When expounding her view of the Pacific’s islands states and their unfortunate lot, the redoubtable Professor Helen Hughes, of the Australian Centre for Independent Studies, does not mince her words.
What an unfortunate lot the islands are, as ISLANDS BUSINESS also from time to time hints. What messes do some, or maybe all, of them lie in for one reason or another?
In recent years Professor Helen Hughes has pretty well written Papua New Guinea off for reasons made very plain by her. Also Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and oh, just about all the rest of the Pacific Islands Forum pack. The bad thing about the deplorable states of affairs she condemns scathingly in some detail is that it is rather hard to disagree with much of her line of thought.
Towards the end of 2004, however, riding along the road to Damascus, she looked up and spotted a glimmer of light. She now sees hope for Papua New Guinea, provided it does this and that. In another study published by the centre in December, she declares: “The Pacific is Viable!” Crikey.
This change of heart will bemuse many Pacific Islanders since, not counting the “paradise” image stuff written about their islands by freeloading travel writers descending as guests of the national tourist office, they are thoroughly accustomed to being written off by all other Australian academics, consultants, journalists and others of the same ilk as being a lot of damned useless handout-minded coconuts.
A viable Pacific? It’s a lot to swallow. Hughes, of course, has justification for this refreshingly novel view of the region. Here’s some of the remarks she makes in some lines of promo for her latest line of thought. We’ll just remind you of the title: The Pacific is Viable!
“Australian aid is best spent on Pacific nations with the gumption to vigorously pursue growth,” she writes. (IB: Does that mean all Australian aid to the islands should be cut off? Possibly, possibly.)
From here, we’ll run her words abridged somewhat. They are definitely food for thought, certainly in Canberra.
“Income has barely grown faster than population in the Pacific for the 30th consecutive year despite A$1.5 billion of aid. The benefits have been absorbed by elites so that most villagers are no better off than they were at independence.
“There has been little transport, power or communications or development. Social services, including schooling, are on the level of disintegrating sub-Saharan African states and for women, with the Middle East. This is old news. (IB doesn’t agree with all of it. Rather too many generalisations.) But there is also some good news. (IB: What a relief).
“Some Pacific Islanders are fed up with the excuses used to defend stagnation, corruption, crime and civil conflict. (IB definitely agrees.) Nauru has voted out a government that lost, wasted and stole nearly $2 billion. (IB: But for how long?) Newspaper articles and letters to the editor in Papua New Guinea question the lack of growth. (IB: Too right.)
“Even more significantly, they are beginning to question communal land ownership and exploring land registration and long-term lease possibilities. (IB has its doubts about this. Maybe a few are.)
“The Howard Government’s Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands was a first step towards a new Australian approach to aid in the Pacific. (IB: Yeah, but motivated really by what?) The police and legal mentoring programme in Papua New Guinea was another. It was made clear to Vanuatu that responsibility meant that there would be no aid without mutual obligation.
But Australian aid policy still had a long way to cease applying bandaids that keep counter-productive governments in power. The principal excuses used for stagnation are distance, topography (too mountainous or too flat) and ethnic diversity. (IB isn’t inclined to write these excuses off as just being excuses.) But the Pacific is near (IB: But also quite far from) the world’s most rapidly growing Asian countries. The islands are beautiful and rich in agricultural land, minerals, timber and fish. (IB: Really? All of them?) Transport and communications costs have been falling. (IB: If only. We’ll skip the next few pars because we’re running out of space).
“If Pacific islands opted for policies that matched their endowments so that they would grow at seven percent and more, they could reach high living standards within a generation. (IB: That’s a nice thought. If only.) The economic reforms that are essential for growth are well known. Moving from communal land ownership to individual property rights, getting rid of barriers to business, eliminating protection, freeing up the labour markets and downsizing and privatising the public sector are all needed if agricultural incomes and jobs are to be created and for governments to enforce law and order and maintain infrastructure. Pacific islands belong to only 40 international organisations. (IB: Really? Only 40?) Pacific politicians and bureaucrats are so busy travelling to meetings and conferences and the Pacific is so awashed with international bureaucrats that no one has time for pressing domestic problems. (IB: A spot of exaggeration here we feel. Oh, and how many travelling academics wash through the place?)
Hughes finishes up: “Australia is on its own in the Pacific. (IB: So Australia likes to think). It will be judged by how the Pacific performs. Australia cannot make policy choices for the Pacific islands. (IB: We have the impression it has been for quite some time.) Colonialism is not an option. (IB: Why not?) Australia can, however, support governments that choose growth and development.”
As we conceded above, Hughes is full of nice ideas. If only they could be made to work. For a start, how many of the Pacific’s communal landowners are really prepared to stop being so?
