SECURITY IN MELANESIA FIJI, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, SOLOMON ISLANDS & VANUATU A report prepared by Ray Anere, Ron Crocombe, Rex Horoi, Elise Huffer Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano, Howard Van Trease, Nikenike Vurobaravu for the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat for the FORUM REGIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE (FRSC) MEETING 25-26 June 2001 Suva May 2001 2 CONTENTS Page Preface 3 Summary 4 Threats facing Melanesia as the 21st Century begins 6 Influences from other Melanesia and the Pacific Rim 12 Suggestions for consideration 13 Country reports Papua New Guinea 24 Solomon Islands 31 Vanuatu 37 Fiji 43 Bibliography 48 The authors wish to acknowledge the advice, information and wisdom of many politicians, officials and others in government service, international agencies, NGOs, churches and other walks of life. We also benefited from many reports and publications. As much of the information was given to us frankly on condition of anonymity, we thank them all collectively rather than individually. 3 PREFACE We were asked to prepare a report on: ethnicity, land disputes, economic disparities and the quality of governance, and other factors that may lead to instability and/or conflict in Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu; the interaction of factors, and ways in which the risk of conflict or instability may be reduced, and peace and prosperity enhanced. We were also advised that the report should facilitate the implementation of the Biketawa Declaration (adopted by Forum heads of government in 2000 to provide for regional cooperation in response to security threats). That declaration broadened the terms of reference by referring to socio-economic rather than only economic disparities (presumably including education, health, housing etc), and to the erosion of cultural values. Values are basic to the issues we were asked to study. All four issues involve internal and external differences between, changes in, or disagreements over, what values apply in the management of these four Melanesian nations. (Even greater differences apply in relation to the other four Melanesian entities – West Papua, East Timor, New Caledonia and the Torres Strait Islands). Values are diversifying in Melanesia as they are world-wide, making national cohesion more difficult to achieve. Given the terms of reference we do not discuss environmental security, food security or other important topics such as intergovernmental or criminal disputes that may arise over future exploitation of seabed resources. Only passing mention is made of external threats from organized crime or from industries that are prone to corruption. No overt aggression from foreign governments has occurred since World War II. Occasionally, however, security problems in the region may be aggravated by well-meaning but misguided friends. Nor do we deal with immediate control responses in which Forum Regional Security Committee (FRSC) members have expertise and experience. However, unless security forces do more to improve their own efficiency and ethics, they will lose public confidence and be unable to provide security. This is a major threat in Melanesia today. What happens in one country of the Forum region, positive or negative, impacts on all the others – in investment, employment, international standing etc. This is especially true of Melanesia, as most Pacific Islanders are Melanesians. Nothing in this report is new. We have drawn on the wisdom and advice of many people in the four countries, and on many writings and other sources. We began by writing a separate report on each country, but we found so many issues and problems in common that, to avoid unnecessary repetition, we have presented the overall situation first, followed by country reports. 4 SUMMARY The four nations of Melanesia have suffered from a deteriorating security environment in recent years. No easy solutions are available but unless effective remedial action is taken, the potential for further instability is considerable. A secure and growing economy is basic to resolving the problems. That aspect is being tackled by the Forum Economic Ministers Meeting and is not dealt with here. A high priority is to enhance the quality, integrity and impartiality of the disciplined forces and judicial processes. Public confidence in them has declined and must be restored if security and prosperity are to be achieved. We do not seek to blame the disciplined forces, for they are part of a wider picture of economic stagnation, growing population and unemployment, increased criminal and other negative influences from abroad, and uncertainty about the future. All these make the task of the disciplined forces more difficult. Quality of training is important, but in small populations with strong commitments to kin and community, we feel quality could be improved by a proportion of staff from outside the nation. The precedent of courts of appeal is one way forward. We are concerned that persons in the disciplined forces in all four countries have been excused from serious crimes they have committed. We understand the role of forgiveness, but fear the negative impact on the forces themselves and on public confidence in them. Constitutions and systems of government can themselves be a security hazard, if aspects of them are likely to lead to violence and instability. We feel that structures of government in Melanesia, which were modeled to a large degree on colonial precedents, and with inadequate study of relevant values and practices within the nations, merit deep reconsideration. Land tenure systems which were designed for subsistence in small autonomous societies, and modified for the conditions of the colonial era, have been little changed since. They now cause considerable conflict and low productivity, and need to be rethought by Melanesians to better meet their needs in the 21st century. Ethnic tensions have been a major cause of conflict in Melanesia, both between different Melanesian language/cultural groups, and between Melanesians and non-Melanesians. Schools and universities have assumed that being educated in the same institution would lead to inter-cultural harmony. It did not. Such institutions, and the disciplined forces, need to provide specific training in learning to live with people whose values, customs, languages and religions are different. 5 The same institutions need to give more emphasis to integrity, for the record in management of funds and other areas, shows too much emphasis on the academic side and too little on the ethical. The role of non-governmental organisations (including those of women and youth) in maintaining harmony and achieving reconciliation is increasingly recognised by Melanesian governments. However, and given the shrinking proportion of total resources available to governments, we feel that closer consultation and more mutual assistance would help. Values are basic to the issues we were asked to study. Many conflicts result from differences between, changes in, or disagreements over the values of the conflicting parties. Encouraging greater awareness of the underlying values that cause tensions could help in their resolution. Scholars, theologians and others could help in this, but everyone needs to be alert to the issue. We also discuss ways in which the Forum Secretariat could contribute to conflict resolution. Each of the four country reports also ends with some brief recommendations for consideration by the FRSC. 6 THREATS FACING MELANESIA AS THE 21ST CENTURY BEGINS We begin with some comments which apply to all four countries. Ethnic and other social tensions Ethnic classification, like most social classification, changes with circumstances. Various categories will come together in the face of a common perceived threat. But if the threat subsides, each side is likely to fragment into its component parts. So whereas Gualis (people of Guadalcanal) united to confront Malaitans, and vice versa, once the peace agreement was signed the subdivisions within each side became more apparent. The same is apparent in Fiji and elsewhere. Nowhere else in the world has such extreme cultural diversity, with less than 6 million people divided into over 1,000 different language groups and at least as many culture groups. Despite harmonious interaction between some traditional cultures, there was also hostility and, as elsewhere in the world, generally negative stereotypes about one’s neighbors. All these differences tend to be greater in respect of the diverse immigrant Asian and European cultures and interests. However, they are minorities in these four countries of Melanesia (though not in West Papua or New Caledonia). Many cultural misunderstandings occurred in the colonial era. But there was no shortage of misunderstanding between communities or disputes over land from time immemorial. However, some common elements of culture, religion, education, life experience, and goals, provide bases for workable compromises. Since independence, much has been achieved in national integration, but it takes time. Fortunately, no challenge is insurmountable. Land disputes Most of the land that was bought or otherwise acquired by Europeans or Asians, has been returned to Melanesian ownership. This reduced conflict over land between indigenous claimants and others. Now the main disputes are between indigenous owners. Even land transferred between indigenous communities hundreds of years ago in some cases remains subject to dispute. Traditional transfers are a common cause of conflict because in most traditional arrangements,