The DPP may be next.

There is a real threat to the independence of the judges of the Solomon Islands. Fiji had a number of its judges resign and a number of clearly political judges appointed; Fiji has had its Chief Justice stood aside by the coup; the Solomon islands is slowing going the same way.

There is a real problem with a leader who shows no respect for the Constitution.

I remain yours faithfully,

John Cauchi

John Cauchi is Former Director of Public Prosecutions in the Solomon Islands. He currently lives in Barton, Australia.

ROTUMA FISH EXPORTS COULD BE PROFITABLE

Dear Editor,

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand (July 11, 2007) - Last year I discussed with the Fiji Government Senator for Rotuma, Doctor John Fatiaki, ideas on sustainable development of the island, for the good of her residents. This followed on from a trip to the island with my wife and her family, her mother being from the village of Oinafa.

Snorkelling inisde the lagoon I was surprised at the lack of fish, yet the menfolk reported they seldom fished outside the lagoon as they only had one working outboard and to quote my wife's Uncle Fuata, "If that breaks down, next stop, Solomon Islands". Then men went out on one occasion while we were there, to get fish for a feast. Though not out long, they came back with a good number of fish.

I suggested to Dr. Fatiaki, if the airfield was upgraded, a cargo aircarft could land regularly to collect fish for export sales from Fiji. He and I discussed a number of low cost development ideas including provision a small number of new aluminium pontoon boats, a coolstore and fish processing facility, and a chiller truck for around island sales. Total investment around NZ$500,000. These few simple, and relatively low cost improvements would make a lot of difference to life on this island, providing jobs to stem drift away from the island, cash for her economy and would improve the diet of the local people (I was told 52% of the population have Type 2 Diabetes ).

But by far the best idea was from Dr. Fatiaki himself - to declare a 30km exclusion zone around the island that can be commercially fished only by the islanders themselves. The tonnage of fish they'd take weekly would be easily replaced, naturally, in an area that large. Such an concept could easily be copied for use by other countries in the Pacific. The area of ocean set aside if such a system was widespread, would be a major factor to preserve the fishery that so many of our pacific people depend upon.

I'm delighted, from reading the Rotuma Website that John and his people are well down the road to reaching this goal. I would encourage other island leaders to study what Rotuma is doing. The cynic in me would also be very interested to know, how many of those countries offering "aid" into the region, would be interested in a plan that sets aside so much of the fishery for preservation and use by the locals? Not many I bet!

Good on you Dr. Faitiaki!

Yours faithfully

Alan Peacock

GLOBAL CLEANUP FUND SHOULD TARGET SOLOMONS

Pacific Islands Report
July 6, 2007
Dear Sir,

I must thank Kiwi Professor Judith A Bennett for her clarification on the clean up of Iron Bottom Sound, which I raised in my earlier letter.

[PIR editor’s note: Iron Bottom Sound is the narrow passage between Guadalcanal and the Florida Islands in the Solomon Islands that became the scene of major naval battles during World War II. The wreckage of some 111 Japanese and American warships still litter the ocean floor more than 60 years later, raising concerns about possible leakage of oil and unexploded munitions.]

As a responsible citizen that I am, I must think locally but raise issues that only an international coalition can adequately address. I do agree that those who fought there ought to consider the lack of capacity in Solomon Islands to deal with the sunken vessels and their cargo of deadly weapons.

Equally, I am grateful the U.S. Government had acknowledged its responsibility in that foreign war by removing from Russell Islands unexploded WWII bombs. The difference of course is one’s on dry land the other at the bottom of the ocean.

The protagonists have at their disposal, tens of billions of dollars under the Global Environmental Facility [GEF]. Why not use it?

Otherwise, there is no point in setting up the facility in the first place. At a time when the catch cry of the world is saving our environment, why not use this facility to clean up Iron Bottom Sound.

After all, it is their money. Some of us only want a clean environment for us, our children and their children’s children.

Aside from the issue of ownership, hence responsibility, the Iron Bottom Sound is a monumental environmental disaster waiting to happen. Solomon Islands has far too many bombs ticking away at every imaginable corner. Please help diffuse this one. Whatever happens from hereon, don’t tell me, you have not been warned.

S Alfred Sasako.is a former Solomon Islands Member of Parliament who has held senior portfolios in his eight years in national politics.

Regarding Alfred Sasako's letter of 2 July 2007: "Solomons Urged to Clean up Iron Bottom Sound".

The precedent that Mr Sasako cites has to do with the internal government of Australia and an Australian state; not with a government dealing with a foreign one.

Secondly, once the Solomons became independent the government took over ownership of wrecks. Moreover, in the 1940s the U.S. made it quite clear it relinquished all salvage claims to wrecks and that was that.

There can be no legal claim as international law now stands. Morally, however, the protagonists who fought there and once owned the vessels should consider the lack of capacity in Solomons to deal with such a problem.

Readers may be interested in the following: Gregg Anthony Cervi, "War Wrecks and the Environment: Who’s responsible for the Legacy of War? A case study: Solomon Islands and the United States," Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 14 (1999): 351-399.

Regards,

Judith A Bennett
Associate Professor of History
Department of History
University of Otago
Dunedin, New Zealand/Aotearoa

S. Alfred Sasako
Media Consultant
Brisbane, Australia
June 28, 2007

A former Solomon Islands parliamentarian has urged the government to pursue the cleanup of Iron Bottom Sound of World War II wrecks, warning of imminent environmental disaster of monumental scale.

[PIR editor’s note: Iron Bottom Sound is the narrow passage between Guadalcanal and the Florida Islands in the Solomon Islands that became the scene of major naval battles during World War II. The wreckage of some 111 Japanese and American warships still litter the ocean floor more than 60 years later, raising concerns about possible leakage of oil and unexploded munitions.]

Commenting on a police report that a substance found on a beach west of Honiara is chemical used in World War II, Alfred Sasako said a recent ruling in Australia appears to have removed the lid on the statute of limitation.

Alfred who held senior portfolios in his eight years in national politics in Solomon Islands, said today police suspected the Honiara find to be that of white phosphorus because it burns when it comes into contact with oxygen.

He said the police assessment appears to indicate that unexploded bombs or ordnance onboard warships sank in the Iron Bottom Sound have begun to leak.

"If this is true, the Solomon Islands’ marine life is at very grave risk. Time is running out," Alfred said.

"We must not forget that hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel also lie in those ships. Once the fuel begins to seep out, we face environmental disaster of monumental scale," he said.

Alfred said the matter was raised with governments of the Allied Forces in 1997 and again in 1998, prompting an initial assessment to be carried out by the Suva-based SOPAC [South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission].

He said the response by Australia and the United States at the time was one of lukewarm. "They simply regarded the Iron Bottom Sound as a graveyard which should be left undisturbed," Alfred said.

"If the find outside Honiara was indeed coming from those ships lying there, I think it is a warning that should be taken seriously before it is too late.

"To my knowledge, nothing further has been done by way of follow-up to the SOPAC study. I think the time has come to do so in the hope we help minimize an environmental disaster we will all live to regret," he said.

Alfred said a ruling in Australia last week involving compensation for World War II claims appears to have thrown open the door of the statute of limitation which foreign governments have used to ignore compensation claims.

Western Australia is claiming a win after the commonwealth accepted responsibility for the delicate clean-up of World War II bombs sitting at the bottom of Albany harbour, in the state's south.

The Albany Port Authority (APA) had been suing the federal government in the WA Supreme Court because the Defence Department would not clean up ordnance dropped by defence personnel in the harbour between October 1947 and March 1948.

But on Friday night, halfway through the four-week case, a settlement was announced.

The commonwealth agreed to pay the port $5.25 million for past and future dredging and clean-up costs and $1 million for legal costs.

The agreement also requires the port to indemnify the commonwealth against any future claims.

Alfred said the Canberra had for the past seven years resisted settling the matter.

According to media reports here, Canberra used "every trick in the book" to avoid paying the compensation.

The report said that so much ordnance was found in 2000 that WA's occupational health and safety authority ordered dredging stopped until the harbour was deemed safe.

The cachet of bombs includes a 250-pound aerial bomb, 18-pound artillery shells and a variety of large and small calibre ordnance.

"I am more than convinced that some of the bombs lying in the hulls of those ships would be a lot larger than those found in the bottom of Albany harbour in Western Australia," Alfred said.

February 13, 2007

Dear Editor,

In regards to Mr. Ah Mu’s Commentary, I think it is important to have opinions about how government runs the lives of its people. The piece is very well done with facts and stats that would make any editor proud, Samoan or palagi (white man).

It is important to voice opinions of what we feel as people in the democracy that is the USA and especially a voice of our territory, which is under that umbrella.

I commend Mr. Ah Mu in his efforts to be heard from here; maybe the Honorable Senator Eni F. H. Faleomavaega will read this and be proud of the fact that the island is democratic after all with as many anti war views as well as patriotic men and women who sign up and climb on that plane.

The truth is Ah Mu was voicing what has been the view of millions of real Palagi-Americans since the war in Iraq began. Good for him for standing up and saying it hurts to lose someone you care about, who you were raised up with, a best friend since high school is now dead and gone.

We are strong and proud people, with warrior bloodlines tracing back to the beginning of time. That shows with all the families of the Samoan heroes who have fell in the Iraq war. Fathers and Mothers putting on strong faces and united family fronts to show their love and care for their lost loved ones and patriotic support for the war.

The question is, are they supporting the war or the memory of their fallen loved one? Could it be that they are showing support for his or her dreams of freedom, democracy and a better life for their families?

Yes, I am referring to the better life that the armed forces promise to our young men and women. Getting off the rock and traveling, a paid education along with world life experience. It can be quite an offer, as appealing to a kid in Flint Michigan as it is in Pago Pago. Though during times of war the offer can seem a tad bit deal or no deal, with the risks a little more life or death than a million dollars.

I believe losing a loved one is just as hard to lives whether you are from the states or Fagatogo.

When we elect the wrong leadership into the offices of government whether it’s the Governor of American samoa or President of the United States, the results can be as bad as it is now. I understand Mr. McDonald's show of patriotism in his response to Mr. Ah-mu's editorial but Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein were men that came into power because of money and materials that were given to them by a world power that was out to use another nation to protect certain special interests in these regions of Europe and the Middle East. I will give you one guess of who that world power is, that's right the United States of America.

The question is not about patriotism for Mr. McDonald, being a soldier himself has proven to all of us his courage and devotion to protecting the island. The question is about the intelligence of the government that governs and the people being governed. Whether us as a generation of samoans embroiled in a war have the guts to speak out and maybe spare brave soldiers like Mr. Mcdonald from making that ultimate sacrifice. To quote the article "fighting and serving a cause that possesses conviction and is justified." Mistakes are made when there is a lack of information on how leadership views the important issues.

In 2008 americans will again go to the polls to hopefully erase mistakes that were made four years ago, hopefully the lessons will be learned from a fixed election to reelecting the same leadership in again.

There is no way our kids from the green lush hills of our Island should be dying in a desert far away, being blown up or burned , dragged through the streets by people who never heard of American Samoa. These should not be the last moments of devoted Island kids who were promised the better life by the government of America. Mr. Ah-mu, I second your editorial and hope more Samoans can stand up in opposition to war and death of the youth of the Island, because after all speaking your mind is a patriotic democratic duty.

Best Regards,

Poumare Sio

February 13, 2007

BP OIL WORKED TO ENSURE SUPPLY AFTER TONGA RIOT

Dear Editor

Claims that BP Oil refused to supply diesel fuel to Shoreline are quite simply incorrect.

Despite the turbulent events that took place during November last year, BP Oil worked with the Government to ensure that Tonga’s fuel and electricity supply was secure.

BP Oil has operated in Tonga for over 40 years and are ever mindful of our responsibility to the businesses and community amongst whom we operate.

At the time of the riots, we worked around the clock to ensure the safe supply of fuel for essential services, and we also made it a priority to ensure that Shorelines supply of fuel did not run out. They didn’t.

Our efforts were critical to ensuring that Tonga’s electricity supply was not interrupted.

I can proudly say that BP stood beside the many businesses that were challenged during these difficult times, we stood by the community and we stood by Tonga.

Isikeli Tuituku
General Manager – BP South West Pacific

LETTERS POLICY

Pacific Islands Report encourages the submission of letters to the editor, in the interest of the open exchange of ideas and opinions. PIR does not condone personal attacks, however, and will not post offending letters. Letters should include the writer’s name, address and contact information and should be limited to 100 words in length.

PIR also invites longer commentaries or viewpoint articles on current issues. We encourage writers to keep articles in the range of 500 to 1,000 words.

Submissions may be sent to: pireport@eastwestcenter.org