Of mines and memories
THE announcement by representatives of Papua New Guinea and Australia on the future of the Kokoda Track is already generating disagreement.
There was a sense of relief when the environment ministers for PNG and Australia issued a joint declaration about the Kokoda Track, one that ensures the future of both the wartime icon and of the people who live nearby.
Reports were carried in The National last week; suffice it to say that it has been agreed that there will be no mining exploration in the Owen Stanley ranges.
The issue threatens to become controversial because an Australian mining company, Frontier Resources, has declared that any refusal by PNG to renew the exploration licence would be viewed as “expropriation” by the company.
Frontier’s stance on the issue is predictable but deeply unfortunate.
The company has said it will seek compensation if exploration is halted and additionally claimed that “the minister has no grounds whatsoever to refuse to renew” the exploration licence.
A company spokesman has claimed that Frontier has made “unprecedented” concessions to preserve the Kokoda Track and that any incursion upon the wartime relic would amount to a possible road crossing.
Frontier may have some grounds for complaint, but this is an extraordinary situation that has called for an unusual solution.
To suggest that PNG would be expropriating the contested area if the licence was not renewed is a claim that should not be entertained.
At no point in the history of this nation has any investment been expropriated although some of our citizens may feel that a number of alleged “investments” have deserved to suffer that fate.
PNG has followed the intricate maze of international law in its dealings with investors and the results are obvious in the obvious success stories of our many-faceted resource industries.
It is an extraordinary situation because both nations involved have strong reasons to leave Kokoda and the track untouched and the surrounding environment undisturbed.
For Australians, Kokoda might perhaps be seen as a prime symbol of Anzac co-operation on a par with the national reverence for Anzac Cove in distant Turkey.
The difference between the two sites underlines the importance of Kokoda to our neighbour, for it is on Australia’s doorstep and the terrible struggle across that track happened in the lifetime of many still alive today.
The relevance of the track to PNG tends to be underestimated; Australians were not the only nationality to die in that campaign and as we all know, many Australians owe their lives to the support of their PNG brothers.
Many would say that Australian governments in the past have paid scant attention to that wartime contribution by our people.
We recognise that the decision reached at Madang would have been better reached earlier, when Frontier first applied for an exploration licence.
We also recognise that if the licence is not renewed, the court should recompense Frontier for their expenditure in the track area.
But we are not impressed with the sabre rattling of the junior resource company nor with its heady mixture of verbal threats over the issue.
Those remarks are chillingly reminiscent of some of the more bellicose utterances of the previous Australian government, an era many people would prefer to forget.
Frontier needs to recognise the genuine dilemma in this situation.
It is not a matter of a greedy government seeking to extract ever higher profits from an investor. PNG would have opted for mining, had that been the case.
The amount of money generated by the track is likely to be much lower than income obtained by the State through taxes and royalties accrued from a successful mine.
Threats and displays of animosity will not solve this difficult and unique situation.
Our responsible authorities and our minister for mining must assess the processes provided for under the PNG Constitution and our organic laws.
PNG is not a newcomer to the field of resource investment and exploitation.
We have suffered the tragedy of a civil war in which many thousands of our people died in the name of mining and the riches it can generate.
The Kokoda Track must not become a latter day memorial to further bloodshed.
 
Hillary Clinton fails to deliver KO punch
HILLARY Clinton needed a crushing victory of 18% to 25% to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology of the campaign.
Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for her: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural – Clinton’s voter profile.
She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin – which the Pennsylvania secretary of state says was only 9.2% – fell far short of what was needed to stop Barrack Obama’s nomination. Here’s why.

Pledged delegates
By CNN’s count, Clinton netted about 14 pledged delegates in Pennsylvania. That still leaves Obama up by 151 pledged delegates.
It is likely that after Guam, Indiana and North Carolina, there will be no net change in pledged delegates, even if Clinton wins Indiana, since Obama will certainly pick up delegates in North Carolina.
But at that point only 251 pledged delegates will remain to be chosen.
Even if Clinton won 80% of all of the pledged delegates that remain after Indiana, she would still trail Obama at the end of the day.
The battle for the pledged delegate advantage is over.

Popular vote
Pennsylvania was Clinton’s best opportunity to really close in on Obama’s popular vote lead.
She picked up about 216,000 net votes but that still leaves her over 600,000 votes behind, and Obama will likely increase his popular vote margin further after the contests on May 6. Clinton’s failure to blow Obama out in Pennsylvania makes it almost impossible for her to close the gap.
Electability
Clinton’s entire strategy rests on the premise that she can convince Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable. Only a massive win in Pennsylvania would have credibly made that case.
Clinton’s victory did little to enhance her argument. Regardless of the passions of the moment, history shows us that just because voters prefer one candidate in the primary, it does not mean they would not vote for her Democratic opponent in a general election when the other choice is a Republican.
When all is said and done, primary voters almost always vote for the candidate of their party in a general election – regardless of what they might say (on either side) in the middle of a primary fight.
In fact, the people who decide general elections rarely set foot in primary voting booths.
They are the independent voters who vote only in general elections and unengaged voters who would vote Democratic, but have to be mobilised to go to the polls.
The fact is that whatever appeal Clinton might have among independent rural and blue collar voters, Obama more than makes up for in appeal to independent suburban voters.
Obama’s ability to mobilise new young and African American voters in the general election is indisputably greater than Clinton’s.
And of course, Obama will not go into the general election burdened by the towering Clinton negatives that her own negative campaign strategy increases daily.
The polls – and even Pennsylvania governor and Clinton supporter Ed Rendell – make it clear that Obama can win Pennsylvania in the general election.
But Obama can also broaden the playing field with a shot at winning states like Colorado and Virginia.

Super delegates
Finally, it is a fact that is generally overlooked by pundits.
At the close of the primaries, Obama will not need a stampede of super delegates to win nomination.

In fact, he will only need about 40% of those that remain undecided today.
Let us make the most conservative assumptions about the outcome of the remaining races: Guam, even; North Carolina 58%-42% Obama; Indiana 54%-46% Clinton; Kentucky 60%-40% Clinton; West Virginia 60%-40% Clinton; Oregon 56%-44% Obama; Montana 56%-44% Obama; Puerto Rico 60%- 40% Clinton.
That would leave Obama at 1,846 delegates at the close of the primaries.
He would need only 41% of the super delegates remaining today to clinch the nomination with 2,025.
And let us remember, he has picked up almost one super delegate a day for the last month.
There is no reason to believe he would not keep picking up super delegates as the contest continues.
So by the end of the primaries, he will need an even lower percentage of the super delegates that remain.
All that remains for Clinton are more opportunities for her own campaign to be shut down.
If she loses Indiana and North Carolina, it will be extremely hard for her to continue. There is no longer any opportunity for her to defeat Obama.
Clinton may have won on April 22, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama’s march to the nomination.
In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton’s Waterloo. – newmatilda

Note: Robert Creamer is a long-time political organiser and strategist and author of the recent book, Stand Up Straight. How Progressives Can Win.
Editorial