Political blocs of the islands

ALTHOUGH the Forum has provided a common platform where Pacific islanders can sort out differences, solve problems, address important issues, and in general, as the pet phrase goes, “reach consensus’’, there has been a more-or-less subdued movement going on underneath the surface towards a parti tioning of the islands into blocs along racial and cultural lines.

Thus we have the Polynesian Heritage Trust and the Melanesian Spearhead. There has been no comparable Micronesian group but this must be due only to Micronesia not yet achieving the same level of independence enjoyed by Polynesia and Melanesia.

French explorer Dumont D’Urville, who was the first to use the terms “Polynesia”, “Melanesia” and “Micronesia”, was also a scholar and an antiquarian.

It was him, for example, who made the very important find Venus dc Melos in the Aegean isle of the same name, and which now graces the Louve in Paris.

But his most important find was the three ethnic-cultural areas of the Pacific islands. This division is now coming under fire from anthropologists who say it does not represent reality.

Yes, if one wants to split hairs in one’s distinctions, but it is still a good working concept as proved by its being widely used by different peoples - geographers, historians, anthropol ogists, developers, and now by the politicians.

D’Urville’s scheme is fuzzy enough to possess the emotive push useful in politics, the one area of life where exactness is not a moral virtue.

But the bloc arrangement is not going to be plain sailing.

Not even within the blocs themselves.

Although Maori chiefs have been among the initiators of the I olynesian idea, Maoris do not pull much weight with Tongans and Samoans - especially the former - who, among themselves, affirm Maori culture to be a discredited one in its homeland.

So leadership for the Polynesians seems closed to the New Zealanders. This is a pity for they have had first-hand experience in sustaining the effects of adjusting to a people whose whole way of life is the exact opposite of their own.

And for the Fijians to lead the Polynesian group is out of the question for although their culture is Polynesian they are according to D’Urville & Co., ethnically Melanesian.

So far as Ratu Mara, who is more Tongan than Fijian, is concerned, and this would be the attitude of most Eastern Fiji chiefs they are squarely inside the Polynesian camp.

Hji s past also, both pre-historical and colonial, ties it to longa and Samoa.

So far as the big three (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga) of West

The Islands

Polynesia is concerned, the Tongan monarch is indisputably head of any Polynesian get together.

There arc social and historical precedents to this fact. The ruling families of the three groups have close genetic ties, the Tongan aristocracy never had colonial masters above them, Tonga still holding its own in boxing and rowing, though yielding first and second place to either Fiji or Samoa, in football, soccer, and all the rest, and so on.

So Polynesians can pull themselves together with a minimum of fuss. If the Far East of Polynesia (Tahiti, Hawaii, Marquesas, etc) does join in the future it is expected that in view of their consciousness of their colonial past and uncertain cultural identity they would fall in easily with the leadership of the Tongan Royalty.

It is with the Melanesian Spearhead that internal differences are quite pronounced.

The PNG-Solomons rivalry is far from

slackening. It is at this moment flaring up again being fed by sparks from the Bougainville blaze.

The recent boycotting by the Solomon islander; of the Spearhead meetings shows how brittle their relationships have become. The Spearhead business then must await the settlement of the Bougainville issue, before it can be tidied up.

The other line of cleavage in Melanesia is along the colonial past. Unlike the Polynesian Heritage Trust, where the major actors — Fiji, Samoa, New Zealand, Tonga, the Cooks, Niue — have all had a past connected with the British, one member of Spearhead, Vanuatu, had a strong French presence as part of its heritage.

And with France now redoubling its interest in the Pacific islands, anything she does in the islands will strengthen the hand of Francophiles in Vanuatu making it a little more difficult for either PNG or the Solomons to pronounce with authority on any aspect of their association.

The Vanuatu premier’s voicing an opinion on French nuclear testing that would have been scandalous but a year ago, is proof that the Ni-Vanuatu are being emboldened to state their position strongly.

For the Rainbow Warrior was still in Tahitian waters, but on the other hand, the premier’s pronouncement came on the eve of the Paris announcement of a major change in French policy.

That made all the difference. Greenpeace is pacified, the Rarotongan Treaty is vindicated, and Vanuatu leadership has scratched a notch on both Pacific wide affairs as well as

Spearhead politics.

And this moment her foreign affairs secretary is talking of islands on the border with the Solomons. How this issue will develop in future we cannot tell, but it seems the Spearhead concept will continue to have a rough ride for some lime yet.

Futa

Helu