‘No longer through
pp. 18-19 · Read in the full issue
Tropicalities
Francis BUgotu
Australia and the Islands: ‘No longer through a glass darkly..'
Among the best received of the many speeches made at the Australia and the South Pacific conference held at the Australian National University on February 18-19 were those of FRANCIS BUGOTU and Dr EPELI HAU’OFA.
Mr Bugotu is secretary of foreign affairs, Solomon Islands, and s ecret ry-general-el ect of the South Pacific Commission.
Dr Hau’afa is director of the Rural Development Centre, University of the South Pacific Extension, Tonga. Texts of the two speeches begin on this page. Mr Bugotu’s speech was given in his own name and did not necessarily represent the views of the Solomon Islands Government.
Australia is at last able to appreciate the importance and meaning of living with its island neighbours in the South Pacific.
No longer do we have to look through dark glasses but can now relate face to face. It behoves all of our nations in the region therefore to cultivate and maintain this relationship which has taken on new and more positive direction.
The New Direction is not around the corner, it is here.
Today is tomorrow faster than it has ever been in the past. This phenomenon of a new era is worldwide but for us in the South Pacific, it must find its meaning in the region. It means being realistic in terms of who we are, where we are, what we have, and what help we can reasonably expect from our true friends and neighbours and use our combined available talents for the betterment of the region.
In this context we must accept the fact that the South Pacific is our home, and dispel any notion that other world-bloc nations could really be interested in our welfare other than to use our islands and region for self interest and gain.
Most Island countries have now either attained indepen dence or achieved some form of autonomy, which would call for new kinds of relationship with Australia. With the background of independence and self assurance, young nations are beginning to put out feelers around their new world environ ment. They quickly move into both natural and historical affiliations to hold hands with their ethnic brothers or colonial mothers, lest they fall danger ously. A period of uncertainty becomes evident at about this time, and lasts longer than one would wish for, with feelings couched in bombastic but less effective political jargon. This is inevitable however as a by product in the process of quick changes, and violations of in
herited norms of the society.
The biggest danger that any young developing country with inadequate means in qualified manpower and money supply faces is ignorance. A pattern emerges where newly elected governments would either through ignorance or pride, not accept an existing timetable or development plan as workable or progressive without being put to the test. In some cases there is distinct muddle as to what is workable or achievable, and what is an aspired dream.
Little learning leads to hasty beliefs in confidence tricksters who tlourish when countries become newly independent.
They come in sheep’s clothing either as individuals or com panies seeking to be confiden tial advisers ravenously hunting for suckers. In their field of ‘expertise’ they know whom to see and whom not to see.
Australia and New Zealand will note and understand, lest these invaders become instru mental in bringing about bad relations in the region, and we islanders have to be on our guard. In the main, we have no more colonialists left to fight.
We now only have ourselves to blame if we allow misfits and confidence tricksters to enter our countries and drain our life blood from the source.
A possible new direction in bringing about realism in the South Pacific is through the regional institutions, through recognising the relative func tions and values, past and pres ent, of the South Pacific Com mission and the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co operation. In this context we are required first of all to accept the fact that situations have changed and will change in the region. In the new direction concerning the future of our regional institutions, we must therefore be guided by the wishes of the young nations of the region. To draw a possible analogy, when children grow up they have to change their per sonal habits and learn to look after themselves in new sets of circumstances, and move amongst new groups of people.
If parents do not heed such warnings about the need for children to think for them selves, there would be dissen sion and disharmony in the home. Hence if it is the general feeling in the region that a new direction is desired with respect to the structures and responsi bilities of the SPC and SPEC then it should be respected.
The South Pacific Com mission was established by metropolitan powers in 1947, round about the time a number
of our present political leaders were born, and many were still going to school. In the 1950 s and early 1960 s SPC was the recognised hub of activity and exciting experience in inter territorial co-operation in the region. Its annual conference became what it remains today, a forum in which all govern ments and administrations meet on ostensibly equal terms. The fact really is that some were more equal than others, al though these differences were kept in the background. Never theless it has always been as sumed by many islanders and island countries that the SPC would evolve as its members become autonomous. The SPC in fact did change, but, as we have learned from the last meeting in Vanuatu, it has probably not changed suffi ciently to meet the aspirations of many countries.
In the ’6os and ’7os, the United Nations agencies dis covered the region in a big way with their money and other forms of aid, to be followed later by non-government bodies like the Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific (FSP), International Human Assistance Programme (IHAP), World Vision, and other NGOs keen to help. On the other hand the wave of political indepen dence which swept through the Island countries at this time helped to bring out into the open the differences in the thinking amongst metropolitan powers themselves, between island countries and metropoli tan powers, and even between bigger island countries and smaller more dependent territories. In the ensuing cli mate of debate, Australia and New Zealand fortunately threw in their lot with the island countries, and were ‘for’ the region.
It became apparent that the potential in SPC as a regional forum was being stifled, that something other than the SPC was needed and so the South Pacific Forum was launched in 1971 as a regular meeting of the heads of governments in the region. Originally focusing on economic issues, the Forum in 1972 established as its ‘trade
secretarial’, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Co operation (SPEC) to become the second major regional bu reaucracy today. As in the world of business and govern ment, cumbersome bureau cracies are toppling, and now need to be replaced by simpler, more effective, yet more demo cratic, institutions.
A new direction or perspec tive here therefore would be a thorough and serious examin ation of the present situation both in governments and poli tics, taking into account what the island nations really would want, and at what costs in manpower and money.
Whither Australia?: Austra lia’s persistent difficulty in its relations with Pacific Island countries, experienced perhaps even more intensely than by New Zealand, is its inability to identify itself fully as part of the South Pacific community. It has too obvious a lead in industrialisation and sophisti cation; and, while as Prime Minister Fraser said, ‘Australia belongs rather to Western so ciety, and is thoroughly West ern in its values and institutions, so that it regards all its neigh bours other than New Zealand as Third World countries’, its meaningful relationships with us will not go beyond aid, and matters of strategic and geo graphical significance. We in smaller island countries would hope that, as‘part of a new perspective and direction, this altitude would change to ac commodate the fact that we all belong to one region, with common destiny. We of the smaller nations naturally feel more security-conscious, and would feel more secure if we were part of an organised pact such as the ANZUS.
For our relative sizes we have attractive options which Aus tralia would be proud to talk about our diversity of cul tures, and our natural beauty and wealth potentials. We our selves appear moreover to be inclined towards the Western bloc with its democratic pat terns of behaviour, so Australia should not find it too difficult to understand us. What we would not wish to see is Australia
playing super-power tactics which would not accord with our traditional consensus pat terns of behaviour.
In the eyes of many in the region, Australia and New Zea land are relatively rich and would be 100 protective for any real breakthrough to be made in their relations with the other South Pacific island nations.
They would have so much to lose. The horns of their di lemma are either to dance to the USA tune, or try to find some autonomy for themselves and include the islands of the Pacific in their concern.
In fact many would say that Australia and New Zealand put their South Pacific relationships very much in a subordinate position, and are only interested in us because if we are not their friends we could be a danger to them by letting someone else use us against them. The way some of us island nations are behaving at the moment, we can hardly blame Australians if they think we are a bit of a joke.' So I would ask Australia and New Zealand to work out how to treat us in such a way that credibility and mutual trust would develop. What is there to be done about the continuing failure for example to correct the imbalance of trade between Australia and Pacific Island countries like Solomon Islands?
SPARTECA will not work with just a positive list of primary goods items which can go into Australia, and New Zealand’s negative list of preferential trade items which cannot go into New Zealand.
Realistic treatment and genuine concern will mean definite transfer of resources to investment in the South Pacific islands, to produce goods, which could be sent to Australia and New Zealand. The sad alterna tive which must be realised is that there would be no way out of increasing aid-dependency for the small countries of the South Pacific. Australia in the circumstances will have to ac cept that it is going to have to foot more and more of the bill even to the extent of balance-of payments financing, which is something she and other donors I am sure do not wish to happen.