The question of who qualifies to participate at the Festival of Pacific Arts reared its ugly head in American Samoa in August.
And the subtle competition and territorialism between delegations has all but tainted what this festival was created for.
Taiwan’s entry into the Pagopago celebrations raised a few eyes-brows but they had been at the 9th Arts Festival in Palau in 2004.
A Samoan delegation from San Diego brought to the fore the issue of sub-nationality where one identifies with one’s country when outside of one’s own but when in-country, one claims tribal or provincial identity.
For the Australian delegation, one of them clarified: “We do not call ourselves Australians, we are from Australia but belong to our respective places.”
The Maori performers made their mark with an impromptu performance of the haka at the ava ceremony where they were repeatedly asked to stop, but to no avail.
The ava ceremony had not been performed in Pagopago for over 60 years, thus the request from organisers that delegates keep to the programme.
Some New Zealand delegates begged disassociation after this incident but it underlined the territorialism that has crept into spaces within this (festival) space.
The Maori delegation’s behaviour begs the question of appropriate etiquette at such gatherings.
A delegate said: “It showed how out of sync they are as claimants of being an indigenous population, whereas we would totally respect the host’s request; it was an abuse of Pagopago’s hospitality.”
So who really qualifies for this festival?
In 1972, regional leaders decided to have a festival “to share and exchange their culture” and “to combat the erosion of traditional customary practices out of the desire expressed by Pacific Islands leaders for the peoples of the region to share their cultures and establish deeper understanding and friendship between the countries”.
But as the Festival of Arts has become bigger and more complex, it has become a battleground, however subtle, for territorialism and agendas, as such creatures of our own making are prone to become.
To say we have lost sight of the original plan that this was going to be a ground of sharing and networking is not simplifying things, it is a statement of fact.
Perhaps, the lack of a formal structure and the inevitable failure to make decisions on certain aspects of the festival has made this simple objective a complex web of agendas.
What does one say about the New Zealand delegation staying on-stage for almost 60 minutes more than their allocated time that forced the PNG delegation, majority of whose members were over 40 years, to leave from exhaustion considering the weight of their costumes and that it was almost 10pm?.
Or a delegation from Rapa Nui whose origin was questioned when the novelty of their prancing about on-stage with nothing but a crotch full of cloth wore off and talks that half of them lived in Aotearoa, made the rounds?
The fashion shows had seen the hiring of professional models or emphasis being on the physique as aptly illustrated by the nudity and semi-nudity theme of the Tahitian and Rapa Nui delegations. How are delegates from the Melanesia or Micronesian islands that do not make the ‘standard’ supposed to feel about such ego-centric shows?
Granted that the festival hopes to counter eroding traditional and cultural practices, there are decisions that need to be made to rid the festival of the baggage it now carries.
Do we allow Taiwanese because they are an indigenous people from where those who eventually peopled the South Pacific come from? Do we include sub-nations? Is the fashion show reflective of our traditional practices and/or cultures?
Or should perhaps there be a fringe festival where contemporary Pacific artists could go to with their innovative creations whether in poetry or songs, dance or craft?
To make such restrictions may not exactly be Pacific but if we are to address legislative and/or intellectual property issues of indigenous creations and knowledge, then we should probably start with defining who comprises us to ensure some form of uniformity and to finally see the closure to initiatives like the (traditional practices/arts work/conservation-related) model law for the Pacific that has been in the making for almost a decade now.
There were meetings but it could be another talkfest to be repeated at the next festival in the Solomon Islands in 2012 unless SPC seriously continues changes it has begun implementing to make the festival a better place to be than what it has deteriorated into.
They have begun with a name change—from the South Pacific Arts Festival Council to the Pacific Cultural Council. Their set of objectives will change as well to “emphasise the council’s leading role in cultural matters in the Pacific region”.
This could mean a more vigorous council that will include past and future (host country) members to ensure continuity and the benefit of having ‘lessons learnt’ perspectives. In this context, Pagopago was a real celebration in the youthfulness of the delegates.
As a diplomat, who has been attempting to make some regional initiatives work, said in confidence: “There is no unity at all in the region and nothing meant for regional implementation will make sense unless some decisions are made, and made quickly.”