Islands Business - WE SAY: Polynesia bloc idea doomed to fail

October 2009 Issue

‘Regional groupings are a force to be reckoned with as can clearly be seen by the relatively recently set up MSG, which comprises the four Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji. They are now a regional political force, a trading bloc and are in the process of putting in place several instruments for collective bargaining among themselves and between the member nations and the rest of the region and the world. The group is also potentially seen as being capable of reining in members whenever the political need may arise by putting to use their cultural ties’

Some 60 indigenous chiefs and representatives drawn mainly from several islands from the Polynesian side of the Pacific got together in New Zealand last month to brainstorm and formulate ideas for considering the possibilities of a single governing body for the Polynesian islands territories that fall into what is known as the ‘Polynesian Triangle’.
Forming alliances and blocs along common political, geographical and economic interests is an activity probably as old as mankind and has been a recurring leitmotif of the history of almost all the world’s regions throughout history down to modern times. Organisations such as ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific), ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and closer to home the MSG (Melanesian Spearhead Group), are examples of such blocs.
But in this day and age, no ideological premise can be more flawed than an attempt to forge a political pressure grouping based on ideas that border on jingoistic beliefs instead of a secular, economic or geopolitical rationale. The expression of indigenous concerns over rights, beliefs, cultures and philosophy is one thing and must be encouraged and supported at all times. But attempts to wind back the clock to a pre-colonial age cannot be expected to gain any traction.
Consider the topics discussed by the delegates who flew in from Hawaii, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Tonga and Fiji: How to go about creating a unified ‘Polynesian Government’, what must be done to ‘reduce the dominance of colonial law in the Pacific’ and the possibilities of having a common passport for Polynesian peoples so they may travel unhindered across Polynesia, among other topics.
Not surprisingly, an initiative as ill conceived and fanciful as this turned out to be a complete non-event that the New Zealand and regional media largely panned—and quite rightly so.
Interestingly, criticisms of the event came from within the organising body itself. At the end of it, Henry Noa, who was among the prime speakers at the conference and who calls himself the “Prime Minister” of the self-styled “Reinstated Government of Hawaii”, told Radio New Zealand: “There was no agenda and those who had organised this meeting, it became obvious they were deceiving people to believe they had the authority or legitimacy to try and organise the islands nations of the Pacific, particularly within the Polynesian Triangle.”
The whole idea was flawed from the start and doomed to fail. If there were a strong economic, political or geopolitical rationale to such an idea, the exercise would have been far more meaningful. A need for a Polynesian bloc can be argued convincingly on the very basis of common cultural roots and ties—the very idea the organisers based their edifice of a common government for Polynesia. But certainly not on radical ideals based purely on anachronistically jingoistic beliefs.
Regional groupings are a force to be reckoned with as can clearly be seen by MSG, which comprises the four Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji. They have found common economic, trade and cooperation grounds built on common cultural and filial ties that go back centuries. (Curiously, though Fiji is widely considered part of Melanesia and is indeed a major player in MSG, but the Auckland meeting labelled it Polynesian).
The MSG countries are now a regional political force, a trading bloc and are in the process of putting in place several instruments for collective bargaining among themselves and between member nations and the rest of the region and the world. The group is also potentially seen as capable of reining in members whenever the political need may arise by putting to use their cultural ties. We have seen attempts at this—however desultory and poorly organised—in trying to deal with Fiji.
A grouping such as the MSG does not exist in the Polynesian side of the Pacific—neither does it in Micronesia for that matter. Any attempt to set up a grouping such as the MSG, based on similar secular economic and geopolitical commonalities would have been laudable.
After all, there is so much cause for a common concern that binds Polynesia—matters ranging from the threat of ecological problems like sea level rise to the repercussions of the extended continental shelf boundaries and from fishing, shipping and aviation to the tapping of onshore, littoral and undersea natural resources. There is so much knowledge to collect, collate, share and use for the collective gainful negotiations with the outside world.
But none of this was on the agenda of the Auckland meeting. Instead, what was discussed was a common government based purely on the basis of misplaced indigenous pride, a “reduction in the dominance of colonial law” (whatever be the full import of that) and a common “passport” for unrestricted travel of Polynesians within the Polynesian Triangle.
It took five decades and the toil of years of intelligent negotiations based purely on practicalities for European countries to forge what is today the European Union. It took even longer to create the United States.
If indeed this was the Polynesian leaders’ inspiration, they must realise there is much groundwork to be done before dreaming up a common government and a common passport—and that too mainly because of the wish to hark back to the great age of Polynesian exploration when such political boundaries did not exist. But then in that age, neither did modern political and economic institutions exist.
In a world that is increasingly getting smaller and integrated because of modern economic, technological and transportation systems, such ideals seem not only to be at complete odds but positively counter-productive to any serious attempts at forging meaningful alliances based on practicalities and the common wellbeing of the people of Polynesia separated by such large swathes of the Pacific Ocean.
It would be far more useful if these leaders used their influence in putting together a blueprint for a future framework for greater Polynesian cooperation in the areas such as common policy development, economic and trade initiatives, development of natural and human resources and better transportation links under the auspices of their existing national governments.
But practicalities, jingoism and irrationality never go together. Such ideas and its adherents like those of the Flat Earth Society must be considered purely for their curiosity value.