In our national interest or our economic interest?

How do you feel about our national security? Pretty good?

Think about our regional security. As the big guys of the region we’re doing OK, yeah? But what if you lived in one of the smaller states around the Pacific?

In 2003 Gallop International reported that in the Pacific region no more than 15 per cent of people interviewed rated their national security situation as good, with approximately 50 per cent rating it as poor.

The Australian Government is presently drafting a report into Australia's aid program and its impact on human rights and security in the Pacific. Australia’s engagement in the immediate region should be considered one of the most important issues affecting our country, however given the minimal media coverage the issues of our region attract (footy aside of course), you could be forgiven for thinking that Brangelina’s baby, or the “truth” behind the Da Vinci Code, were of far greater significance to Australians than anything going on closer to home.

Ask the man in the street about Australia’s place in regional affairs and more than likely a quick reference to the current situation in East Timor or our presence in the Solomon Islands will pull up most people. I don’t believe that Australians are not interested: we love our current affairs programs and soak up news like sponges. It can just be hard to find Pacific-centered news under the barrage of headlines from just about everywhere else in the world.

According to AusAID Australia’s estimated total aid flows to the Pacific for 2006-07 sits at $434.4 million and encompasses programs as far and wide as the Cook Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Kiribati and many others, including the Solomon’s. We pour money into areas as diverse as health and HIV-AIDS, to education and training, natural resource management and economic reform, governance, environmental protection and domestic violence.

In short, we are engaged in our region in almost all aspects of life and society. So why do so many Pacific Islanders see us as neo-colonial opportunists? Ouch!

Could it be the heavy handed way we dish out the dough? Sure, we have mechanisms in place to gauge need and assess best modes of delivery, but it’s our bottom line which becomes more and more apparent to our neighbours as the years roll on and schemes such as the Pacific Solution are plotted and implemented: no matter what we give or how we give it Australia’s interests remain paramount. Maybe some would say what’s wrong with that? Probably not much if it is within a context of co-operation and consideration for the region as whole. But is it?

The notion of a Pacific collaboration that is a cohesive, viable body able to work in co-operation and harmony for the good of the region has been debated for a number of years, and has also been the subject of academic scrutiny in recent years. Could we see a European Union style government formed, or should the Pacific create an entirely new formula? How does a region of such diversity ensure fair and free representation by those states when resources are tied to the aid budgets of the larger states?

Last year the Australian Labor Party Shadow Minister for Overseas Aid and Pacific Island Affairs, Bob Sercombe MP, released a policy discussion paper that attempts to address some of these issues.

Towards a Pacific Community opens the dialogue on how Australia could turn around its reputation as a heavy handed father figure towards a more egalitarian partner in the region.

Many Pacific leaders endorsed the paper and the Pacific Islands Forum echoed some of the solutions in its Pacific Plan. Of course, to make such a turnaround Australia would have to first shift its own perceptions of itself, and prepared to become a partner with leadership qualities rather than a leader with conditional partnership qualities.

This is not to say we should abandon what is good and right for our own country - but we would need to be able to listen to and take on board the realities of others. We would need to really think about how our actions impact on the Pacific as a whole and prioritise this as equal to our own needs. Only that way can we be truly sure that what we do, how we participate and why we give aid are managed in a humanitarian, moral and economically sustainable fashion. This latest inquiry into Australia's aid program could potentially help us with that - if it is serious about all aspects of aid impacts, and if the final report is acted upon.

One area of great concern to many of us around the Pacific is the lack of gender equity that exists. The Pacific as a region has among the lowest percentages of women in leadership roles anywhere in the world. In fact the Pacific takes the undignified position of second last globally, with Arab states having the only other regional average that is worse than ours.

In 2004 the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW) examined the role of national mechanisms in promoting gender equity and the empowerment of women. One challenge the group identified was the ability of political parties to become more responsive to women’s concerns, in particular the ability of women to influence party platforms and in doing so improve the “political will” to support gender equity in government.

As any academic or Pacific observer will readily tell you, corruption is one of biggest challenges in aid provision, however a point made in a study a few years back by Dr David Dollar suggested that the higher the percentage of women in government the lower the incidence and likelihood of corruption.

Wouldn’t it therefore make good sense to start this inquiry into the impact of Australian aid with a long hard look at how aid is empowering and supporting women in the Pacific? How are we helping political parties to support women into their ranks and in turn into office? How serious are we about assisting Pacific nations to become independent and accountable?

If the viability of economic assistance can be measured by anticipated outcomes then surely all programs should be analysed for their gender impact. Improved education, health and economic security for women is an imperative if the Pacific is to avoid a continuation of corruption and so make the most out of aid contributions.

One innovative idea floated by the ALP in the policy discussion paper was the inclusion of an all encompassing Pacific Women’s Centre. The aim would be to co-ordinate and support women across the Pacific in achieving gender equity and overcoming barriers such as communication, education and patriarchal boys’ club governments (which by the way Australia has still a very long way to go to overcome itself). It is an aim that must be taken seriously.

A while ago I happened to be in the audience listening to a talk by a highly respected Pacific journalist who made an off the cuff remark in response to an audience question on governmental corruption in the Pacific. The question was how do we fix it, the reply was swift, the solution was too simple - get more women into the parliaments. Of course the Pacific is a complex region and gender is only one issue but it is a very big one and one that if addressed could be a turning point in Pacific governance.

One wonders who the Australian Government will see as the main players in their inquiry - the givers or the receivers of the aid. I do hope there is sufficient input from people around the Pacific regarding the impact of aid, particularly from those most in need.

So often nowadays the catch cry of “in the national interest” is used as an excuse to forgo any real moral responsibility and shirk off humane solutions to complex problems in favour of those that are less difficult and more economically viable. In fact one could probably replace the words “in the national interest” with “in the economic interest” without any change in context at all. Put a few more women in the upper echelons of parliaments and you may just see people as the focus of policy, and in turn aid distribution and effectiveness. Wouldn’t that be novel?