KEY POINTS:
For members of the New Zealand and Australian military forces and police, it must have seemed that last year was a revolving door of Pacific deployments. What not so long ago had been, by and large, a region of tourist-brochure tranquillity careered from crisis to crisis. Serious disturbances of various natures troubled the likes of East Timor, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and Fiji. Indeed, it was tempting to wonder whether this was the start of a descent into African-style chaos and calamity.
Such a conclusion would be wrong, however. While it seems likely the violence in the Solomons was, in part, the product of unrest elsewhere in the Pacific, each outbreak was born of circumstances peculiar to that country. If there was a common thread, it lay only in the fact that each country was grappling with its own particular set of tensions arising from independence, the introduction of democracy and stumbling economic development.
The violence in Tonga, for example, was the result of the slow pace of democratic reform. It needed only the death of King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV to provide the spark. Factional fighting provided the basis for turbulence in East Timor and the Solomons, while Fiji succumbed to yet another military coup. This, as in most other cases, owed something to the legacy of colonial rule. Fiji, without a strong democratic underpinning, is still seeking to find a harmonious balance between the aspirations of its indigenous people and the Indo-Fijian population. The paradox of the latest coup was its condemnation of legislation that would have advantaged indigenous Fijians.
While Australian warships anchored off Suva during the coup, there was never any serious thought of armed intervention. International condemnation was reflected in economic and sporting sanctions and the withdrawal of aid. Australian and New Zealand forces were, however, soon on the scene in East Timor, Tonga and the Solomons. They were quick to quell the violence, but the overriding lesson of such exercises was that this was merely palliative. Military and police intervention, if it is to be effective, must be supplemented by government and non-government agencies assisting institutional reform.
Insufficient whole-of-government stabilisation work was done in the aftermath of the first violence in the Solomons and East Timor. Intervention was deemed successful when calm returned, and support was withdrawn too quickly. Lawlessness reappeared relatively quickly. That picture will be repeated if a more broad-based nation-building capacity is not developed in such countries. Imbuing a strong sense of governance is a crucial part of that.
Patchy economic progress has also undermined the construction of stable democracies. High unemployment rates and a proliferation of guns are a potent mix. New Zealand has developed a constructive scheme that allows seasonal workers to come to this country. This tallies with a World Bank report that suggested labour mobility was a solution to the Pacific problems of isolation and limited opportunities. Australia, unfortunately, has not come up with anything similar. While the unrest in the Pacific has prompted a rethink of its military deployment priorities, it has yet to grasp fully the need for a thoroughgoing approach.
Stabilising the Pacific is a long-term project. It must be undertaken in a manner that strengthens democratic institutions while creating an orderly environment. If this is not done, there will be repeated deployments of troops and police. If it is done correctly, however, the fears of the Pacific going the way of Africa will soon dissipate. Therein lies the major regional challenge for 2007.
