We have already written about the difficult fate of the Pacific state of Nauru after independence. It would be very unpleasant if another jewel of the Pacific - Solomon Islands, repeated the same mistakes.

Solomon Islands achieved independence from Britain in 1978. This state with a population of over half million people consists nearly a thousand islands, whose total area is 28 thousand square km. A very significant part of the Solomon Islands population continues living in the conditions of traditional society, preserving its tribal and community structures. This is largely due to the fact that European colonizers settled on the Solomon Islands later than on the other Oceania archipelagos since they were given hard rebuff their activity. Only in the 60s years of the XIX century, the European traders, planters and missionaries succeeded a firm foothold on the islands. 

Since 1870, European slave traders and recruiters started to deliver the Solomon Islands inhabitants for working to the plantations in the Australian province of Queensland. The islanders were sold also to work on plantations in Fiji, New Caledonia and Samoa. While the islanders put up armed resistance, the slave traders were mercilessly killing those who resist or those who tried to flee. They staged bloody punitive expeditions and burned villages. The thousands islanders were dead of poor conditions and diseases on the plantations. 

The legacy of the dark period Anglo-Australian colonization is a lopsided economy based on exports such goods as tropical timber, fish, copra and cocoa. But even this undeveloped economy has been undermined as a result of tribal conflict in 1999-2003.

In fact, the country has only just regained its economy. The state is now at the crossroads. 

Solomon Islands, like Nauru, are rich in mineral resources. There are explored deposits of lead, zinc, nickel, gold, bauxite and phosphates. But the only 

Read more: Solomon Islands: we must not repeat mistakes.

Nauru is the smallest republic in the world, located on the eponymous island in the Pacific. It has land area of 21.3 km ² and a population of 14 thousand people. To the misfortune of the islanders (alas, one can't say otherwise) the phosphorite reserves were discovered on the Island. Phosphate intensive mining has resulted in the destruction of soil cover and most of the island turned into a stone desert (later on, as a result of remediation activities it managed to restore 63% of vegetation cover of open pits).
   
After achieving independence in 1968, the Nauru Government decided concentrate profits from its sole source of foreign exchange earnings to special Fund as the Government has foreseen phosphate reserves exhaustion. The funds were invested at buying property and financial services. The funds placement was given into the hands of so-called "experts" - financial managers from Australia and New Zealand. As a result of their well-paid "work" the islanders have find themselves with virtually nothing. In 90s the Nauruan stabilization fund dropped 10-fold - from 1.3 billion Australian dollars to 130 million. Easy money had disservice Nauruans because traditional economic activities were destroyed and people accustomed to the lifestyle of rentiers. Officially, 90% of islanders are unoccupied.

Nauru is now in a very difficult situation and it would be very difficult to solve this package of problems even for the crisis manager out of the top drawer.

We have some proposals for economic stabilization and development of Nauru, which were sent to the address almost all officials of this country. These proposals are complex, interrelated, and quite specific.

Read more: Sunland submits proposals to Nauru Government.

Even before the plans of establishment a free Sunland settlement on one of the Pacific Islands were declared, a large-scale strategic document - "The Pacific Plan of freedom and development" has been proposed for discussion of all interested countries, organizations and individuals. But the challenges to the Pacific island countries are so threatening, that it would be more correct speak about the plan of salvation.

We primarily mean the global warming environmental threat and rising of sea level because of it. Most Pacific countries actually threatened with extinction under the Ocean waters in the coming decades, may be in years. The entire population of such countries as the Republic of Kiribati etc. is already preparing to become environmental refugees. The problem of possible flooding is the primary problem of island states.

We can not say that this problem is outside international attention. In December 2009 Copenhagen hosts the Cop-15 international conference under the auspices of the UN. 110 Heads of States and Governments from over the world gathered in order to solve the problem of effective counteract global climate change. The main conference goal is the adoption a new agreement, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The new agreement will set commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases the largest developing countries (China, Brazil, and India) and the United States. 

The participants intend to come to agreement on the establishment of a global fund to combat climate change. China and islands developing States believe that the developed countries are obliged to give $ 200 billion in aid to the fight against climate change. The disagreement consists in the fact that the rich world, led by the United States, insist that the contributions to the fund should be voluntary and fund management should be given to them. At the same time, the island States and China stand for a clear definition of the contributions on the basis of indicators of pollution and put forward a fair requirement that recipient countries took part in the allocation of financial resources. 

Read more: Pacific Rescue Plan.

Scientific researches in Antarctica linked to enormous difficulties not only because of the harsh climatic conditions on the mainland of the continent, but also because of the high cost of preparations for the expeditions. In turn, the high expedition’s costs depend on the inaccessibility of the Antarctic for the marine vessels and aircrafts. As a rule, only icebreakers can go to the Antarctic latitudes. The air traffic is even more difficult because of the extreme hardship building of landing strips on the ice-covered continent. 

In this small article we would like to suggest some non-trivial approaches to solve traffic problems in Antarctica.  

Read more: On the research of the Antarctic.

Immediately after the issuance of the Declaration of Sovereignty, the Republic of Sunland turned to a number of countries (Nepal, Lesotho, East Timor, etc.) with a request for official recognition. At the moment we have received an official response only from the Principality of Sealand. In particular the message reads as follows: 

“We note your initiative with interest but unfortunately cannot entertain relations with movements which contradict international law; you mention correctly the legally established status of the land you are intending to appropriate from Norway without negotiation.
 
We would be pleased to consider further your proposals once you can produce secession documents endorsed by the Norwegian government”.

In this regard, the Secretariat of External Relations of the Republic of Sunland is authorized to say the following. 

We fully and unconditionally recognize the Antarctic Treaty 1959 as an international legal foundation, which governs the status of the continent. Under this Treaty, Norway has the right to set up its territorial claims to sovereignty in Antarctica. However, the other countries have exactly the same right. Under the Treaty, no Norwegian acts or activities create any rights of sovereignty on the Peter I Island. Accordingly, from the standpoint of the Antarctic Treaty, the basis for possible negotiations between the Republic of Sunland and Norwegian government may be the recognition of Sunland's claim to Peter I Island. For our part, we are ready for such talks and we will welcome the good will of the Norwegian negotiator. 

We hope that the Norwegian Government respects the Antarctic Treaty as we do and recognizes the freedom of scientific research in Antarctica and international cooperation for these purposes. For our part, in full accordance with Article III of the Treaty, we are ready to make an information exchange with Norway regarding plans for scientific research expedition to the Peter I Island and ensure free access to data and results of scientific observations.

In our opinion, the use of the terms "appropriation" and "secession" is not quite correct from the standpoint of international law since it assumes the recognition of full Norwegian sovereignty on Peter I Island. That is obviously contrary to the Antarctic Treaty. 

04.12.2009

The Secretariat of External Relations of the Republic of Sunland.