The fact that this is such big news in Australia's small development community tells you a lot about the environment Australia's aid budget is operating in. Australia is not blessed with a collection of research institutes that provide Australia with informed analysis on international development issues, and hence inform and shape Australian aid policy. As a comparison, the UK aid agency DFID is surrounded by institutes which provide high quality research and engage in a dynamic public debate which helps inform the British public on the pros and cons of an international aid program.

Australia's weak aid debate is odd given the size and scope of Australia's aid program and considering the aid budget has more than doubled since 2006-07. Over this period, the Australian Government, civil society, and to a lesser extent the business community, have paid little attention to building Australia's capacity and knowledge on international development issues.

A frail and weak aid policy dialogue is bad news for those who support a sustainable and predictable aid program. A weak policy debate means there is one less obstacle to potentially diverting aid funds to other priorities. Sure, keeping a low profile and remaining disengaged from the public debate helps minimise the effort required to defend the aid program from criticism and keeps the Foreign Minister's office happy. But a weak aid debate also means that much of the policy and strategy surrounding Australia's aid program remains undiscussed, untested and misunderstood.

Too often in Australia, when the money stops the thinking starts. Earlier this year the Government slashed the defence budget by 10%. Subsequently, a vacuum of debate on defence policy has been filled with voices from both in and outside the ADF. A weak aid debate will prove detrimental to the sustainability of the Australian aid program. Does Australia have to wait until the aid program faces cuts before we can expect an informed and lively debate on Australia's role as an aid donor?

Photo by Flickr user sbluerock.

Dr Newton Cain asks whether a regional ICT-for-development strategy is appropriate for international donors and businesses. I recommend in my paper that the Australian Government, as the region's largest donor, commit to a regional strategy. This certainly doesn't preclude country-tailored mobile application and crowdsourcing programs. In fact, most mobile applications and crowdsourcing programs will have to be tailored to each Pacific Island country, and in many circumstances, to certain provinces and to local communities, for them to be effective. Nevertheless, a regional strategy would ensure a commitment to explore opportunities in all Pacific Islands countries so that both large and small countries can benefit.

I think it is fair to say that, so far, the region has not seen the organic emergence of a locally-led ICT-for-development sector. And this likely won't happen without support, training and the provision of resources from government and business. But, the Pacific Islands region is in the unique position of being able to cherry pick the digital development tools and applications that have worked in countries facing similar development challenges. 

So far, few organisations have capitalised on the Pacific's growing ICT infrastructure to enhance development and social outcomes. It wouldn't take a lot of effort or resources from the region's key donors and businesses to collaborate directly with Pacific Island governments in creating and supporting the types of digital tools (such as mobile applications, mobile-based projects and crowdsourcing) that would benefit Pacific populations. 

It is abundantly clear that the Pacific Islands region is suffering from an under-use of digital development tools and I think the greatest concern lies in the opportunities being missed. These tools help get the right information to the right people at the right time. And the power of timely information, in a region as dispersed and remote as the Pacific, should not be underestimated.

Photo by Flickr user US Pacific Fleet.

The mobile growth statistics are impressive, but the region is home to some of the lowest internet penetration rates in the world. For example, Only 2% of PNG's population had access to the internet in 2011 and in Solomon Islands, Samoa and Vanuatu, it is less than 10%. However, web-enabled mobile phones and Facebook phones are enabling the region to leapfrog barriers (such as remoteness, cost and availability) to computer-enabled internet access. Decreasing costs for handsets and calls, and better reception, has facilitated more widespread access, far beyond affluent urban dwellers.

There are now almost 700,000 Facebook users in the Pacific Islands, dispersed across the region's population of 10 million people. PNG is leading the region's growth in social media use with Facebook membership nearing 150,000, a figure which has tripled since mid-2011. Fiji and Samoa, also experiencing high growth in Facebook membership, are not far behind.

What makes the ICT revolution in the Pacific particularly transformative is its potential to address the region's demographic, geographic and economic challenges. The Pacific population is dispersed across hundreds of small islands and atolls, spanning an area one-third of the globe's surface. The region's distance from the economic centres of the Asia Pacific make for some of the most remote countries and territories in the world.

Digital technologies are helping Pacific Islanders participate in political dialogue and are improving social inclusiveness and development. People in both urban and rural communities are participating in debates from which they were previously excluded. Unlike radio, arguably the most important source of information for most Pacific Islanders, Facebook discussion groups and blogs provide a forum for an exchange of information and opinion where all users can participate.

My paper doesn't just analyse what is happening in the region, it also tackles the region's 'digital development' opportunities. Tools such as crowdsourcing and mobile phone applications such as those devoted to health present the Pacific Islands region with immense opportunities. Tentative steps have already been made in this area, but there is enormous scope for Pacific Islands governments, the private sector and international donors to make far better use of the region's growing ICT infrastructure.  

Most importantly, I hope to use this paper to start a discussion on The Interpreter that looks at the Pacific's digital future. What could this ICT revolution mean for the Pacific Islands region? Are the region's governments ready to grasp these opportunities? Are the region's business, civil society and donor communities equipped with the right skills, knowledge and vision to capitalise on this digital transformation? Does the region's digital emergence offer an opportunity for Australia, as the largest trade and aid partner, to reinforce and revitalise its relationship with the region? And are there areas where Australia could focus more of its public and private resources?

I hope to see Pacific and Australian government officials, academics, bloggers, civil society representatives and others take part. Please send your submissions (of about 600 words) to DCave@lowyinstitute.org and blogeditor@lowyinstitute.org to take part.

Photo by Flickr user JonJon2k8.

Too many of these specialists spend more time briefing, coordinating and thinking about their department's place in Canberra (and their branch's place in their department, and so on) than using their knowledge to inform international policy formulation. The burden and cyclical nature of the vast demand for briefings – for politicians, senior government employees and even for mid-level public servants – is inhibiting the strategic capabilities of the public service. 
 
Australian Government departments, intentionally or unintentionally, hinder public debate by putting up barriers that limit and discourage the participation of policymakers and public servants. The requirements to get clearance to engage in public discussion can be so demanding that a policymaker needs to assess whether it's worth their time and effort.

It's rare to see an Australian public servant ask a question in a public forum, let alone offer their opinion or idea on a topic. The barriers to participate in public discourse that have helped contribute to the over-cautious nature of Australia's internationally-focused policymakers need to be abolished. This inactive approach to participating in public discussion and debate is self-harming and short-sighted for Australia, a country which sees itself as a creative middle power.

Australia's international policy community is facing a serious predicament. The Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have, at their disposal, an over-cautious, under-utilised and under-resourced (in the case of Foreign Affairs) crop of international policymakers. Worst of all, new ideas are few and far between. Even when a policy idea does survive the gauntlet of an inflexible, hierarchical clearance processes, it will not always be well communicated and may not even come to the attention to other international policy segments of the Australian public. 

By putting a padlock on our public servants the  Australian Government is essentially under-employing one of its most important resources. This knowledge and expertise would help inform, not hinder, Australia's international policy debate.

The over 100 Papua New Guineans who participated in PNG New Voices taught me how much Australia could learn from Papua New Guinea if only we would pay attention and listen. New ideas were being thrown up by speakers and participants. Those of us typing up notes and tweeting via #PNGNewVoices struggled to keep up. I heard more good policy ideas on 22 October in Port Moresby than I have heard over the last year in Australia's foreign policy discussions (both publicly discussed and behind closed doors).

Are Papua New Guineans better at thinking outside the box? Does the Australian public service even value new ideas and creative policy thinking? Are government policymakers, so caught up with internal administration and briefing, less informed about international developments? Is Australia always destined to host an international policy debate where policymakers rarely take part?

Sadly, Australian government agencies are not known for their ability to generate new and creative policy thinking. But this could change. Change needs to trickle down from confident leadership, both at the political and departmental level, that trusts the capabilities of the public servants they employ.

No one at PNG New Voices defended or made excuses for poor policy. No one toed the line. Refreshingly, no one spoke from a dry and unimaginative set of talking points. No one took the opportunity to lecture another group or a country. And no one criticised those who disagreed with them, instead welcoming different views and seeing this as an opportunity to take part in an informed debate. After all, a strong public discussion means that policy has been challenged and debated, and a more informed policy is good for any country. Papua New Guineans at the conference understood and encouraged this. The same attitude to international policy debate needs to develop in Australia.

Australia's international policy community is performing at partial strength. Instead of foreign policy debates flourishing as Australia faces an increasing set of complex international challenges – hosting the G20 in 2014; wedged between our core ally and key trading partner; taking on a term in the UNSC; facing the possibility of conflict in Asia – the debate is flat. And worse off because of the lack of Australian policymaker participation.

It took listening to the depth of talent that exists within Papua New Guinea's crop of emerging leaders to appreciate just how lethargic and tepid Australia's international policy community has become. Where is the passion for informed and new ideas for Australia's future place in the world? And importantly, where are Australia's emerging crop of international policy leaders? I certainly can't hear them.

Photo by Flickr user auraneurotica photo.

Papua New Guinea is undergoing a period of extraordinary transformation, politically, socially and economically. We hope PNG New Voices will play a role in shining a brighter spotlight on a country that Australia's senior elected officials need to pay far greater attention to, now and into the future.

To ensure debate is not limited to the conference venue we will encourage participants to use social media through the day with analysis and big ideas from each session posted on PNG Facebook discussion group Sharp Talk and on Twitter using the hashtag #PNGNewVoices. I encourage interested people to monitor and engage with us on social media for real-time updates on the event.

 PNG has limited resources to commit to a growing crop of both domestic and international challenges. In such an environment, PNG's thirst for new ideas and creative policy thinking has never been so great. A strong national discourse and a dynamic public discussion are not just the principal ingredients for good public policy – a robust debate also counteracts poorly constructed and ill-informed policy by ensuring that questions are asked and decisions are publicly contested. PNG New Voices will help support a strengthening of this public debate and facilitate new ideas into the policy realm.

There are few people better qualified to speak on and input into the current and looming challenges that PNG faces than those participating in next month's Lowy Institute New Voices conference. It is the younger generation that will wear the consequences of decisions made today by PNG's politicians, business people and government officials, so it is vital their opinions are heard and their ideas feed into both the debate and policy that will shape PNG's future place in the world.

 Photo by Flickr user Ikhlasul Amal.

PNG New Voices draft agenda.doc (95.00 kb)

China analysts and the bulk of the private sector may also be wondering why, over the past two years, our foreign ministers have visited Ethiopia, Egypt, France, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Italy, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Switzerland rather than spending more time in China. Why have our foreign ministers spent portions of 2011-12 in Lithuania, El Salvador, Hungary, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Oman, Malta and Liechtenstein when our high-level engagement with India and Papua New Guinea were already so lacking?

Flicking through the flight paths of our parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs is even more alarming – jammed full of visits to countries inconsequential to Australian foreign, trade, security and aid policy but important for Australia's UN Security Council bid.

Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean is another example of Australia's sidetracked international policy that can be attributed at least partly to Australia's bid for a UN Security Council seat. I enjoyed reading Wendy Jarvie's ten reasons why AusAID should stay committed to Latin America, but I have just one for why we should go: because providing aid to Latin America does not fit in with the Australian Government's foreign aid objective of alleviating poverty in line with Australia's national interest. If you want a second reason, nor does Australia possess a competitive advantage or expertise in providing development assistance to this part of the world (like we do in Asia and in the Pacific).

Australian aid will make such an insignificant difference to development outcomes in the region that it will not pass the 'value for money' test. Unlike Africa, levels of poverty across Latin America are not substantial enough to argue that AusAID continue re-directing trivial portions of Australia foreign aid away from the Asia Pacific. After all, the 2011 Australian aid review found that aid to Latin American and the Caribbean was of 'limited Australian strategic interest'.

Australia entered its UN Security Council bid under the assumption that multilateralism will continue to be an effective tool of international policy. But multilateralism has not served Australia well of late, and we need to face the prospect that, as a tool of foreign policy, multilateralism does not offer Australia the value it once did.

Gareth Evans is right; Australia has a formidable story to tell. We are a creative middle power, and an aspiring aid superpower. Yet we are also deeply confused about our place in the world. Our foreign policy architecture continues to spread across a range of government departments and is no longer centered in diplomacy. Australia's private sector and range of research institutes, along with our prime minister, are reaching out to Asia and trying to examine Australia's role in the Asian Century. Concurrently, our foreign minister is boosting multilateralism as our foreign affairs department frantically devotes itself to beating Luxembourg and gaining a seat on the UN steering committee next month.

This confusion may well be resolved soon, with the Asian Century White Paper set to launch around the same time Australia discovers whether it has been successful in securing a seat at the table in UN headquarters in New York. One is important to a range of government, private sector and civil society actors and will spark a debate about Australia's place in the world. The other holds diminishing value in a world where the limits of multilateralism become starker year by year.

I will be joining Dr Woker and crossing my fingers for an Australian win at the UN next month. Despite my arguments, the decision to bid for a UN Security Council seat was made, dollars have been spent, and our foreign affairs department needs this boost after years of purged budgets. If Australia wins, DFAT will no doubt grasp the opportunity and serve Australia proudly. But win or lose, the opportunity cost of this bid has been enormous

Photo by Flickr user United Nations Photo.

Development assistance is an important part of Australia's relationship with the Pacific Islands, and foreign aid is rapidly becoming Australia's most effective international policy tool. The size of Australia's regional aid budget means it dominates Australia's relationship with the region. But this comes at the expense of the type of relationship we really want with the Pacific, one that is multifaceted and goes deeper than that of donor-recipient. 

Australian policymakers too often rest on the size of the aid budget. When in the Pacific Islands, aid announcements pepper the media releases of any visiting Minister or Parliamentary Secretary. But this over-reliance on the aid program has stifled Pacific policy in Australia and resulted in a lack of creative policy thinking. We fail to think through and design Pacific policy that builds Australia's goodwill in the region.

Aid is always going to be a key part of our Pacific policy, however, it does not always have to be at the centre. Annmaree O'Keeffe is spot on when she recommends Australia should look for other ways to engage with Pacific island states. Facilitating greater opportunities for 1.5 track dialogues (particularly in Papua New Guinea), launching an Australia-Pacific Island Council under DFAT, developing greater opportunities to connect with emerging leaders in the region, a Pacific-tailored ediplomacy strategy for those Pacific countries going through a mobile phone boom and getting our Prime Minister out to Melanesia for the first time are all ideas worth exploring.

The Pacific Islands region can only look on in envy at the wide-ranging policy discussion occurring on Australia's role in the Asian Century – Australia-Pacific relations will never be the subject of such a substantial debate in Australia. It's hard to imagine policymakers in Canberra seeing our relations with the Pacific Islands as White Paper-worthy, despite the desperate need for innovative policy ideas.

The Australian Government needs to reach for its thinking cap and work with Australian civil society and the private sector to develop a set of innovative policies which will build Australia's goodwill and soft power in the Pacific Island region, because the relationship is stale and has seen far better days. Our sustained distraction is leaving the region open to other foreign powers. More on that in my next blog post.

Photo by Flickr user AusAID Photolibrary.

It's hard to say exactly what is behind this mentality and whether this is a real shift or simply a below the surface irritant which has forced its way up. However, one thing is certain: this frustration can now be channeled into a growing range of online platforms. On the upside, this gives Australia access to huge amounts of information and the ability to understand how Papua New Guineans view their southern neighbour. On the downside, discovering what people think of you is not always so pretty.

This aversion to Australia was on display last night after MP (and former Deputy Prime Minister) Belden Namah released a press statement accusing Australia's High Commissioner, Ian Kemish, of interfering PNG's sovereignty. Kemish attended a state ceremony where Peter O'Neill was invited to form PNG's new government. PNG's The National newspaper quoted Kemish as saying: "If there is anyone who can take it that far (five years), it is him". Kemish denied making this comment.

Namah's statement demanded Kemish be recalled and an apology issued by Foreign Minister Carr. In usual Namah style, the press release was whimsical and nonsensical but it was widely dispersed. It hit social media like a white squall and, mixed in with rumours of an imminent military coup (also spread through text message), it created digital chaos for a few hours.

Two developments were particularly troubling. First, how quickly hundreds of people (through PNG Facebook group Sharp Talk) were demanding Australia's High Commissioner be immediately deported. Ian Kemish is nearing the end of his time in Port Moresby and seems to be liked and respected in PNG. From our interview with Kemish earlier this year, you can see that he has a great love for the country. But it isn't Kemish that people want removed, it was the 'Australian High Commissioner'. It likely doesn't matter who the individual is sitting in the chair. If the PNG-Australia relationship were in a better place, it is hard to imagine so many cries of 'off with his head'.
 
Second, it was baffling to watch this unfold last night on social media being aware of how easily the hysteria could have been quelled by effective ediplomacy. In fact, it's downright scandalous that our diplomatic corps has not yet equipped itself with the most basic online tools to engage with the public. I acknowledge that, as of last week, DFAT has launched two ambassadors into the twittersphere. It's unfortunate that the PNG High Commissioner wasn't one of them.

Had Ian Kemish tweeted an explanation of why he was at PNG Government House (invited? normal protocol?) and what he did or didn't say to The National he could have cleared up Belden Namah's accusations in 140 characters (or allowed himself to spill into 280). It really can be that simple.

PNG's entrepreneurial bloggers would have copied, cropped and pasted Kemish's tweet onto Sharp Talk and on a half-dozen blogs in a few minutes. This would have clarified misinformation and speculation. Instead, the Australian Government's unwillingness to embrace ediplomacy unnecessarily cost the PNG-Australia relationship last night.

The Australian Government's inability to connect with the public online is likely interpreted as 'radio silence' by the more than 100,000 people in PNG accessing social media (a rapidly growing number of Papua New Guineans also access social media from their mobile phones and this growth cannot always be tracked).

Last night, in the heat of the online debate, a number of PNG Facebook users requested that, if there was an Australian official in the group, could they please come forward to clarify what had occurred, many believing that the diplomatic stoush was likely a misunderstanding. Unfortunately, Australian officials didn't engage to clarify. The Australian Government doesn't have a Facebook account in PNG, nor did it use its generic Twitter account, @dfat. A shame, given the obvious need for quick ediplomacy in this confused situation.

There is an enormous difference between engaging with the officials of a country and engaging with its general public. I don't believe the warm feelings that Australians have for Papua New Guinea, which have increased since 2007, are necessarily reciprocated. A restorative visit by Prime Minister Gillard (who has yet to visit Papua New Guinea) may get this important relationship back on track. Fast-tracking an effective ediplomacy strategy that engages with PNG's increasingly influential 'digital generation' is another.

Photo by Flickr user Commonwealth Secretariat.

A flock of digital entrepreneurs provide PNG with independent contestability and analysis of government procedures and policy via a suite of blogs (many of which I have linked to in this post), Facebook and Twitter. When electoral promises are broken, public funds misused, allegations of corruption arise and when political decisions lack transparency, it will be discussed and debated through Facebook group Sharp Talk, Twitter hashtag #PNG and on a number of blogs and websites.

A group of savvy bloggers provide sharp analysis that PNG's newspapers could only dream of. Social media users have spread news of the PNG election in real time. Informed and inclusive debates occur daily on SharpTalk; female representation in politics has been a popular topic of late with the online masses delighted and proud of the boosted female presence in PNG's parliament.

If their post-election remarks are anything to go by, the new members for Lae and Soho Open will be working towards the same goals advocated by the posse of bloggers and social media users: a more transparent and inclusive government that capitalises on the country's economic growth in a sustainable way, distributes public funds fairly and facilitates service delivery (particularly health and education services) to the provinces.

Papua New Guinea is internationally renowned for being a country of great diversity – geographically, culturally and in its variety of traditions and languages. Yet this wonderful diversity is still not reflected politically. Without decisive political action, the hegemony of PNG's bigmen will remain for decades to come. Once Peter O'Neill has cobbled together a ruling coalition, one of his first priorities needs to be an assertive and considered social policy framework, one that will assess how to reverse PNG's terrible track record in gender equality. After all, investing in people and empowering women is smart economic policy.

The election of two women should be celebrated. But this achievement should boost, not mask, the push to build greater equity into the PNG parliament so that future generations of women will not be as disadvantaged as those who first fought to get into parliament in 1977 and those who are still battling today.

Photo by Flickr user Commonwealth Secretariat.

I don't wish to detract from what has been achieved at this election. For PNG, 2012 brings the best female representation in parliament since the 1977 election (which brought 3 women to power). But looking at the historical trends and the current situation, it is hard to find a more inequitable democratically elected parliament in the world. And this blatant inequality will not be reversed without both domestic and international pressure that helps facilitate more debate on the role of women in PNG politics and a more leveled playing field for those who do take part.

Former PNG Opposition Leader (and Lowy Institute visiting fellow) Dame Carol Kidu resigned this year after 16 years as the only woman in parliament. Dame Carol was vocal and active in parliamentary debate and with the media. And while she was heard by the mass of men surrounding her she was not always listened to: her calls to improve social policy and human rights were rarely given priority despite Papua New Guinea's dire need for inclusive and resilient social policy.

Consistently poor rankings in the UNDP's Human Development Index show PNG's population suffers low life expectancy, poor education and high gender inequality. This index shows that PNG has not made headway on gender inequality since 1995. Also disturbing are the results of a women's economic opportunity index, crafted by the Economist Intelligence Unit and supported by a range of donors including the New Zealand aid program. This report looks at women's economic opportunity and advancement in 128 countries. PNG ranks dismally, bettering only Yemen, Chad and Sudan. This should be proof enough that current social and gender policies are not adequate and that urgent policy adjustments need to be made by the incoming PNG Government.

* While Loujaya has described Bart Philemon as her 'grandfather' in numerous interviews, he is actually her uncle. ‏(h/t @Tavurvur)

Photo by Flickr user Commonwealth Secretariat.

PNG has benefited from the proliferation of cheap mobile phones with good network coverage that are web and/or Facebook-enabled. In a sense, these phones have fast-tracked the country beyond fixed broadband, which in a developing country like PNG has many limitations (such as cost, access and the necessary hardware). The accessibility of mobile internet allows Papua New Guinea's Facebook users to share texts, articles, photos and video immediately while they are on the move – key ingredients for the coordination of a large public event.

PNG is our closest neighbouring country, our second largest recipient of foreign aid, our 13th largest trading partner and home to a large contingent of Australians in government, business, civil society and media. The importance of PNG's stability to Australia's national interest is impossible to dispute. What is up for debate is whether Australia is equipped with the right expertise to monitor, analyse and engage with PNG's emerging digital generation. The same generation (X & Y) that largely organised yesterday's protest will produce PNG's next crop of leaders across government, private sector and civil society. 

It is also worth thinking about how other Pacific Island (and particularly Melanesian) countries will view and interpret these events in their local media and social media discussion groups. PNG is a natural leader in the Pacific Islands and PNG's protests have potential regional ramifications.

Social media activism in PNG will continue to thrive alongside expected increased take-up of web-enabled mobile phones; what will change are the tipping points that spark and inspire people to amplify their voices and coordinate a political response. Prime Minister O'Neill now finds himself in a unique situation, facing an increasingly vocal and powerful 'digital generation' that has proven it is possible to coordinate a mass rally, predominantly using social media tools, in a few days. This has never been done before.

What is much more difficult to assess is whether future protest organisers, participants and police will be able to continue ensuring that these protests are peaceful (there were claims of violence, although separate to the main protest). If the PNG Government fails to meet its own election and constitutional commitments this will deliver PNG citizens another trigger point, and after seeing what PNG citizens are capable of organising, one should assume there will be a coordinated public response.

Holding governments accountable for their actions is an important part of democracy; the onus is now on the PNG Government to listen to its people. Meanwhile, #PNG's online discussion continues to intensify.

Yesterday's protest had been in the works for at least a week and popular PNG Facebook groups were used to discuss and debate the details of a potential protest. Over the Easter holidays and following the Government's vote to defer elections, the stakes suddenly increased, as did the discussion on social media, with many of PNG's popular networking channels going into overdrive as the details of a mass protest were planned.

Details were posted across Facebook (and to a lesser extent Twitter), a number of the well-read PNG blogs and via text message. No doubt email and word of mouth were involved as well. Yesterday, Facebook and Twitter were used to coordinate different groups of protesters and to keep others watching live informed:

Part 2 of this post will be live later today.

Fiji has an active blogging culture which sprung out of Fiji's lack of media freedom since Commodore Bainimarama forcefully came to power. These blogs playing an important role in keeping debate alive within and outside of Fiji and offer the only real alternative to censored Fiji news.

In Vanuatu, Facebook groups have been set up to host debates on social, developmental and political issues. Social media has changed the way citizens of the Marshall Islands participated in their 2011 elections. 

Last year I was told so many times that 'the internet and social media is only for elites in the Pacific' that I almost started to believe it. But this is no longer true, and we have low-cost mobile handsets and cheap call/text rates to thank for that. In Papua New Guinea, the biggest user group of social media is the new 'digital generation', aged 18-34, which makes up the bulk of PNG's 66,660 Facebook users (17,840 of which have signed on in the last six months). The biggest gains in the past three months have been recorded by the 18-24 year-old bracket who are now leading the generational pack with 24,000 Facebook users.

In PNG, social media and blogs are being used to hold both the public and private sector accountable; they are informing, refining and influencing debate; and, increasingly, they are being used to discuss, plan and coordinate events.

Events like 'White Friday' will test the coordination power of social media in PNG. Despite PNG suffering from the lowest internet penetration in the Pacific Islands region, accessibility to the internet is made increasingly easier by the presence of the innovative telecommunications company Digicel*, which recently released a Facebook-enabled mobile phone; the number of Facebook users in PNG will presumably continue to rise sharply in 2012.

Whether White Friday is considered a success by its organisers remains to be seen, but this is really just the beginning. What's next?

* Digicel provided support to the Lowy Institute's 2011 Auckland event, 'Pacific Islands and the World: Realising the Pacific's Potential'.

Photo by Flickr user mikecogh.

Since the Cold War, newer Asian donors including China, India, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore have been growing, dispersing and refining their aid programs. Strategy, tighter commodities markets and a glut of donors means foreign aid is increasingly acquiring a geostrategic edge. For aid recipients, emerging-country donors will be attractive for reasons other than strategy and self-interest; the emerging economies' own stunning economic successes offer an alternative model for developing countries.

In delivering aid, Asian donors often have different motivations and expectations to those of traditional donors. A combination of local and regional stabilisation, humanitarian concerns, commercial interests and geo-strategic factors tend to be the primary forces motivating emerging donors in Asia. Of course, each donor is developing and polishing their own unique characteristics.

The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan recognised the opportunities for 'South-South' cooperation (aid and development co-operation between developing and emerging economies). Yet there is no indication that the discussion in Busan will convert into formal cooperation between traditional and emerging donors. Such cooperation is resource- and labour-intensive. China, for example, is still grappling with a burgeoning and increasingly complex foreign policy framework, not to mention a series of precarious security concerns. Aid cooperation with OECD (traditional) donors is surely very low on China's foreign policy agenda, despite the donor-led development policy scramble to Beijing.

China, the most dominant and influential emerging donor, has arguably become the 'go-to donor' for many recipient countries in the Asia Pacific (despite calls from the US for recipients to be 'smart shoppers'). This trend will continue as long as large interest-free loans and grants are on offer with few strings attached.

China is not only one of the largest providers of aid in the region but also the largest foreign direct investor. For every Asia Pacific country, Australia included, managing relationships with China is core business. Many countries in the region are playing out their own complicated and drama-riddled versions of Australia's future wedged between Washington and Beijing. In some cases, the balancing act involves becoming caught between the US and China, while for others it is maintaining a peaceful equilibrium between Beijing and New Delhi.

No doubt analysis of Asia's increasingly influential donors and their impact on our region will form a vital aspect of the Asian Century White Paper due out later this year. Throughout 2012-13, the Lowy Institute too will conduct research and host events focused on the emergence and transformative nature of Asian aid donors and their impact on the Asia Pacific.

Any member of our team who fails to appear busy at all times will find themselves on automatic Twitter duty. The Lowy Institute Twitter account continues to grow and is a hotbed of intense discussion and debate on Australia's place in the world. We will be tweeting from Auckland using the hashtag #PIF and will be encouraging twitterers to put forward questions for the speakers – it will be our first attempt at crowd-sourcing Pacific policy ideas.

Our crowd-sourcing attempts will not end there. Sam, the Lowy’s prolific blog editor, will be in Auckland with us and will be hunting down conference speakers for short interviews. If you have a question, send it through to blogeditor@lowyinstitute.org .

For further info please see the Lowy event page, where you can download the full conference agenda and speaker biographies. We hope you join us in Auckland, whether it be via this blog, Facebook or Twitter.

Photo by Flickr user 23am.com.

So why are Papua New Guineans flocking to social media now? A large portion of the credit has to go to Irish mobile phone company, Digicel, which now operates in a number of Pacific countries, and which has transformed the telecommunications landscape in PNG. Coverage now extends to the majority of the country and the company offers relatively cheap handsets with even cheaper call and text rates. Having just been named as PNG's most innovative company in 2011, Digicel enables users to access Facebook through their mobile phones, tweet via SMS, offers a cheaper alternative to the iPad, and has recently launched high-speed mobile broadband internet.

Digicel is not the only company taking advantage of an increasingly connected PNG. The Bank of the South Pacific now offers SMS text banking — account holders can check balances, transfer money and check their last three transactions on their mobiles. 

Almost two years ago, when I was pinned with the task of setting up the Lowy Institute's Twitter account, I struggled to track down one single Twitter account that operated from the Pacific Islands (outside of a handful of Fiji tourism companies).

Today, if I jump on Twitter or Facebook and conduct a quick search, I am drowning in Pacific Island tweeters and potential Facebook friends. They are sharing opinions, having conversations, texting money, linking to blogs and starting debates. PNG is not alone; the entire Pacific region is twittering its way towards a more connected future. These vital connections have an important role to play in lifting a greater proportion of the population out of poverty.

Photo by Flickr user kahunapulej.