LATE LAST year the
Australian Association for the Advancement of Pacific Studies (AAAPS) published
A National Strategy for the Study of the
Pacific - designed to improve
The report lays out a blueprint for more effectively developing regional relationships, and one of its key recommendations is to create an Australia-Papua New Guinea Institute. (You can see the report in its entirety here.)
The Institute wouldn’t be the
An annex to the report, authored by Prof Clive Moore of Queensland University and me, gives more detailed consideration to this matter. Here’s an extract…
TOO OFTEN, it seems
The contributions these people make to national public services are frequently ineffective and may leave a residue of resentment amongst nationals whose high expectations were unrequited.
On the other hand, anecdotal evidence suggests that many
The foregoing examples all point to a ‘strategic
imbalance’ in the relationship between
This imbalance derives from a mismatch between the intentions and expectations of development aid and the realities of its implementation.
From 1947-73 the Australian Government operated the
A core attribute of then training was to equip these young Australians for the precise cultural and physical environment in which they would have to deliver the desired public policy outcomes.
In 1973, with independence looming in PNG, ASOPA was integrated into the structure of the Australian Development Assistance Agency/Bureau as the International Training Institute.
It trained people, generally at the level of middle
management, from developing nations in the Pacific, Asia, Africa and the
Conclusions of current relevance that can be derived from the cases of ASOPA and ITI are that specific training is needed to equip professionals to engage knowledgeably with the cultural and social environments in which they will be operating in the Pacific and that there is a beneficial effect when comparative country experience is brought to the training process by participants themselves.
There needs to be role equalization between sponsors and participants to avoid any suggestion of paternalism (top-down direction or “we’re helping you” intimations).
Great benefits occur from facilitated dialogue (including expert contributions) among people of influence in their own countries interacting, addressing issues and sharing knowledge with people of influence from other countries.
Read the full paper here.