| Sports |
By PATRICK KAIKU
It’s vital to have a timeline
MICHAEL Dillon’s article “Long-term
implications of Australia’s engagement policy” (May 14) reaffirmed
what is already a growing consensus amongst scholars, observers
and thinkers on Pacific Islands’ issues – the engagement policy,
new interventionism or Downer’s “co-operative interventionism” is
an offshoot of the Australian government’s obligation to the
broader “war on terror” in the immediate region of the
Asia-Pacific.
The engagement policy is the lens through which Australian
national security and economic interests are undertaken in the
region, increasingly referred to as the “arc of instability”.
Unlike Dillon, I believe the question of having a timeline in
determining the shift from direct security presence of Australian
federal police or defence force to “nation-building” (development
assistance focus) should best be avoided.
Nation-building or state reconstruction as we see in the Solomon
Islands is not only about massive injection of funds and personnel
into the machinery of governance and the economy.
There must be some other sustainable project that the people of
the Pacific should look at and it should work towards ending the
mental slavery created by the labelling exercises of foreign
scholars and journalists.
The other role of this regional project is to disassociate Pacific
Islanders from their elite’s perennial reference to the
“sovereignty test” in justifying the “unPacific Way” of leadership
that is increasingly being demonstrated in these countries.
Ron Crocombe defined two factors in successful regional
arrangements.
The first is “materialist factor” where deregulation of the
market, trade, investment and the second is the “identity factor”
where the ideas of common origins and historical experiences,
common elements in value systems, cultural symbols and symbolic
representation are given equal attention in building regional
cohesiveness.
Much of the inspiration behind the Pacific Plan, understandably in
a world where the associated dogmas of trade liberalisation is
preached, was based on the material factor.
A “generational task” under the auspices of a Pacific People’s
Plan is to increase exchanges amongst Pacific islanders to foster
the identity.
And contrary to the paternalist approach espoused by Dillon, much
of this can be done without the “direct physical presence” of the
Australian security paraphernalia.
Mental slavery
Overnight, security has become a multi-billion dollar
business.
Less attention is paid to the forces of inequality and political
disempowerment, the source of all the upheavals in the world
today.
The Caribbean nation of Haiti is a good example. As one writer
noted, Haiti evokes “fear”; fear of being bombarded with Haitian
boat people, Haitian diseases, and so forth.
Haitian children are growing up in a context where their country
is stigmatised regionally and internationally, compounding the
internal dynamics of socio-economic inequality of their country.
The “Melanesian mayhem” cannot be far off from what Haitians are
confronting mentally.
Little wonder that the labour mobility scheme, widely recommended
by concerned stakeholders, is stalled for fear of the spread of
unwanted “Melanesian-borne” impurities into the life of the
Australian society.
One senior official of an international agency was even quoted as
saying in 2002 that “failed states do not have the right to exist
and the doctrine that a country can strike on the basis of
anticipatory self-defence” is therefore enforceable if they pose a
security threat.
What is of concern here is what constitutes instability or “failed
states”, and the appropriate measures to prevent any apparent
decline of
order?
The suggestion that other countries have the right to act against
the “failed states”, in principle, to preempt terrorism can prove
chaotic if a national security policy of superpowers or
middle-powers and particularly scholarship continues to be
informed by dramatised semantics.
The immediate approach in the Pacific Islands though is to work
with the citizens of that region who are the direct agents of
change in their region.
For example, this year’s general election in the PNG has been
widely characterised by some commentators as relatively peaceful
and orderly, especially in some of the Highlands provinces due not
only to the heavy presence of domestic security forces, but also
on the role of the churches, leaders, civil society groupings and
most importantly the peace-loving citizens.
These are examples of the genuine and long-term agents of change
which will determine the outcome of a peaceful Pacific region and
reverse the psychological burden of being the “Civilized Man’s
Burden”.
Stability under the Pacific Plan
For sure, security should not be neglected.
Whilst the Somalia conflict exemplifies protracted feuds by clans
infiltrated by “foreign fighters” and seasoned Islamists who
aspire to prop up Taliban-type regimes in that part of the world,
it is yet to be a convincing premise that purported “failed
states” in the Pacific can have that same appeal or chaotic
conditions to such groups.
Security in the Pacific Islands will be the issues of ethnic and
cultural convergences in the framework of the nation-state, the
issues of landowners wanting to have greater say in the
exploitation of their environment and resources, the increasing
number of young people, the conflict between indigenous political
structure and alien governance institutions, the transnational
spread of diseases, and other unwanted influences.
To counter this, I believe security should be pursued by building
on what is already on the ground; the common values of Pacific
Islanders; the concepts of solidarity and reciprocity; the
fostering and maintenance of kinship networks and relationships;
attachments to land and sea; respect and care for others; the
upholding of human dignity; and consultation and shared
leadership.
There is an emerging argument for the empowering of ordinary
Pacific citizens to be involved in the governance of their region.
This was not addressed by the so-called Pacific Plan, the
envisaged “blue print” for more integrated forms of regionalism.
One Pacific Island thinker criticised the process of consultation
which ranged from giving no extensive debate to the purpose, range
and forms of regionalism or the form in which the people of the
region aspire to govern themselves.
Even though the eminent persons group (EPG) did consult with a
variety of groups or institutions, the process was said to have
been rushed with the review team having less than a month to have
any physical face to face contact with the people.
A recent study by William Sutherland last year and the
recommendations therein should be taken as further steps towards
identifying the direct channels or mechanisms of linking their
views/interest towards being politically aware of the benefits of
greater regional integration and their respective roles in the
enhancement of peace in the region.
Note: The writer is a cadet research
officer in the Political and Legal Studies Division at the
National Research Institute.
 
|
