Transcript
SATO KILMAN: For issues like Matthew and Hunter, what we need to do, Vanuatu and France, is if we cannot reach an agreement then let's go through the proper process, the UN process, so that at the end of the day, if Matthew and Hunter were given to France, then Vanuatu must accept; if Matthew and Hunter were given to Vanuatu, then France must accept. I think that's the norm of the day. Whatever we say, there's a lot of things that are coming in to play here: the individual national interests, the geopolitics, both of the region and international; and I think this is what, at the end of the day, both countries must be able to appreciate these facts, and be able to come to some understanding, if you cannot reach a consensus on who owns Matthew and Hunter. Us in Vanuatu, I think we always believe, and we will continue to believe, until there are some tangible facts that tell us that Matthew and Hunter doesn't belong to Vanuatu. So we will continue to pursue sovereignty over Matthew and Hunter until such time as someone can tell us and prove to us beyond reasonable doubt that Matthew and Hunter does not belong and cannot belong to Vanuatu.
JOHNNY BLADES: Hasn't the matter already been to the UN agency which looks at the maritime borders of the world?
SK: Yes. Vanuatu is pursuing different avenues. But I think, still, at the end of the day, we would like to see, and I hope this government does the same, that if we can reach a solution that is acceptable to both France and Vanuatu then that is the way to go.
JB: If it's a matter of where does the boundary lie according to the Law of the Sea, which all the international community should adhere to, has this matter not made its way to some sort of jurisdiction where they decide on whose boundary it includes?
SK: Not judicial-wise. But there's been technical advice and things that say it must belong to Vanuatu. But this is something that I guess France has still disputed. And I think the only way to take that will be acceptable to all is that if we cannot reach a compromise with France, then obviously the next step would be a judicial decision on that.
JB: And what sort of jurisdiction might decide on that?
SK: well as far as I'm concerned, at the end of the day there is one and that is the UN organ responsible for that issue.
JB: The West Papua issue, obviously Mr Salwai (Vanuatu's prime minister Charlot Salwai) has been vocal again at the UN General Assembly, just this month, like he was last year. How do you feel about that, is this advancing Vanuatu's interests about West Papua?
SK: Again, it's similar to that of Matthew and Hunter in that it's been going on for a long time now. And again I refer to this one fact that we belong... both Vanuatu and Indonesia are members of the United Nations. If there is a problem, then let's take it up the proper way. For us, Vanuatu and Indonesia - and likewise France for New Caledonia - we have diplomatic relations with both countries. We want to be friends with both countries. At the same time we have an obligation under the UN, again different organs of the UN for certain matters, and from Indonesia there have been reports of atrocities and things. So if that is true, then Vanuatu would like to see that issue is addressed. As regards the issue of independence for West Papua, Vanuatu has fought for that for a long time. But for me personally, I have taken a different view, in the sense that if we are going to support West Papua, or we are going to do anything in the interests of West Papua, then we must speak to Indonesia. And I think this is also an action, a step that a lot of countries in the world today are taking, to be able to speak to Indonesia about the different issues affecting West Papua.
JB: We've been talking about those two big foreign policy issues for Vanuatu. Are there others?
SK: Those are the two main ones for Vanuatu at present. But they're not the only issues in the world today. And I think that if Vanuatu has got to be able to show that she has credibility then she must be able to deal with all the issues in a consistent manner.
JB: And do you think that Vanuatu has been consistent?
SK: To me, no. I think Vanuatu has got other issues which - to be consistent - Vanuatu has got to think very seriously about its foreign policy.
JB: Can you explain where you see the inconsistency?
SK: Well, I will only go as far as this, and that is, Vanuatu is a member of the Non-aligned movement. Now I guess my question today is whether being a member of the Non-aligned movement we are practicing what a Non-aligned member should be doing, the stand it should be taking. Or are we deviating from this for this country and not that country, or this issue and not that issue. But I think if you look closely and find out whether this government is actually consistent with its approaches to the various similar issues in the world.
JB: There are, as you say, so many foreign policy issues. But if that's what the people of Vanuatu feel strongly about (issues of West Papua as well as Matthew and Hunter) isn't it reasonable to want to take up those two issues rather than other ones, even though you might be a Non-aligned member and so forth?
SK: Yes. That is a good point, and I agree with it. But I think that being members of the United Nations, that while we are dealing with these issue, we are making comments, we are raising awareness on these issues, I think it's only fair that we should be dealing with the others equally well.
