o f the House o f Representatives. For details see H. Corkran, 1976, op.ciL, pp.163-64.
24. See H. Corkran, ibid., 164. The US interest, in this case, is applied mostly to the Micronesian group, which after World War II was declared by the UN to be a strategic Trust Territory.
25 . The Netherlands withdrew from the Commission in 1962 when it ceased to administer the former colony of
Dutch N ew Guinea, now the province o f Indonesia known as Irian Jaya.
“ . Besides those five metropolitan powers, the following independent and self-governing states were admitted to membership: Western Samoa (1965), Nauru (1969), Fiji (1971), Papua N ew Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands and Tuvalu (1978), and Niue and Cook Islands (1980). The 23th South Pacific Conference in 1983 adopted by consensus a resolution that the Commission’s 27 governments and administrations should have full and equal membership, thus admitting to the Conference: American Samoa, FSM, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Pitcairn Island, Tokelau, Tonga, Vanuatu and Wallis and Futuna.
The Commission’s role is advisory and consultative. Its programs are closely co-ordinated with those of the countries in the Pacific for which it works. The Commission does not seek to concern itself with political issues, nor does it attempt to direct members’ development programs. The Commission conducts and funds a wide range of projects in the Pacific countries in which it operates. These cover such fields as regional health and sanitation, home education, agricultural development, the environment and fisheries.
The main decision-making body of the SPC is the South Pacific Conference, an annual meeting at which representatives of independent and dependent countries and territories consider decisions on the SPC’s work program and other regional matters. The South Pacific Conference examines and adopts the Commission’s work program and budget for the coming year, and discusses any matters within the Commission’s competence.
After the establishment of the South Pacific Forum, which concentrated firstly on political matters but then also economics, justification for the SPC’s existence become questionable. Many critics worry that the SPC will be diminished as the SPF, from year to year, becomes involved in matters formerly covered by the SPC. Such criticism has affected the idea of a single regional organisation (for details, see the next discussion).
2.2. Pacific Islands Producers’ Association (PIPA)
Until the late 1960s, the SPC was very much dominated by the metropolitan governments, engendered limited economic cooperation and did not deal with political issues. Coinciding with the phase of decolonisation which started in 1962, the Pacific Islanders felt the need for a forum in which they could discuss political issues. They expressed their dissatisfaction by creating new regional institutions of their own in which they could assert control over key economic issues as well as political events pertinent to Island interests. The first regional institution they created was the Pacific Islands Producers’ Association (PIPA). The initial motive for its establishment was from the banana-exporting countries of Fiji, Tonga, and Western Samoa wanting to negotiate better terms with New Zealand (the product later widened to include other rural commodities, especially copra, and matters related to reducing production and transportation costs). When founded in 1965 it had only three members and these increased to six in 1973 (the Cook Islands and Niue joined in 1968, and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands in 1971 - the latter subsequently
became the separate states of Kiribati and Tuvalu respectively).27
Apart from that motive, there was another important factor which underlay its establishment. That was the move by the Islands leaders to assert control in the SPC framework. In the 1965 SPC Conference in Lae, PNG, they launched a joint action (Ratu Mara called it a rebellion) against the colonial powers. The establishment of PIPA, according to Fry, ‘was important because this was the first expression of regional cooperation moving away from the established organisational framework, the SPC, which was identified as serving colonial interests’.28
PIPA did not last long. This was not because of its ineffectiveness in carrying out its programs,29 but because there was by then another indigenous regional organisation with broader functions and wider membership, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (SPEC). PIPA was terminated in 1973 when at the Eighth Session it was agreed that ‘logically the functions of PIPA should be absorbed by SPEC’ and in its final conference held in Rarotonga in 1974, a formal resolution terminating its constitution was adopted.30
The Island leaders gained some experience in indigenous regional cooperation first from PIPA, particularly in relation to indigenous moves to take control of regional structures. It was apparent later that this experience had encouraged the Islanders to establish the next bigger and more important organisation of their own, the South Pacific Forum (SPF).
2.3. The University of the South Pacific (USP)
Although the University of the South Pacific has never been under the immediate direction of the South Pacific Fonun, it has had close association with it. The Pacific states represented
(<2*c*-pi~ T b k e j a u )
on the University Council/are all Forum members. In the last six years, the Forum Secretariat’s
27. See U.F. Neemia, Cooperation and Conflict: Costs, Benefits and National Interests in Pacific Regional Cooperation, (Suva: University of the South Pacific, 1986), p.25.
“ . G.E. Fry, 1979, op.cit., p.95.
9 . There was no evidence o f its ineffectiveness. Even during the last two or three years o f its operation, it was
o f increasing importance for its members. In 1970 it adopted a constitution that came into force in 1971. 30. Fry, op.cit., pp.100-104.
Secretary General has also been chairman of the University Council.31 The Vice-Chancellor of the USP has reported to the annual Forum meeting. The main objective of giving such a report is to attract the attention of Island leaders to current education issues. The USP Vice Chancellor, Geoffrey K. Caston, said:
There is no formal arrangement whether the USP should report to the Forum. The terms of reference of the Forum did not mention this arrangement But I see that this is the best chance to report, because [the level of] the Forum meeting was at the highest level - heads of government So I can attract some important education issues to the meetings every year.32
The inclusion of the USP in this discussion is also to show that prior to the formation of SPF, the USP has been regarded, although not an indigenous initiative, as a regional institution, later to be controlled and supported by the independent Pacific Island states. It is a regional asset which has great potential for the integration of the South Pacific, and ‘represents one of the significant attempts in the world to make regionalism work’.33
The USP was set up to meet the need for higher education for all Pacific Islanders. Prior to the USP establishment, the University of Papua New Guinea, which serves PNG, and to a lesser extent nearby countries, had been formed. Its preliminary year was in 1966. The creation of the USP as a regional university was complementary to what happened in the South Pacific region in the 1960s. This was a significant period in which the South Pacific countries were in the initial process of decolonisation, and these developments created further need for skilled personnel to run their own countries.
The University was established at Laucala Bay, Suva, on the site vacated by the Royal New Zealand Air Force. Its Royal Charter was formally granted by the Queen on 10 February 1970.34 ‘The United Kingdom agreed to provide up to £1,250,000 towards capital and recurrent costs for the first five years of operation. The New Zealand Government transferred buildings at Laucala Bay to the USP’.33
31. Henry Naisali who was appointed twice as Secretary General was the chairman o f the Council. When his term