Kokoda Track, part of national heritage
By JACOB SIMET
IN RECENT weeks the Kokoda Track has attracted the attention of the media in relation to the pending renewal of a mining company’s exploration license.
Related to this is the threatened and eventual closure of the track by landowners to express their disagreement with the government’s seeming decision not to renew the prospecting license.
Landowners argue that by not agreeing to renew the prospecting license, the government was denying them benefits which they could accrue from a possible mine on the track and its surrounds.
In the media it seems that the PNG Government is interested in mining along the Kokoda Track and the landowners are in agreement with this position. Australia on the other hand is portrayed to be in disagreement with mining and wants to block any moves towards mining or any other activity which may compromise the integrity of the track as a historical landmark.
Australia’s position on the Kokoda Track is understandable. We know that the battle of Kokoda was the one part of World War II which they fought alone and not under the wings of either the British or the United States. Australia lost many lives at Kokoda, though less than they did at Gallipoli. As a result, Gallipoli is the most important overseas war landmark for Australia and Kokoda Track comes second.
This value of the track for Australia was dormant for almost half a century and only in the last decade it has come alive.
The emotions attached to the track relates to those Australians who lost their lives on the track. As a nation, Australia sees this as important to its political history. Due to stepped up awareness of Kokoda, there is better understanding and interest in Australia.
Kokoda is so well known now in Australia, in almost every major city there is a mini-kokoda track of some kind. The Australian “pilgrimage” to the track has grown noticeably over the last five years, the Tourism Promotion Authority declares it is their best tourism product today.
Under the Australian Colonial Administration, the Territory of Papua and New Guinea observed ANZAC Day. After attaining political independence in 1975, Papua New Guinea continued to observe ANZAC Day, up to the present day. Everywhere in PNG, including Kokoda township, there are monuments, including a number of war-cemeteries; which were established to commemorate WW II. These are part of the legacy of Australian colonial rule in PNG.
In the most part, the maintenance and upkeep though of these monuments and cemeteries are not done by PNG, but by other countries; mainly Australia and Japan. PNG seems to be a mere host.
Since Independence, a number of developments have taken place in both Australia and PNG in relation to the track. One of these is the signing of the MOU in PNG by the Prime-Ministers of PNG and Australia, in 1995.
This was in recognition of the historical and cultural importance of the track to the people of both countries. An important part of this agreement was that the two countries contribute equally to the maintenance of the track. In Australia there has been a high level of publicity and awareness of the track and its importance to the people and history of that country, which has resulted in increased interest. Some time after Independence, the track was declared a National Park, although not clearly defined.
Over the years, while PNG has gone through the motions of honoring the memory of those who lost their lives on the track, there does not seem to be any clarity in its position regarding its historical/cultural value and importance.
Many Papua New Guineans died along the track and so there is some emotional attachment on the part of PNG and it seems this is where we stop.
In PNG different organizations have their own views and definitions of the track. At the Kokoda end of the track there is s sign post which reads “Kokoda Track - National Walking Track”. Which nation (PNG or Australia) is being referred to by the term “national” is anyone’s guess.
The Department of Environment and Conservation says the whole distance (128 miles) of the track, which is 10 meters wide, is a national park and it is thus a protected area.
The Kokoda Track Development Committee says the track is of historical and cultural importance to the people of both PNG and Australia; as per the MOU of our two Prime-Ministers in 1995.
The landowners say the track is a mere nuisance, which is a stumbling block to their prosperity.
To the Kokoda Track Authority, the track is a “milking cow”.
For the Tourism Promotion Authority, the track is the goose which should be left alone to continue to lay golden eggs.
Incidentally, the Mining Company argued that a big hole in the ground left by the mine could be just as attractive and good for tourism as the “Track”.
To the prospecting company, the track is nothing more than a stretch of impenetrable terrain which is inhabited by people who are interested in nothing else but money.
The debate between the Mining Company, the Australian High Commission and the land-owners, which is attracting media attention, is not about the historical/cultural value of the track to PNG, Australia or anyone else. This debate is about economic benefits. It is about optimizing economic benefits from either, the track as a tourism product or from its destruction by mining; and which of these two options would best appease the land-owners.
In the beginning Australia was intent on impressing upon all concerned the historical/cultural value of the track, most particularly to its people and history. It realized very quickly that it was not getting anywhere with this when everyone was talking mainly economics.
On this realization, Australia turned to the nomination of the Owen Stanley Range (which includes the Kokoda track) for inscription on the World Heritage list, as a way to safeguard it from destruction. There are those of us who believe that the track may not pass the test to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. The best option for its protection would be if it is listed on a PNG National Heritage List, which at the moment is non-existent.
The Kokoda Track is part of that war history in PNG. The people in Oro and Milne Bay Provinces had the same experiences as people in other parts of the country. For many of these people, these were experiences which they would not have liked to live through ever again. They are memories which they would have liked to have left with their descendants, as lessons against the perpetration of war.
In the above sense, the experiences, the places and the physical evidences of the war become part of the heritage of the people of Papua New Guinea. Not only because they evidence the loss of many Papua New Guineans as casualties of the war but mainly because they encapsulate painful experiences which no one should have to live through.
No one from Oro or the Central Province wanted the war on the Kokoda Track but all the same they were left with experiences which became part of their lives for a very long time. The war was not ours, but the memories (many of them painful) are certainly ours and are part of our heritage now.
Papua New Guinea should take ownership of our peoples’ experiences of the war, the places of battles and also the physical evidences of the war. It is interesting that there is a law which protects the physical remnants of the war; the War Surplus Material Act, which is administered by the National Museum and Art Gallery. This law declares all materials from the war in Papua New Guinea as national property and protects them from destruction or export out of the country. Recent controversies in the public media about the export of some of these items, including the well-known “Swamp Ghost” relate to alleged violations of this law.
Government is quick to take the National Museum and Art Gallery to task on their seeming failure to protect war surplus material from export out of this country. Who should be taken to task for their failure to protect the historical integrity of the Kokoda Track from destruction by mining and other activities?
Weekender Stories