Search results

The Republic of Palau in the Micronesian region of the Pacific illuminates the complexities of how the political geography of development is shaped through diplomacy, defense and migration policy. The Compact of Free Association (COFA) between Palau and the US has been a topic of debate and for some resistance.

Through discursive analysis of grey literature and post-development and political geography frameworks, this paper analyzes the way in which development, through unconventional pathways, is used to exert power by Palau’s largest donor, the US.

The donor–recipient, government-to-government framework fails to explore the ways in development is used as power through military operations, zonal capitalism, redefined citizenship and tourism as new aid modalities. These graduated sovereignties in Palau show that political geography is taking shape through new pathways of development, which has resulted in more actors, institutions and discourses.

With limited research on the region of Micronesia and particularly the politics of development, this paper contributes important analysis to the lead up to the COFA renewal negotiations between the US and Palau in 2024.

Australia and New Zealand are two very special economies of the South Pacific. The settlers of these two economies came from Europe, mostly the UK. Indeed, both were colonies of the British Empire and Her Majesty, the Queen of England, continues to be the constitutional head of Australia and New Zealand. The original peoples of the two economies acceded to the authority of the European settlers. Some went on to complete an English education and earned places of official rank and accommodation under the new regime. It was only recently, on February 23, 2008, at the initiative of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, that the Australian Parliament resolved to offer an official apology to the indigenous peoples of the land for their past suffering.

This paper aims to focus on evaluating what cultural, heritage, and historical resources exist in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and how these resources can advance tourism development and marketing.

This study bases its approach on tourism development field research conducted in the RMI, first in 1989‐1990 for the entire nation and in 2002 for Bikini and Rongelap Atolls. Current literature sources provide an expansion of the previous studies.

Tourism in the RMI sees only a few thousand visitors annually, with many participating in diving and sport‐fishing. Significant potential exists to attract cultural heritage visitors, but to date few such efforts exist. Construction and sailing of traditional outrigger canoes and rediscovery of ancient Micronesian way‐finding techniques represent two important culture resources for potential tourism marketing.

Field research includes only the atolls of Majuro (the national capital), Bikini, and Rongelap, with updates from published studies and information on the internet. The RMI has many cultural heritage resources, but more effective marketing programs are necessary, including integrated marketing among the numerous atolls, Marshall Islands Visitor Authority, and the RMI central government.

Tourism development for the RMI will consist of niche markets. Beyond current diving and sport‐fishing, various artifacts of previous eras in the RMI and the Marshallese culture may provide additional opportunities to increase the level of tourism.

This study of cultural heritage tourism development in the RMI provides information about which little is written. This study offers a framework for use in other island destinations in the Pacific and elsewhere.

Between 1946 and 1962 the United States detonated 109 nuclear weapons in an area of the Pacific Ocean called the Pacific Proving Grounds, mainly at the Enewetak and Bikini Atolls in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The British nuclear testing program spanned eleven years (1952-1963) and involved detonation of 21 weapons in addition to a number of smaller-scale experiments (the “minor” trials) in South Australia. In both cases lands that were inhabited by an original people were extensively contaminated by the testing and, following its cessation, these people desired the return of their lands in a condition that would support resumption of traditional lifestyles. Cleanup and reoccupation of the contaminated lands in these two arenas raised similar questions of cultural identity and communication and the importance of cultural as well as technical understanding in establishing conditions for safe resettlement. The approaches taken to resolving these questions in the two situations have been very different—featuring extensive stakeholder involvement in a technocratic decision making process in the Maralinga case and a series of attempted negotiations and claims under the terms of trust agreements with the U.S. government in the Marshall Islands case. Similar questions regarding what constitutes a safe final condition and the means by which safety will be maintained remain in each case however. The Australian case has reached the more definitive outcome of the two. A jointly drafted comprehensive environmental management plan, if fully implemented and sustained over the time periods necessary, could facilitate a semblance of the outstation lifestyle that the aboriginal Maralingan people desire. But what has been agreed to may still prove very difficult to live with given the levels of residual contamination and the many ways that traditional cultural practices put people in intimate contact with the land.