| Sports |
By TREVOR MEAURI
Patronage has made Somare assertive
THE Somare government is perhaps the
most difficult Canberra has had to work with since PNG gained
independence 32 years ago.
The relationship is unlikely to change so long as both sides
persist with their current stance on the Moti issue and related
matters.
There appears to be a general consensus among political analysts
both in Canberra and Port Moresby that the diplomatic tension is
largely a consequence of John Howard’s patronising behaviour
towards Sir Michael Somare and his government.
According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, to
patronise is to treat someone whom one is helping as if he were
an inferior person.
There are two contradictory yet related elements here worth
noting. The first is the “supporting” element and the second is
the “inferiority” element.
The supporting element is usually based on someone’s altruistic
concern for the other and is often implemented based on the
value of respect for human dignity. But when this element is
implemented with a mindset that regards the other as inferior,
the tendency to systematically maintain a status-quo that seeks
to render inferiority cyclical becomes ominous.
This then has the consequential effect of propagating a struggle
for emancipation on the part of the so-called inferior party.
In practice, patronage cannot be justified on grounds that PNG
must listen to Canberra or risk becoming a statistic of state
failure as our Government would than lose the right to determine
our country’s direction and not to mention, self-respect.
What is most interesting about this problem of patronage is the
apparent failure on Howard’s part to try to understand and know
Sir Michael as someone whose personal life and political
experience before and after independence are fraught with
personal struggles, contradictions and challenges about the
fundamental question of ‘freedom’ – freedom both as a personal
and national goal.
Sir Michael has always behaved in ways that reflect this journey
of freedom; a journey which has recently been epitomised in his
statements about PNG achieving some degree of “economic
independence”.
I am confident that anyone familiar with PNG’s political history
would agree with me.
The same opinion was conveyed to a group of prominent
Australians, including a former federal minister, at Melbourne
University early this year.
However, to my disappointment, the former minister refused to
accept that and suggested that the Howard government was
focusing on working with the new government of PNG other than
the Somares.
When asked what would happen if Sir Michael’s government was
returned in the general election, the former minister said
simply: “Well, Canberra would have to deal with Somare somehow.”
If that is indeed the attitude, it can only perpetuate the ill
feelings between both governments.
However, what I regret not informing this group of Australians
is that patronage will only rejuvenate a spirit of assertiveness
in Sir Michael.
It will make him more determined to follow a path that may not
be in Australia’s overall foreign policy and national interests
and ultimately widen the political gap in governmental
relations.
Whether this is good or bad for either government is a matter
for individuals to decide.
But this argument is not new. It resonates with old sentiments
about the evils of colonialism or the dependency brand of
neo-colonialism.
Without preempting local contempt for such evil conveyances, so
to speak, there is of course this ethical issue of whether
patronage is deliberate or an outcome of policy failure.
It would be ethically insane for Canberra to patronise Waigani
just because it felt like doing it. But there is substance in
the latter given recent drawbacks in Canberra’s new
“interventionist policy” in the “arc of instability”.
At the regional and sub-regional levels, particularly in
Melanesia, the ever-growing resentment to Canberra’s paternalism
or even worst patronage is giving rise to developments which are
more likely than not to force Canberra, and New Zealand for that
matter, back to the drawing board to review its strategic policy
emphasis based on the new interventionist’s strategy.
The move by the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) to set up a
sub-regional force and a framework for sharing intelligence on
transnational criminal issues and other developments raise a lot
of questions about the effectiveness of Canberra’s new
interventionist strategy.
More importantly, where would Canberra and Wellington, if at
all, fit into this sub-regional arrangement?
What implications does this arrangement have for interventions
modelled like the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon
Islands (Ramsi)?
The essential point is this; MSG states would like to work among
themselves with less, if not, the kind of support from Canberra
and Wellington that does not undermine their sovereign
integrity.
At least that is the trend at the moment and patronising
behaviour from Canberra is perpetuating and not helping the
cause.
But given the all-encompassing nature of cross-border criminal
activities, it would be unwise for MSG states to try to isolate
Australia and New Zealand.
At some point, the role of both countries vis-à-vis MSG will
have to be redefined to reflect current trends. They may
probably have to settle with an arrangement that borders between
the contentious “interventionism” and “hands-off” strategies.
It is therefore imperative for Howard and his government to
reconsider their manner of conduct towards Pacific states.
Or better still, should an alternative government of Kevin Rudd
takes office, it must give priority to quickly correct this
problem.
For even if Sir Michael departs from active politics, what is
inevitable is that the legacy he will leave behind in terms of
leadership and policy will surely ensure the continuity of a
path he has tirelessly laid out over the last 35 years – a path
that seeks to realise a vision of independence in all facets of
our national life.
Note: The writer is a former
director (security coordination and assessment) of the National
Security and Advisory Council.
 
|
