Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 08:48:32 -0500
Subject: M-G: Bougainville Update - 8/3/97 Part 2


>Return-Path: <sashab-AT-magna.com.au>
>Delivered-To: malecki-AT-algonet.se
>X-Sender: sashab-AT-magna.com.au
>Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 19:49:28 +1000
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Sasha Baer <sashab-AT-magna.com.au>
>Subject: Bougainville Update - 8/3/97 Part 2
>
>Court move on Sandline welcome
>=============================>
>The National, Thursday 6th March, 1997
>--------------------------------------
>
>WHEN in 1993, Sir Julius Chan as the Deputy Prime Minister returned from the
>United States and discovered that his boss, the then Prime Minister Paias
>Wingti had manipulated the procedures of Parliament to resign and get
>himself re-elected within a day, he declared at the airport: "The
>Constitution rules. I will abide by the Constitution."
>
>Yesterday, Sir Julius himself was named as the first defendant in a double
>court action which accuses him outright of violating the Constitution.
>
>Intending political candidate and prominent lawyer Rimbink Pato and the
>Indigenous Community Rights Advocacy Forum (ICRAF) separately took Sir
>Julius, his deputy Mr Chris Haiveta (second defendant) and the State (third
>defendant) to court to have their engagement of Sandline International
>declared null and void.
>
>Mr Pato, in particular, is seeking declarations that the engagement of the
>international commercial security firm is unconstitutional in that it
>amounts to the raising of an illegal armed force, that the K33 million
>purportedly diverted into a dead company was unauthorised by the budgetary
>process and hence a breach of financial rules and regulations.
>
>Mr Pato argues that the engagement of a "mercenary force" violates sections
>of the constitution that relates to "right to life" since it is implied that
>they would kill: the "right to freedom from inhuman treatment" and the
>"right to protection of the law".
>
>He further argued that the Government has "hidden" K33 million in a dead
>company and that such expenditure had never been approved.
>
>On the other side, the Prime Minister Sir Julius Chan maintained last night
>that the engagement of the international commercial security firm was for
>purposes of training only and that its personnel would be non-combatant.
>
>The Prime Minister also argues that the current PNGDF lacks discipline,
>lacks skills, lacks equipment and that he would only be fulfilling his
>obligations as head of Government if he took decisions to bolster the
>strength and capability of the PNG Defence Forces in order for the
>Government to perform its constitutional obligations to safeguard its
>citizens' rights and freedoms - the same ones raised by Mr Pato and ICRAF.
>
>The case before the court hinges on one word: Mercenary.
>
>Can Mr Pato and ICRAF prove that the engagement of Sandline International is
>equal to the engagement of a mercenary force?
>
>Can this force be proven to be the raising of an "unauthorised force" within
>the meaning of Section 200 of the Constitution?
>
>The information that is brought before the court should be interesting. So
>far there has been a flurry of information, mainly from the overseas media
>and mostly sourced in Australia, which has discussed the pros and cons of
>this PNG Government decision.
>
>It has been good up to a point in highlighting the issues and what is at
>stake. At the same time, much has been emotive and there has been a
>disquieting feeling that perhaps the Australian Government took a less
>prominent role in criticising the decision of a sovereign nation.
>
>With a court case, we finally have a neutral, local and authentic and
>unemotional forum where all the issues can be argued back and forth as to
>the morals, ethics, principles involved.
>
>Since there is very little information on the engagement - except a letter
>purportedly written and signed by Mr Haiveta - it would also be a good test
>to see if the Government seeks sanctuary behind the Official Secrets Act and
>the argument that the matter deals with national security.
>
>We thank both Mr Pato and ICRAF for taking up the matter in court as it is
>here that we are going to discover the rights and wrongs of the engagement
>of Sandline International.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>'Mercenary' muddle
>=================>
>The National, Thursday 6th March, 1997
>--------------------------------------
>
>By LUCY PALMER
>
>LIEUTENANT-COLONEL Tim Spicer, the chief executive of Sandline International
>(SI), agrees that he employs "mercenaries" to help suppress civil conflicts.
>
>Despite his assurances that his men are only involved in "training", the
>presence of about 40 of his 'soldiers' just outside Wewak, have set alarms
>bells ringing throughout PNG and the rest of the world, particularly 
Australia. 
>
>Why is everyone so worried?
>
>Some of the questions that need to be debated are: exactly how much we are
>paying for this contract, how will it help solve the Bougainville conflict,
>do we really want a foreign army here, and what future implications does the
>use of outside forces have for other rebelling landowner groups in PNG?
>
>Australia has consistently argued there is no military solution for
>Bougainville crisis, now in its ninth year.
>
>There is concern that a renewed military assault on Bougainville would only
>lead to more bitterness, division and bloodshed.
>
>Canberra also believes the presence of a foreign armed force on Bougainville
>is a dangerous development for the region as a whole.
>
>The government of Sir Julius Chan has denied there is a problem, saying
>Sandline International personnel will not be used in combat, only in an
>advisory role on Bougainville.
>
>Sir Julius is understandably frustrated that all his efforts in the last two
>years to secure a peaceful settlement, have not yet brought the leader of
>the BRA, Francis Ona, to the negotiating table.
>
>Although everyone would agree that the Bougainville crisis needs to be
>solved, not everyone is convinced another military assault is the answer.
>
>Many people inside and outside government who support this plan, have
>attacked Australia for its criticism of the National Security Council's
>decision.
>
>Australia, its critics say, should not be poking its nose into PNG's
>internal affairs; PNG is a sovereign nation, not a colony, and Australia has
>deliberately orchestrated an international campaign to discredit the country.
>
>Sir Julius is right in saying is that he has constantly asked Australia for
>military logistical assistance, but this has not been given.
>
>Australia, in this sense, is not in a very strong position to complain when
>PNG looks elsewhere for help.
>
>PNG leaders have also expressed resentment that Australia begrudgingly gave
>helicopters to PNG, and put conditions on how they should be used; many
>believe this was an insult to PNG's sovereignty.
>
>Just as Australia should respect PNG's right to try and solve its own
>internal problems, Australia is still entitled to have its view about how
>this should be done, especially as PNG does still rely heavily on Australian
>aid whether we like it or not.
>
>But is this an issue about Australia/PNG relations, or are we missing the 
point?
>
>Lt Col Spicer and his private army are here to provide a service which is
>costing the country at least K30 million. We still don't know exactly what
>the service may be, but we are told it's training. Nor do we know exactly
>how it's being paid for.
>
>All we know is, because they are a foreign private army, they have no
>longterm stake or responsibility for solving the Bougainville crisis. No
>matter the eventual outcome of their involvement in PNG, afterwards they
>will simply move on to their next lucrative deal.
>
>Everybody agrees that the PNG Defence Forces are badly in need of better
>training better equipment, and better access to expertise, but is this the
>best way to do it? And did it really have to be done in secret as the
>government attempted to?
>
>Amnesty International has catalogued hundreds of allegations of human rights
>abuses on both sides of the Bougainville crisis.
>
>When I interviewed Lt Col Spicer in Port Moresby last weekend, he said his
>company can fix that problem too:
>
>"If you have a situation where there's a terrorist or revolutionary
>movement, you suppress them by defeating them militarily. And if there are
>excesses on the other side, by instilling standards and training you avoid
>instances of unacceptable behaviour."
>
>At the moment, everyone is waiting to see what happens next. Thankfully, the
>community at large is as well informed about this new development as it can be.
>
>After all, when it's all over, it's the people of PNG who will have to foot
>the bill and pick up the pieces.
>
>The Observer
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Why is Australia making a fuss?
>==============================>
>The National, Thursday 6th March, 1997
>--------------------------------------
>
>IN light of the current controversial initiative by PNG to engage an
>international commercial security company to help improve PNG Defence Force
>training, I wish to question why Australia is raising such a fuss over the
>matter.
>
>I think it is about time the Government wakes up to the fact that something
>positive needs to be done about the deteriorating condition of our Defence
>Force.
>
>The much talked about Defence Cooperation Program with Australia has always
>been such a pathetic program. I wonder why it took PNG so long to realise it.
>
>The fact that PNG has gone out of the way to bring in a commercial security
>company to look into the long-standing problems of the PNGDF brings to
>question what has been done under the DCP all these years. Nobody really
>knows how many dollars a year have been spent on the PNGDF since the program
>started. But if we look at the situation the PNGDF is in today, one wonders
>if such a program is worth having. I am more inclined to go along with
>former Brigadier (Tony) Huai's claim that the DCP is not benefiting the PNGDF.
>
>The few major projects that DCP undertook on infrastructure developments are
>not something the Australian Government should be proud of.
>
>For a start, the Lombrum wharf did not even take a year before its structure
>started to fall apart. The ATS hangar looks impressive from the outside but
>during rain there is so much water licking through the roof, I wonder why
>nobody has been electrocuted yet.
>
>Now compare this to what the Malaysians in cooperation with PNG have done
>within such a short time.
>
>The next thing PNG should do is to reduce the Australian Defence Staff in
>PNG. Their continued presence in PNG is dubious. The number of Australian
>defence staff in PNG far exceeds their output.
>
>The fact that PNG has opted to bring in commercial military assistance
>invalidates their usefulness.
>
>On the Bougainville crisis, a pattern of Australian actions since the
>beginning of the crisis seem to indicate that Australia wants to use the
>crisis to destabilise PNG.
>
>The rebellion could have easily been crushed if Australia stopped playing
>double standards. Last year, the Australian Government accorded rebel
>spokesman Martin Miriori VIP treatment by flying him out of Honiara in an
>Australian Air Force jet.
>
>Whatever the Australian Government explanation, it was an insult to PNG.
>
>It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that when a country uses a
>military aircraft to transport a rebel leader, it reflects that country's
>official policy. 
>
>That action amounted to official political recognition for the Bougainville
>rebels.
>
>They say it is too politically sensitive to use their RAAF C130 to fly
>military supplies for the PNGDF to Buka, yet, it is perfectly okay for them
>to fly a rebel leader on their military aircraft.
>
>From this perspective, we cannot help but conclude that Australia has been
>two-timing PNG since the fighting started.
>
>PNG ought to stand up to this Australian rubbish. It stinks. Australia
>should come straight with PNG on the Bougainville issue.
>
>We should not feel intimidated by Australia as our government shows genuine
>efforts to prepare our troops to deal with the Bougainville rebels. 
>
>If Australia would rather help the rebels with their military aircraft, then
>they should shut up when PNG is trying its utmost to protect its own
>national security. 
>
>And if they keep complaining about the helicopters that they mistakenly gave
>to the PNGDF, we should send those choppers back to Australia. If they
>complain about their DCP money, the let's do away with the DCP.
>
>Mere Tukum
>
>Texas, US
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Pato's plea is turned down
>=========================>
>The National, Friday 7th March, 1997
>------------------------------------
>
>Court adjourns suit against State to Wednesday
>
>By GARONA VERE 
>
>PORT MORESBY: The National Court here yesterday declined to grant any
>interim orders to nullify the State's engagement of the commercial private
>military company Sandline International.
>
>"I will not make any restraining orders against the defendants for the time
>being," Mr Justice Salika ruled after hearing submissions from the
>respective counsels.
>
>Intending political candidate and private lawyer, Rimbink Pato on Wednesday
>filed an originating summons in court on grounds that the engagement of the
>commercial private military company, which he termed as "mercenary", was
>unconstitutional and tantamount to raising an unauthorised force against the
>people.
>
>The writ had named Prime Minister Sir Julius Chan and his deputy and Finance
>Minister, Mr Chris Haivata, and the State as defendants.
>
>Meanwhile, the East Sepik provincial government yesterday said it will seek
>a court injunction to stop Sandline International from conducting military
>training for PNGDF soliders in the jungles of Urimo.
>
>Governor Sir Michael Somare said he has asked his provincial executive
>council to take legal proceedings against the engagement of Sandline.
>
>In the capital today, local human rights watchdog Individual and Community
>Rights Advocacy Forum (ICRAF) will also challenge in court the Government's
>decision to hire Sandline.
>
>Mr Pato is seeking a total of seven declarations by the court to nullify the
>engagement of Sandline International, stopping the use of K33million
>earmarked for the exercise and carrying out of any deals with the contracted
>company or the use of the money.
>
>Mr Ralph Saulep, assisting Mr Pato in the application, submitted that the
>matter was one of national importance, "rather a substantial amount of money
>



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---