The politics of aid, its mismanagement by corrupt aides, bureaucrats and ministers mainly for personal gain, and the proliferation of HIV/AIDS are at the forefront of a myriad other factors that scuttle"progress" in the Pacific islands. Now, haven't we heard that one before? But of course we have!
About a year after she wrote her controversial paper on how aid has failed the Pacific, in which she advocated Australia actually suspending aid to the island nations, Australian academic Helen Hughes, of the Centre for Independent Studies,has just released another reportearly December titled, "The Pacific is Viable!" Hughes says much the same things she said in last year's paper and elaborates on the same arguments, except that the title sounds, sort of, more positive.
So how is the Pacific viable? Well, to begin with it is not — if you goby most of the report. Wallowing in $1.5 billion of annual aid, the region is plagued with slim to none growth rates, corrupt regimes, too much government, plummeting living standards, environmental degradation, worsening health and education indices, mindless urbanisation, growing poverty, galloping crime,domestic violence—atropical paradise lost, as it were! It is this aid that buffers the ill effects of negative, zero orslow-grow this lands economies, she says,advancing her argument to employing alternative strategies to catalyse the region's development than continuing to provide aid.
Embellished with newer statistics, Hughes substantiates her statements about the economic mess in parts of the Pacific, notably Nauru, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands,while commending the turn around in the Solomon Islands thanks to RAMSI. At able indicating the ratio of elected representatives to heads of population is also a telling comment on the untenably bloated size of governments in some of the countries.
But statistical analyses anddrawing conclusions based on them is the easy part. What really counts is analysing different countries' unique situations and suggesting solutions built around those situations. A one-size-fits-all panacea for all the Pacific's ills is not just simplistic but is an inevitable trap, especially for those who suggest quick-fix solutions based on corporate-style practicalities alone, not taking into account historical, cultural and socio-political realities. Especially so in amilieu that comprises poorly educated, tradition-bound, hierarchical societies far removed from western systems. Lumping the Pacific island snations together and suggesting a single set of solutions for all of them would never work.
But to say this is not to add another excuse to what Hughes calls "alitany of excuses" to delay or avoid reform and justify continuing aid assistance.All-round reform isnecessary and urgent. But it has to be done with a rare sensitivity to the particular problems of particular nations.
While none of the solutions she discusses are new (abandoning communal land ownership, dismantling protectionist frameworks, privatising public enterprises,down sizing governments, freeing labour markets), some of them could be looked upon as part of a pan-regional reform planto be rolled out over a period of time, with bench marked milestones conditionally linked to a form of regional development aid.
But how could this be implemented, there being no regional apparatus to do so? Hughes blames the absence of suchan apparatus on the departing colonial powers at the time of independence of islands nations. "Because colonial powers failed to create regional arrangements for the Pacific at independence it will now take time before individual islands states become viable so that regional arrangements can work," she writes.
The constant squabbling among islands nations—be it in their failure to unanimously elect an islander to lead a regional organisation, university, or evena greeing on sharing transportation and logistic resources is testimony to this.
Hughes uses this argument to make another contentious observation: "The smaller islands may find links to developed countries more conducive to viability at high living standards than independence or federation with other small states." She supports this observation pointing out the cases of some islands nations continually strengthening their ties with NewZealand, Australia, France and the United States. In fact she goes further to recommend a few other nations to do exactly that! But there are a few countries that are too big to consider this, she writes.Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands could still benefit from a federation.
Hughes also touches upon other Pacific islands phenomena that affect Australian interests such as migration, trade, industry and commerce and writes thata fast-developing Pacific islands region is in the best interests of the larger region's security and stability. In continuance of her last year's arguments, she pushes for alternatives to aid—a considerable part of which, in any case, finds its way back to the donor countries as consultancy fees—to power the development process in the islands.
While squeezing aid suddenly and completely is more likely to worsen things in the Pacific islands, many of which have grown used to depending on it for the business of running their governments, it is certainly a worth while idea to find ways and means to link aid disbursement to stringently measurable indices of progress in economic, political and social reform—but necessarily using different benchmarks factoring in the subtly differentg round realities of the different islands nations.
But like most academic recommendations, this is a task easier said than done. Doling out aid to further national agendas in the region is an easy, time-tested way to strengthen hegemonies.
Besides, why risk it when there's growing competition from cash-rich China and Taiwan. Who knows how many others are lurking in the Pacific waters? Why change the status quo, rock the boat?The delightfully homophonic gravy train of "aid, aides, AIDS" is such a winning formula!
