By Kaliopate Tavola
Outgoing USP Chancellor, H.E. President of Nauru Lionel Rouwen Aingimea, recently penned an editorial, which, having fulfilled his one-year stint as Chancellor and on the way out, can be regarded as his farewell statement to the USP community and to the region as a whole.
The editorial was titled: “USP ‘shaping Pacific futures in the 21st Century.” In the last 50 years of regionalism, Aingimea wrote that USP has acquired a wealth of experience in higher education to stand as a pinnacle of Pacific regionalism: it being owned by 12 Pacific Island Countries. However, “over the past two years, the very notion of Pacific regionalism has been under severe threat as USP has been embroiled in governance and related issues.”
Critical also in shaping Pacific futures is the value of a USP education in “creating opportunities for the citizens of our Pacific region.” The university itself being “the place to test ideas and pursue truth. It is also where academic freedom is fundamental to the freedom of expression and human rights.” President Aingimea acknowledged that he has benefitted from these values as a USP alumnus.
The President referred to his tenure at USP as “some of the most trying times that USP has faced in its history….particularly at a time when the very future of USP remains at stake.” But he did not deviate from his task of ensuring that USP continues to shape Pacific futures in the 21st century. He was able “to bring about change at the heart of the university instituting reforms that will make USP stand out in the future amongst the best universities in the world.” He fought hard to champion good governance and show leadership.
USP’s crucial role in the human resource needs is another aspect by which USP is shaping Pacific futures in the 21st century. Aingimea referred to the 30,000 students in the university’s care. They represent “our collective voice for the Pacific region.” They speak, advocate, research and technically support critical issues like environmental vulnerabilities, climate change, disaster risks, economic and pandemic shocks and new normal and moves to digitalisation platforms.
But that was for the last 50 years. For the next half century, what is important is how the USP handles its affairs at this critical juncture. The ongoing “USP saga” has tested our unity as a region. Our integrity, values and respect for an equal voice at the table will determine the standards that can be collectively harnessed for the good of the Pacific going forward.
Despite our trials, tribulations, limitations and vulnerabilities, the USP issues present both challenges and opportunities for paving a new path for our future generations. Aingimea submitted that the USP issues “have called us, as custodians of the Pacific, to also reflect and reignite what ‘Pacific Regionalism’ means to us.” Clearly, his perspectives were not restricted to the university as an institution but also to the regional framework within which the university is a pivotal part.
In his attempt to expand and expound his views for the future, he likened this new reflection to “a new paradigm, a renewal, a renaissance for our region.” He went further. He wrote “about developing a New Pacific Consciousness for the 21st century.” Moreover, he associated the century as “a period of great challenges but equally it is an era where we break the shackles of the past to determine our own future.” Whilst he is deeply aware of our challenges, Aingimea is also “cognisant of our rich legacy which is why a new Pacific renaissance, and a new Pacific Consciousness is essential to deal with our seemingly intractable issues.”
These concepts can be mind-boggling. But the editorial did clarify what a new consciousness implies. There are essentially two parts to it. First is the formulation of ‘strategies and mechanisms aimed at delivering our people as well as our governments from past practices and ways of doing things that have often made us vulnerable.’ The second is ‘about allowing our voices to be heard on the world stage.’
I have struggled as regards the applicability of this new reflection. I commented recently in a Facebook post that a New Pacific Consciousness seems to be ‘over the top’ for resolving the USP situation, given the fact that the relevant issues there relate essentially to one member country out of 12 regional members. Methinks, if Fiji were to practice good governance in the affairs of the USP Council, all the problems of the university would be removed.
This does not need to even impinge on the affairs of the Pacific Islands Forum or its secretariat. All that is required is for Fiji to be directed to the existing Framework of Pacific Regionalism and its Vision, Values and Objectives. This does not even invoke the application of the first part of ‘A New Pacific Consciousness.’
The Vision, in any case, speaks of ‘a region of peace, harmony….social inclusion.’ The Values state: ‘We embrace good governance, the full observance of democratic values….commitment to just societies……We support full inclusivity, equity and equality for all people….We strive for effective, open and honest relationships….based on mutual accountability and respect. These Pacific regional values will guide all our policy-making and implementation.’ The Objectives specify ‘strengthened governance, legal, financial and administrative systems.’
In the Fiji situation, it is clearly the government of the day that is reneging from its regional responsibilities. Many would agree that the political situation in the country is ‘off the beaten track’. The general elections next year are likely to return the country to the safe hands of the wise, visionary and the imperturbable.
When that happens, USP will continue to grow and thrive, benefitting from the changes that have been put in place and which Aingimea spoke about. This will ensure that the university is all ‘about allowing our voices to be heard on the world stage’: thus meeting the requirement of ‘A New Pacific Consciousness.’ In all intents and purposes, this may have been boosted given the latest global ranking of USP.
The editorial is clear about the applicability of ‘A New Pacific Consciousness’ to Pacific regionalism. However, in trying to frame its first part, I am reminded of the massive exercise that was carried out in the review of the Pacific Plan that led to The Framework for Pacific Regionalism. I am reminded further of the former Secretary General’s support of this Framework and all the changes and processes she introduced “to ensure that we have the right institutional set up within the secretariat to deliver on the framework over the short- and long-term future. The framework demands a number of important and fundamental changes for the secretariat, so it is important that we look at ourselves to see whether we are fit-for-purpose to deliver.”
In this context, another formulation of strategies and mechanisms, as per ‘A New Pacific Consciousness’ seems not the point. This is particularly germane since the planning and compilation of the 2050 Strategy, which PIF Leaders authorised at their 2019 Leaders Retreat, whilst advanced, is still underway.
What then should be the status of Aingimea’s ‘A New Pacific Consciousness’? The concept, admittedly, has an aspirational ring about it. And it can build the foundation for a more in-depth and creative reflection of Pacific regionalism. It should not go to waste. For those who are initiating a more creative evaluation and formulation of our ‘Blue Pacific’ as our ‘identity’, they can start by taking ownership of this reflective piece and ponder over all the exciting scenarios that it engenders.
The author is a former Fijian Ambassador and Foreign Minister and runs his own consultancy company in Suva, Fiji.
