Making enemies of our neighbours

by Peter Symon

Ever since the theory of the "failed states" was put forward in 2002 and 
George Bush announced the policy of "pre-emptive strike", the Australian 
Government has been planning to apply these theories against the Pacific 
Island nations.

The various "think-tanks" set up by the Government and corporations 
together with a gaggle of academics who serve the interests of the 
corporations and their colonialist interests, were set to work.

There is the Centre for Independent Studies, the Australian Strategic 
Policy Institute (ASPI), and another in which the new Governor-General, 
Michael Jeffery was a leading figure. Then came the Senate Inquiry into 
Australian relations with Papua New Guinea and Pacific Island nations.

All these bodies are singing virtually the same tune — the Pacific Island 
states are "failed states" and big brother, Australia, has to intervene 
with police, military forces, financial mandarins to run their economies, 
retired judges to show them how to mete out "justice" and, of course, 
private investors who alone are capable of getting their economies going, 
providing jobs and bringing "development".

Pre-emptive intervention

The policy of "pre-emptive intervention" has already been imposed on the 
Solomon Islands and is planned for Papua New Guinea. This was the objective 
of Alexander Downer's recent visit to Port Moresby where he signed an 
agreement "in principle" with the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea.

The agreement opened discussion on the placing of at least 200 Australian 
police into Papua New Guinea and the dispatch of Australian "financial 
experts" who would show their counterparts in various Papua New Guinea 
Government departments how to do it.

Papua New Guinea on the Brink is the title of one paper put out by 
the Centre for Independent Studies. Another of its publications runs the 
line that "Aid Has Failed the Pacific".

The ASPI report justifying Australia's invasion of the Solomon Islands is 
entitled Our Failing Neighbour. The Senate Inquiry report published 
in August is a little blander and is entitled A Pacific Engaged 
although its recommendations have the same objectives as the others.

Emeritus Professor Helen Hughes in her paper Aid Has Failed the 
Pacific claims that "Inappropriate economic policies have failed to 
deal with the hard tasks of development and with the negative effects of 
aid and mineral income flows. That is why Pacific governments are failing 
their people."

Her touching concern for the people of the Pacific Island states would ring 
truer if her solution was really intended to help the people of the 
Pacific.

Her solution is basically the promotion of private enterprise. She writes, 
"Pacific societies have to adopt policies that establish secure, free 
economic environments", and rails against the public sector and, of 
course, against aid. She goes so far as to suggest that Australia should 
"suspend all aid and thus provide the catalyst for change" — her own 
contribution to "shock therapy"!

Helen Hughes claims that aid flows "bias an economy against the private 
sector, they undercut employment and growth and lead to corruption. Super-
profits from rich mineral deposits similarly create economic rents that 
also have negative economic effects, leading to public waste."

To Hughes the communal ownership of land is a big barrier to the building 
of a private enterprise economy. "Communal land ownership has held back 
indigenous entrepreneurship."

Communal land ownership

But while damning communal land ownership she admits that "Communal land 
ownership and clan loyalty provide security and ensure that in traditional 
societies no-one goes hungry".

It appears that in the eyes of Helen Hughes the fact that no-one goes 
hungry as a result of communal ownership is, none-the-less, not a 
sufficient reason not to destroy it by introducing private land ownership.

The fact that millions upon millions of people across the world go hungry 
every day in private enterprise economies is ignored when propagating the 
alleged splendours of capitalism.

The fact that the economic policies imposed on the former colonies of the 
Pacific are directly responsible for the economic consequences that are now 
being felt across the region is also ignored.

For example, Helen Hughes says that "Nauru and the Solomon Islands are 
disintegrating and Papua New Guinea's problems are acute".

Nauru was rich in phosphates but the British Phosphate Commission ripped 
this resource out of the Island and little of this wealth was put back into 
lifting the prosperity of the people of Nauru or providing alternative 
economic opportunities once the phosphate was worked out.

More recently the Australian government found no better use for Nauru than 
to establish a concentration camp for refugees.

Foreign ownership

Papua New Guinea is also rich in minerals and timber but these industries 
are owned by foreign corporations — Ok Tedi Gold, owned by BHP, is one 
example. How much of the wealth ripped out by BHP went to the people of 
Papua New Guinea by way of social services, schools, health services, jobs, 
etc? Instead the Papua New Guinea people and Government have been left with 
an enormous environmental problem.

The management of the Tolukuma Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea has recently 
been charged with the unexplained deaths of 19 Papua New Guinea citizens 
who live downstream on the river into which the gold mine management pours 
its tailings. This mine is owned by South African mining giant, Durban 
Roodeport Deep. Undoubtedly its profits are exported to shareholders in 
South Africa and do little to help the living standards of the people of 
Papua New Guinea.

The mine management immediately dismissed any responsibility for the deaths 
claiming that the charge was "outrageous". BHP's Ok Tedi mine also poured 
mine tailings into the Fly River and poisoned both the river and those 
living downstream who were dependent on it.

The timber companies logging the rich Papua New Guinea timber resources are 
mostly controlled by foreign capital and it is they who skim off the 
profits.

Helen Hughes does admit that "the private sector is dominated by expatriate 
investors", but fails to say that the profits reaped by these expatriates 
will mostly be exported out of the country.

Mutual obligation or mutual benefit

Failing the suspension of aid completely, which Helen Hughes obviously 
favours, she proposes that a system of "mutual obligation" be imposed, 
thereby taking a leaf out of the Howard Government's approach to those 
receiving unemployment benefits in Australia.

She goes on: "Aid should only be spent on mutually agreed development 
projects and programs designed and monitored by teams nominated by the 
sovereign recipients and donorsb&"

Such mutual arrangements however, can only work where there is a 
relationship of equality between the donor and the recipient. But that is 
not what is intended.

Another paper put out by the Centre for Independent Studies says: "Both the 
Australian public and the international community expect that Australia — 
as a developed neighbour, principal source of trade, aid and investment, 
defence partner, and former administering power — will take prime 
responsibility for resolving any problem should something go wrong. Failure 
to do so would undermine Australia's aspirations to regional leadership."

So it is all about Australia's "prime responsibility" and its "aspirations 
to regional leadership". There is nothing about the sovereignty of the 
island states or an attitude of equality, let alone giving Pacific 
Islanders control over their own affairs.

In these circumstances talk of "mutual obligations" means that the economic 
and political policies and interests of the larger power will be imposed.

Helen Hughes says that, "Re-colonisation in any form is not a solution". 
It's a nice sentiment but the reality of the policies being already 
implemented by the Australian Government is, in practice, a form of neo-
colonialism.

The Australian Government would do well to think carefully about the fate 
of the former colonial empires and the quagmire into which the United 
States is sinking in Iraq where all the talk of "liberation", "freedom", 
"helping", etc. is false and is being rejected by the Iraqi people who do 
not wish to be recolonised.

Opposition to any form of colonisation is already apparent, particularly in 
Papua New Guinea. It will grow stronger as the reality of the new forms of 
colonial domination become apparent. The current policies are a 
continuation of those that have already caused such havoc to our Pacific 
neighbours.

Our relationship with our neighbours must be based on genuine friendship 
and equality with the objective of achieving mutual benefit. It cannot work 
on the basis of the strong dominating the weak.