A Synopsis Of The Africanization Of The South Pacific Thesis

DG 407

INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN, CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE IN THE PACIFIC

ASSIGNMENT 1: A SYNOPSIS OF THE AFRICANIZATION OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC THESIS:

IS THE AFRICANIZATION THESIS A TRUE DIAGNOSIS OF INSTABILITY IN MELANESIA

Viliame Bovoro S96008340

Viliame Bovoro S96008340

DG407 ASSIGNMENT 1

A SYNOPSIS OF THE AFRICANIZATION OF THE PACIFIC THESIS:

IS THE AFRICANIZATION THESIS A TRUE DIAGNOSIS OF INSTABILITY IN MELANESIA

Ben Reilly (2000) states in his article titled “The Africanization of the South Pacific” in the Australian Journal of International Affairs that these are troubling times for Democracy in the South Pacific. In the last 3 decades the Pacific has seen a growing trend of political uncertainty and instability that has resulted in armed conflict and in political violence (Henderson and Watson, 2005). Of particular interest is the fact that the majority of the instability and uncertainty has been occurring within Melanesia. Henderson and Watson (2005) have used the term “Arc of Instability” to describe the aforementioned Melanesian States and this is reflective of the level of political instability and uncertainty that these States have experienced. This paper looks at the main arguments proffered by Reilly in his Africanization of the South Pacific Thesis and aims to focus the discussion in the light of whether it is a true and proper diagnosis of what has been manifested in the South Pacific Region. For ease of analysis, I will concentrate on the Melanesian States in particularly Fiji and the Solomon Islands to determine the extent of the relativity of Reilly’s Thesis. Firstly I will look at the Africanization of the South Pacific Thesis and some of the criticisms leveled against it by Fraenkel (2004). Then, in order to gain a full understanding of whether this thesis paints a true picture of conditions in the South Pacific I intend to carry out my own evaluation of developments in Melanesia and compare these to the yardstick put forth by Reilly as indications for Africanization and by default whether the label of failed/failing States is relevant.

2

Viliame Bovoro S96008340

The Africanization of the South Pacific Thesis Reilly (2000) states that the South Pacific is progressively becoming Africanized in the sense that the four principle indicators of this phenomenon have become more and more evident in the South Pacific and particularly prevalent in Melanesia. Reilly (2000) describes these indicators as: 1. The growing tensions in the relationship between civil regimes and military forces. In a related article Trouble in Paradise, Reilly (2001) expounds that there is a growing tension and unpredictability in civilmilitary relations. He adds that this has been a growing trend beginning with the Sandline Affair in Papua New Guinea in 1997; the civilian takeover of the Chaudhry Government in Fiji of 2000; and the subsequent events that took place in the Solomon Islands also in 2000. 2. The intermixture between ethnic identity and associated competition for natural resource access and exploitation as drivers for conflict. Reilly (2001) asserts that the rich cultural and ethnic diversity in the South Pacific, particularly Melanesia is a conflagration that has been used time and again by “ethnic entrepreneurs” to maneuver themselves into positions of political power. Once these “elites” are in power they then try to hold on to it by using divisive politics playing on the perceived inequalities afforded by their ethnic, language or cultural differences and in particular access to resources and land and the means of exploiting these for economic return. Reilly (2000) contends that the conflict over land has been and will be the biggest challenge for the region and will result in two types of tension; firstly between indigenous populations and settler groups as has been the case in Fiji; and second between established local populations and internal migrants from adjacent islands as has been the case in the Solomon Islands. 3. The weakness of basic institutions of governance. Reilly (2001) contends that similar to Africa, the South Pacific has inherited its political and governance systems from the colonial powers. He adds that the democratic institutions for the newly independent states in the region were determined by the Colonial powers themselves and not by the individual states who will have to utilize them. Inept electoral systems, weak political parties, unrepresentative government, widespread corruption and continuing political instability have been the end result of what Reilly terms as “brittle governance”. 4. The Increasing centrality of the state as a means for gaining wealth and of accessing and exploiting resources. Reilly (2000) asserts that the key to economic success in South Pacific countries and especially in Melanesia is the access to the State because the State and not the market is the crucial determinant over allocation of resources and prioritizing

3

Viliame Bovoro S96008340 public expenditure (government revenue and foreign aid). He further contends that this is a sign of a “weak state”. Reilly (2000) sums up his argument by stating that “…fragile, multi-ethnic, post colonial states encompassing different languages, ethnic groups, islands, and torn between the rival claims of tradition and modernity, raise serious questions about the viability of current state structures and their ability to manage internal conflicts….”. I believe this statement to be the crux of Reilly’s thesis on the Africanization of the South Pacific and in particular why he has been able to draw comparisons between what is happening in Africa and what is developing in the South Pacific and in particular Melanesia.

Antithesis of Africanization of the South Pacific Fraenkel (2004) argues that the Africanization Thesis expounded by Reilly (2000) was weak in terms of its analytical framework and had a lot of gaps in that the South Pacific region in particular Melanesia that Reilly uses in his analysis cannot be compared to what is occurring in Africa. Fraenkel (2004) does admit that there are certain similarities but he believes that Reilly has failed to effectively capture the root causes for tension and political instability in Melanesia and that Reilly has overstated the problems in the Pacific and understates those of Africa. Fraenkel (2004) compares the amount of deaths inflicted during periods of crises in Africa, the level of political exploitation and corruption by African despots that has led to massive theft of vast amounts of natural resources to build personal empires to conditions in the Pacific and proffers that political crises in the South Pacific tend to be “localized, episodic and obedient to very specific historical causes which are not adequately explained by Reilly’s loose analogy with Africa”. Furthermore, Fraenkel (2004) uses current comparative data from the year 2000 in terms of Real GDP, GNI per capita, Life expectancy, Adult literacy, School enrollment and Human Development Index. In his analysis, Fraenkel found that the South Pacific states performed better than African states embroiled in conflict and the sub-Saharan average on all the aforementioned indices except for Real GDP wherein only one African country Angola performed better than one South Pacific country, the Solomon Islands. Based on the four conditions that Reilly proffers in his Africanization thesis, Fraenkel (2004) presents an alternative picture of tension and conflict in the Pacific and also tries to look at the underlying factors that have given rise to these conflicts. The result of this conceptual approach to the problem of political tension and instability is that the issues of the Pacific are Pacific in nature and do not support the notion that the region is Africanized.

4

Viliame Bovoro S96008340

Conflict in Melanesia The enduring aim of this paper as stated in the introduction is to draw parallels between conditions in Africa and what is happening and has occurred in the Pacific in order to conclude whether Africanization is imminent or is it a myth and simply our region being a victim of circumstances. The Fund for Peace defines the characteristics of a failed/failing state as (1) one that has lost physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein; (2) erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions; (3) an inability to provide reasonable public services; and (4) an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The majority of African states embroiled in internal/external conflict and instability have basically met the conditions of failed states as defined by the Fund for Peace. Thus in my view, the conflicts that have occurred within the region and in particular, Melanesia must be analyzed using the same framework in order to conclude whether our region is indeed becoming Africanized thus affirming that parallels do exist in Melanesia to what is occurring in Africa. Therefore, I will evaluate conflict in Melanesia by applying the four conditions put forth by the Fund for Peace and analyze them with recent conflicts in Melanesia in particular the Solomon Islands and Fiji. 1. Territorial Integrity Henderson (2003) states that the most lasting legacy of the colonial era and which has directly contributed to the regions political stability, has been the artificial nature of national boundaries. This effectively meant that national boundaries were determined by the then colonial powers who grouped islands together irrespective of different cultures and ethnicity as defined by the inhabitants of those islands. There are numerous examples such as Wallis and Futuna under the French and Bougainville coming under Papua New Guinea when they shared more common affinities with the Solomon Islands. One of the symptoms of failed States as put forward by the Fund for Peace is that a State is a failing State when it cannot control or exert control over its territory. Interestingly given what Henderson has said about the formation of artificial States by the Colonial Masters, the Bouganville conflict has centered on the issues of secession wherein they wanted to have self rule. Arguably, East Timor has also been considered as part of the “Arc of Instability” fought a protracted conflict with Indonesia over the right to self determination and the establishment of their own State. The conflict in West Papua is also centered on gaining autonomy from Indonesia due to the ethnic and territorial differences between West Papuans and Indonesians (there are other factors but this paper cannot discuss all these with the limited time and space).

5

Viliame Bovoro S96008340 However what is clear in all these conflicts is that instead of leading to failed states, it is in fact trying to build a new state, with more logical and shared affinities amongst the people and their territory which they inhabit. 2. Monopoly on the use of Legitimate Force Weber defines one of the characteristics of a State as having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This means that the power to yield legitimate force is vested with the State. Accordingly the Fund for Peace has the loss of the monopoly over the legitimate use of force as one of the indicators for a failed state. If we analyze the conflicts in Melanesia, the State can be said to have lost the power over the use of force during the conflict in the Solomon Islands, Fiji and in the Bouganville conflict with Papua New Guinea. However the only protracted loss of power over force by the above states was in the Bouganville conflict which lasted over 10 years. But in the cases of Fiji and Solomon Islands, due to internal interventions by the RFMF in Fiji during the 2000 crisis and RAMSI in the Solomon Islands the monopoly over the legitimate use of force was quickly restored to the State. 3. Erosion of Legitimate Authority to make Collective Decisions Henderson (2003) states that given the very different cultural and historical settings in which the Westminster political system evolved it is no wonder that difficulties have been faced when transferring them to the Pacific context. This difficulty has led to the perceived ineffectiveness of State institutions within Melanesia to govern the people in a manner that is conducive to the general socioeconomic and democratic development of its population. Now both Reilly (2000) and Fraenkel (2004) have talked at great length about the impracticality of current political governance systems being employed in the Pacific that has led to the creation of fractured societies. Cotton (2007) has defined state failure as the inability of the state to generate consent and compliance on the part of its citizenry. However how can the State ensure the consent and compliance of its Citizens, unless it gets its Institutions that control and exert this power to generate compliance to work in a manner that takes into account the specific cultural conditions, international obligations and humanitarian issues that will have an impact on how internal governance conditions are viewed? These difficulties have been seen throughout Melanesia where ethnic fragmentation has been a contributing factor to the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions. Reilly (2004) adds that both highly homogenous and highly fragmented societies should lead to better acceptance of democratic decision making. But this assertion has not been totally true in that highly homogenous societies such as Samoa and Tonga have not had truly democratic forms of collective decision making and highly fragmented societies such as Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have had highly volatile political conflicts. However, what Reilly (2004) refers to as bi-polar structures such as in Fiji being unfavorable to collective decision making under legitimate authority has been proved true.

6

Viliame Bovoro S96008340 4. Inability to provide reasonable public services. Reilly (2004) states that a pervasive aspect of contemporary political and economic life in Melanesia due to societal fragmentation is how small ethno-political units or small ethnic collectives mobilize in an attempt to control the distribution and access to Public Goods. In my opinion this is true in some aspects, however for countries such as Fiji, although there have been four coups in the past two decades and public services may have deteriorated, the majority of the population still can access clean drinking water, energy sources such as electricity, fuel and have reasonable access to food security. Couples with this is that many measures such as the MDG’s are invariably Western measures being superimposed on our Pacific societies and may not truly reflect the quality of life. Thus the lens that Western thinkers such as Reilly is applying to Melanesia in terms of provision of reasonable public good does have its justifications however it may need to take into account the true situation and quality of life on the ground. An example is in terms of GDP, Melanesian countries may have some of the lowest in the World, however if you go to the villages in any of these Melanesian countries you will eat your fill and your hosts will still have leftovers. 5. Inability to interact with other States as a full Member of the International Community. In terms of interacting with other States as a full member of the International Community, the Pacific is uniquely positioned in the way that the Region has embraced the notion of Collective Security. There are a number of agreements that have been signed under the auspices of the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat such as the Biketawa Declaration and Honiara Declaration that have encompassing impact on the continued participation of Pacific States at Regional level despite the internal security situation and also allows other regional states to intervene when governance structures and law and order have deteriorated. The clear example of this was the Solomon Islands. Due to the collective security arrangements and the Biketawa Declaration, as soon as the situation within the Solomon Islands was perceived to have deteriorated to an extremely unviable position, the Biketawa Declaration was invoked and the Regional Assistance Mission under Australia was deployed to regularize the internal situation and return the Solomon Islands to full participation in the Region and internationally. The 2006 takeover of the Qarase Government in Fiji had limited international impact. Fiji still participates fully in trade around the Globe. Fiji is still a member of the United Nations and sends peacekeepers to UN missions and even the worst critics Australia and New Zealand, still allow trade and have opted for minimal or targeted sanctions which have not been very effective. Although Fiji has been suspended from the Forum and is faced with possible suspension from the Commonwealth, it still is engaging these bodies at the Officials level and still is part of the international community under the United Nations. Conclusion In answering the question posed in the introductory part of this paper on whether the Pacific is indeed experiencing the phenomenon of failed states and becoming Africanized, it must be said that the western democracies have undergone a transition

7

Viliame Bovoro S96008340 period of hundreds of years to reach maturity. During the history of these western democracies there have been numerous wars, two world wars that have shaped their contemporary views on democracy, development, political systems and now “governance”. Conversely the Pacific countries, in particularly Melanesia are new States, some whose territories have been imposed by chance, some who have inherited political systems not in tandem with their cultural and moralistic perceptions of the world and who have been expected to develop at an exponentially to reach levels of political maturity that have been imposed by the West. Thus to answer the question; is the Pacific becoming Africanized? I believe the firm answer is an emphatic no. As Fraenkel (2004) succinctly stated, the Pacific, in particular Melanesia may be volatile but conflicts obey certain rules and are localized. Is Melanesia a microcosm for failed States? Again the answer is no. As shown in my analysis of the Fund for Peace framework for failed states, the Pacific states are victims of circumstances far beyond their control and only now beginning to undergo the painful transition and transformation already faced and overcome by the Western democracies. SO WE NEED TO GIVE THE PACIFIC, IN PARTICULAR MELANESIA, A CHANCE!

8

Viliame Bovoro S96008340

References 1.

Cotton, J. 2007. Timor Leste and the Discourse of State Failure. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Volume 61: 4, pp 455 – 470.

2.

Fraenkel, J. 2004. The Coming Anarchy in Oceania? A Critique of the “Africanzation’ of the South Pacific Thesis. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Volume 42: 1, pp 1 – 34.

3.

Fund for Peace – Failed States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state [Accessed 5th August 2009]

4.

Henderson, J. 2003. The future of democracy in Melanesia: What role for Outside Powers. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, Volume 44:3, pp

5.

Henderson, W, Watson, G. Securing a Peaceful Pacific. 1st ed. Canterbury University Press. Christchurch.

6.

Reilly, B. 2000. The Africanization of the South Pacific. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54: 3 pp

7.

Reilly, B. 2001. Trouble in Paradise: The Africanization of the South Pacific. Journal Unknown?

8.

Reilly, B. 2004. State Functioning and State Failure in the South Pacific. Australian Journal of International Affairs, Volume 58: 4, pp 479 – 493.

9

Viliame Bovoro S96008340

10