MSG: A Uniting Force
It can be stated that the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) has in fact created a positive image among citizens of member states. This is evident in Vanuatu as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepares for the upcoming Melanesian Week to be held from the 8th to the 10th of May 2013 in Port Vila. Different cultural groups including students from the USP Emalus Campus have been invited to showcase in these celebrations.
With that positive image, the Director General of the MSG Mr. Peter Forau has described Melanesia as a region of opportunities— endowed with natural resources within Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and New Caledonia. Even if New Caledonia and West Papua are still colonies, the Kanaks are represented in the MSG by the Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), while West Papuan representation would be finalised soon. The force of the MSG would have to be reckoned with when the two colonised territories are politically independent in the future.
This article outlines my personal perception on the achievements made by the MSG and how Pacific regionalism has benefited from the sub-regional body. There were a lot of opposing arguments within the region that the MSG is a divisive organisation. However, the discussions outlined below are an indication that the MSG is in fact a plus to Pacific regionalism.
Achievements
The absence of the MSG or a member of the sub-regional group would have reduced the power of the Pacific Islands Forum in taking on any agenda affecting MSG member states. For instance, when Fiji was absent at the Forum Meeting in 2011 to discuss PACER PLUS, Dr. Roman Grynberg stated that the Forum couldn’t move forward without Fiji. Dr. Grynberg was indirectly stating that the Pacific Islands Forum needed the members of the MSG to tackle issues within Melanesia.
How on earth would Melanesians, Polynesians and Micronesians achieve the objectives of PACER PLUS and PICTA if at the sub-regional level, there are no agreed terms and conditions of trading with each other? On 13 September 2012, Papua New Guinea removed 400 items in the negative list of goods. This meant that these items would be imported into PNG duty-free from other Melanesian countries. In March 2012, the Melanesian Spearhead Group signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on a first ever Skills Movement Scheme to facilitate the movement of skilled MSG nationals for temporary employment within the MSG countries. The MOU became effective on 30 September 2012 and Vanuatu has benefited by employing nurses from Solomon Islands. This means the MSG, as a sub-region, would create benefits that would overflow into the region.
The MSG is in fact assisting the Pacific Islands Forum to take the lead on certain issues of high importance such as the independence of New Caledonia and West Papua. Historically, the MSG was established to support the decolonisation of New Caledonia and more recently, West Papua. In order to be effective, the MSG has to engage with regional authorities such as the Pacific Islands Forum and international partners at the bilateral and multilateral levels to spread the message and secure support for the cause of the FLNKS and West Papua. Regional support and international support is necessary and that can only be achieved when there is a commitment to address these issues at the sub-regional level and the international level. The MSG administration has also created a FLNKS desk at the Headquarters in Port Vila, to look after issues concerning New Caledonia and the FLNKS. Furthermore, it is highly likely that come June 2013, West Papua would be a full Member of the MSG. The MSG has been and will continue to be united in the issue of decolonisation. And Vanuatu, as a member state should be congratulated as a champion in this regard.
Because the Pacific region is large with different cultures and people, it is important that unity and collective bargaining is enforced and maintained at the sub-regional level. This is to achieve a strong and stable Pacific region on issues affecting sub-regions and the region as a whole. Unity requires years of co-existence. Unity must be achieved firstly at the sub-regional level before it can be achieved at the regional level. It is important that sub-regions unite. Once the sub-regional groups are united and are strong, regional partnership will be stable and have a firm foundation. So in the event that there is in place a Polynesian group, a Micronesian group and the MSG, the Pacific Islands Forum will be stronger as an organisation representing the sub-regions of the Pacific.
The MSG is not divisive. The purpose of creating the Pacific Islands Forum some thirty-five (35) to thirty-six (36) years ago was to have a place where free and independent countries could speak freely. The silence of Pacific leaders in the Pacific Islands Forum is an indication that the Pacific Islands Forum is not achieving her purpose. In this instance, only the MSG can stand and break the silence of other Pacific states in the Pacific Islands Forum.
The MSG was established, among other reasons, to encourage brotherly diplomacy and friendly relations and to maintain peace and harmony. The MSG was a uniting force when the Pacific Islands Forum suspended Fiji. Melanesian states continued to have diplomatic ties with Fiji after the suspension. Without the MSG, New Zealand and Australia would have never reconsidered their stand against Fiji and or renegotiated with Fiji.
Because of the fact that the Pacific Islands Forum failed to unite members states, the MSG stepped in to promote and strengthen inter-membership trade, exchange of cultures, traditions and values, sovereign equality, economical and technical cooperation. So the Forum depended upon her sub-regional arm to assist her.
Conclusion
It would be very unwise to say that the MSG is a divisive organisation when it comes to Pacific regionalism. Article 4 (2) of the Agreement Establishing the Melanesian Spearhead Group states that open dialogue shall be to foster mutual understanding, exchange of information and to establish agreed priorities.
Sub-regional cooperation was once looked upon as too parochial and divisive. However, it has now emerged to be more acceptable in Melanesia, more because of the dragging of the PACER PLUS negotiations and the exclusion of Fiji from these negotiations and the Pacific Islands Forum.
At one time, the MSG was seen to be divisive but it is now a perception of the past. Polynesians are starting to acknowledge the benefits of sub-regionalism and have moved to formally talk. Micronesians have also done so.
It can be concluded that sub-regionalism is the only way forward for the region due to its vast geographical setting and the high cost associated with the implementation of the decisions of the Pacific Islands Forum.
Given that perceptions have changed towards sub-regionalism, would it be more acceptable then for the PIF to delegate some of its functions to the sub-regional organizations? It would be more geographically and fiscally appropriate, or am I thinking in a different dimension here?
If we talk about the functions, no! However, the MSG or any subregional organization may e in a better position to implement the decision of the PIF due to the massive geographical area and for the PIF to implement the decision of the leaders it would be very costly. The function of the PIF from the begining was to provide a forum for independent and associated Member States to share their view. However, there seemed to be some difficulty in achieving that. I personally believe that subregional organizations would be in a better position to implement decisions of the PIF or their own decisions given the fact that they understand their cultures and environment better than experts at the PIF.