Transcript
EMELE DUITUTURAGA: Well we were slightly disappointed that the wording of the communique did not reflect what civil society was asking for. But I can tell you Koroi, we were on the ground, we were discussing with leaders directly, we were talking to officials, there was a change in the atmosphere. Everyone was talking about West Papua. we also know that the draft text did have wording which we pushed for. But in the end the communique came out with ... not exactly as we hoped for. So I would say that we believe that the leaders heard. Clearly the dynamics are different when we go into retreat. But we've had individual countries committed to take this issue up at the UN. So that's a reflection that without civil society in the room, without civil society pushing for these kinds of issues ... and it's not just at the leaders meeting, but you'll also notice the civil society, the solidarity movements everywhere are really calling for this attention and our leaders are responding. They know that they have to respond, and the fact that they have said in the communique that the human rights violations must remain on the agenda, that's a big victory for us, because we know that there were a couple of countries that wanted this completely off the Forum agenda.
KOROI HAWKINS: Outside of the Forum, in individual countries though, Pacific leaders seem to be becoming more distant in terms of access to the public in terms of access to the media. Is that something that is a concern outside of the Forum and within individual countries?
ED: Oh absolutely, absolutely. Which is why regionalism matters. We know that at the country levels civil society space sometimes gets shut down. We know at the country level civil society rights to expression, rights to assemble, are being shut down by their governments. So having regional space, it's not to shame particular governments. But having leaders come out and support human rights, and having leaders come out and support rights of people with disabilities. It enables us to take this back to the national level and say, well you know in a regional space, you have committed to this. So that's the value of having them speak at the regional level, where we can follow up and lobby and advocate at the national level where they're not perhaps doing what they said they would do.
KH: How much freedom do you feel Pacific countries have within the forum sphere and how much weight do you feel Australia and New Zealand bring to the table in terms of the outcomes reflected in the communique, as opposed to the draft document?
ED: Well on particular issues, like West Papua, there are definite limitations. We know this because we were on the ground, we were talking to leaders, there was a draft text that got watered down. So we do question the extent to which our leaders can be bold and courageous in the presence of our geopolitical partners like Australia and New Zealand. On other issues perhaps that are not too sensitive, that do not challenge national interest for Australia and New Zealand, perhaps they support that. Climate change is another one where we've seen the Suva declaration, without Australia, New Zealand the Pacific was very strong, it came together, it managed to get the 1.5 degrees, whereas the forum outcomes, except for this year, that's in there but previously not. So clearly there are dynamics at play when Australia and New Zealand are in the room, that is limiting at times.
KH: Now you say you're getting more engagement than you did in the past, is there scope for improvement on that? You mention a permanent position, are you getting any feedback that that is something the forum will be looking at, a permanent space for civil society?
ED: We will be making submissions to the forum secretariat on this, we were encouraged by Prime Minister of Samoa, because he will be chairing next year he will be looking to a programme where civil society will be speaking, not just to the CHOICA leaders, but to the whole 16 leaders. We were very encouraged by that because we felt, after hearing what Civil Society had to say, he felt that constructive type of dialogue needed to happen with the full 16. And so we see that as an improvement on last year and this year, of course we'll be making representations to the current chair and the secretary general that that become a permanent feature of the forum in the same way that the private sector dialogue is now a permanent feature.