Pacific Voices features opinion and analysis from commentators throughout the Pacific. PiPP encourages a wide-ranging and spirited exchange of views and welcomes submissions from all those interested in policy development. The views expressed here -and in every Pacific Voices piece- are entirely those of the author.

By: Patrick Kaiku

Earlier this year, Vanuatu hosted the 25th Anniversary of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). The formal establishment of the MSG was made in 1988 through the signing of the Agreed Principles of Co-operation among Independent States of Melanesia in Port Vila, Vanuatu. The founding members of the MSG included Vanuatu, PNG, Solomon Islands and Kanaky. Fiji joined the MSG in the mid-1990s. As MSG increases its influence in the region, is it relevant to the lives of the people who inhabit countries in the Melanesian sub-region of the Pacific?

This was the question raised by Peter Forau, the Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat at the Vanuatu Silver Jubilee celebrations. If anything, the MSG should not repeat the mistakes of the ambitious Pacific Plan – a blue-print for regional integration in the Pacific Island countries. The Pacific Plan was a failure from the beginning because of the rhetoric paid to strengthening Pacific cultures and languages and the out-of-touch orientations of the visions of the leaders. In the Pacific Plan, ordinary Pacific Islanders were excluded and continue to be excluded in giving meaning to the Plan.

Presently citizens of member states of the MSG have very limited appreciation of the significance of the MSG – its functions, the idea behind its creation, the values that it promotes, the benefits of its existence, and so forth. Melanesians live in the enclosed confines of their national boundaries with limited interactions amongst each other. There is less in-depth educational and experiential exchanges at the level of the citizenry.

A brief reading of the structure of the MSG and one will immediately realize that the bureaucratic and political structure of the MSG is very much elitist. There is negligible connections and involvement of the ordinary citizens in the decisions of the MSG. As long as decision making, and Melanesian initiatives remain detached from the vast majority of citizens of the MSG member states, the MSG will continue to remain irrelevant to citizens in these Melanesian countries.

Fostering people-to-people contact in the MSG

In recent decades, the Melanesian sub-region of the Pacific Islands has come to represent all that is problematic in the Pacific Islands. From the Fijian military/civilian-led coups (1987, 1999 and 2006), the decade-long civil war in Bougainville (1989-1997), the ethnic tensions in the Solomon Islands (1998-2003), the stand-off between the police and political leaders in Vanuatu during the mid-2000s and on-going law and order issues in Papua New Guinea, the problems are endless. Australian commentators have readily labeled the Melanesian sub-region as constituting the “arc of instability” comprising potential (or already) failed states.

There is a level of stigma that characterizes the Melanesian sub-region of the Pacific Islands, especially when it comes to labels that continue to misrepresent the complexities of Melanesian social and cultural societies. This is what Melanesians have to promote through greater people-to-people interaction. Exclusively relying on “military-style solutions” to address conflict or crisis situations is unsustainable and will only play into the interest of external powers. Long-term stability can be nurtured through facilitating cross-cutting relationships across Melanesian communities – where Melanesians learn from each other about their diverse societies and the challenges they collectively face as a people.

The most sustainable approach to addressing long-term issue of security in the Melanesian sub-region should be undertaken at the level of the grassroots and communities. Non-political activities that evade the sticky issues of “sovereignty” are more productive for Melanesia. Functionalism, a school of thought in international relations argues that when nations pursue non-political functional activities such as economic cooperation and development, technological advancement, the fight against illiteracy, cultural exchanges and so forth, in the long-term this lessens the potential for conflict, antagonism and instability amongst member-states.

In Melanesia, Melanesian intellectuals such as the late Bernard Narokobi, Jean Marie Tjibaou and Walter Lini have advocated the common values and layers of identity that make Melanesians a distinctive people in the world.

The Melanesian identity espoused by these great thinkers has a place in creating an awareness of the various challenges we confront in our part of the Pacific Islands. Encouraging non-political, cross-cultural exchanges programs between peoples and communities in Melanesian countries should form the objective of MSG governments. Sharing experience, expertise and learning about the diversity of our sub-region can only be afforded through increased contact and interaction by Melanesians.

Cross-border travel is inherently educational and experiential. Bounded by parochial world-views, Melanesians will not find any common ground in addressing challenges in their neighborhood. Indeed, the MSG has to be more than an economic and free trade-seeking entity.

One Pacific Island scholar argues that for regional and sub-regional organizations to succeed, “identity factors” play an integral part. Identity factors are taken to mean the “feelings of common origins and historical experiences, common elements in value systems, cultural patterns and symbolic representation”. The ultimate aim is towards building cultural identity as the foundation of the MSG member countries.

There are encouraging signs. For instance, the Melanesian Arts and Cultural Festival, which started in 1988, have successfully staged four Festivals to date. An initiative of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), it “provides an opportunity for strengthening, promoting, preserving and disseminating Melanesian arts and indigenous traditional cultures within the Melanesian region”. One would only hope that this event becomes an annual feature, instead of the 4-year interval affair that it is presently.

This should be seen as an avenue for sustained cross-border mobility and increased social-cultural exchanges. In March 2012, during the MSG Leaders’ Meeting in Fiji, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was activated when the MSG Leaders sign documents to facilitate MSG skilled labor mobility scheme. While there are economic imperatives in this MOU, the need to address cultural interactions is needed.

Likewise, there is now a visa-free arrangement for citizens of MSG member countries. Under this arrangement, Melanesians are able to travel within MSG member countries with relative ease. The reviving of the Melanesian Cup (popular in the 1980s), the renowned soccer tournament within Melanesia, should become a reality. In previous years, in the semi-professional football league in PNG, many Fijian and Solomon Island players have been recruited to play in the PNG competition. Students from Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands come to PNG for their tertiary-level qualifications. Reciprocation of short-term exchange programs in the areas of art, culture, theater and music could be feasible areas.

There are also signs that processes of community healing and rehabilitation are being replicated across Melanesia for communities that have experienced the divisiveness of conflict in the recent decades. For instance, the various factions involved in the Solomon Islands “ethnic tension” (1998-2003) and the Bougainville combatants have used the process of reconciliation to re-build their lives and find peace with each other. This example indicates a growing awareness of peace-making initiatives in the sub-region.

Presently the MSG has a permanent office and Secretariat based in Port Vila, Vanuatu. The implications become obvious: Will the MSG Secretariat and governments of the MSG countries support initiatives by Melanesians to truly participate in the realization of the objectives of “their” sub-regional organization?

Patrick Kaiku teaches in the political science strand at the University of Papua New Guinea.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 27th, 2013 at 6:00 am and is filed under Pacific Voices. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.