Australian police are no solution to PNG's problems

November 17, 1993
Issue 

Tim O'Connor, Port Moresby

As I was sitting under a swaying palm tree, dangling my feet in the rippling waters, feeling the soothing afternoon breeze and chatting with articulate villagers about the dramatic changes in the environment caused by a new fishing development, I felt a long way from the troubles of a "failed state".

Particularly after having travelled through three airports via two airlines, circumnavigated Port Moresby on the public transport system, changed money at the bank, purchased essential anti-malarial supplies and visited colleagues at the University. Yet, according to the Australian government, not only is Papua New Guinea a "failed state", but one in desperate need of 230 Australian police and 40 bureaucrats.

Although PNG is our closest neighbour and the largest recipient of Australian aid money, the country remains a mystery to most Australians. A country of more than 5 million people, it is one of the most culturally and biologically diverse regions on the planet. The people of Papua New Guinea speak at least 800 different languages — not dialects but individual languages.

Notwithstanding PNG's obvious cultural and biological wealth, and despite its enormous mineral and environmental assets, it is regarded by many in Australia as an "undeveloped" country. Many Australians hear only of the raskol gangs and violence in the streets of Port Moresby, occasionally the opening of a war memorial and, more recently, allegations of government corruption and claims that it is a potential "terrorist hot spot".

Much of this is greatly exaggerated. It is true that economically, the people of PNG have not fared well from decades of export-driven economic growth and exploitation of natural resources. From the late 1980s and into the 1990s, exports provided economic growth rates comparable to anywhere in the world. Yet this did little to assist the 85% of the population who rely on subsistence agriculture.

Yet we are being led to believe that sending Australian police and bureaucrats to PNG will better the situation and livelihoods of PNG's citizens.

Public debate in Australia about the correctness and necessity of Australia's military intervention in the Solomon Islands last year and the planned deployment of Australian Federal Police to PNG has been largely confined to establishment opinion writers, such as Hugh White, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and Gerard Henderson and Helen Hughes both from the Centre for Independent Studies, and newspaper editors, who are long on advice but short of on-the-ground experience in PNG.

After recent talks with officials of AusAID, Australia's international aid agency, it has become clear that this new policy towards the Pacific — which Fijian academic Vijay Naidu has labelled the "new interventionism" — is not being driven by the government's own experts in international development at AusAID, but by people further up the decision-making tree with very different objectives. This raises serious questions about the real reasons why Australia has adopted this new policy.

The idea of al Qaeda setting up in Port Moresby seems far-fetched. The four strategic air bases along the PNG-West Papua border, all recently funded by AusAID, do not seem suited to monitoring "people smuggling".

Not well known to many Australians is the large percentage of Australian taxpayers' money that goes to private corporations through the aid budget. Charities, such as Oxfam-Community Aid Abroad, World Vision and Care, receive just 6% of the Australian aid budget.

The remainder is delivered bilaterally by Australian companies or multilaterally through organisations such as the World Bank. This policy of only giving Australian aid to domestic businesses is known as "tied aid". Tied aid is often not directed towards addressing the interests of local communities in the recipient country, but to enhancing Australian business interests overseas. Tied aid is an indirect subsidy to Australian business — contrary to the government's current position on free trade.

The strategic interest of the Australian government and big business in PNG is evident in recent comments by the newly installed head of the PNG branch of AusAID, Jacqui de Lacy.

De Lacy suggested that Australia plays an important role in keeping PNG's Highlands Highway open. Along the highway's length, there is an estimated $4 billion worth of Australian investment. De Lacy stated that 65% of imports travel along that road. Thus, it remains vital for Australian export figures and a small number of Australian businesses that the road remains open.

The Melanesian People's Forum, a coalition of prominent academics, community groups and individuals, has issued a scathing assessment of the plan to deploy Australian police in PNG. The deployment will "sow seeds of violence and not make any significant difference for peace and stability in PNG", the forum stated. It will be the "third phase of colonialism".

While such opposition is common among those in PNG who are aware that the deployment is to take place, most of the population is unaware of the planned intervention, according to PNG lawyer Damien Ase.

The majority of the PNG population are subsistence farmers who toil day-in, day-out to eke out a living for themselves and their families. The parliamentary political wranglings and corruption in Port Moresby have little direct impact on their lives. Importantly, the majority are not involved in the corruption that besets the formal sector.

In part, the transition from the informal to the formal economy remains the key issue for PNG. A real tension exists between those who have access to jobs, and hence health and education, and the 85% of Papua New Guineans who do not have access but desperately want education services and adequate health care for their children. They want the right to choose the development future for their country.

The Australian government, by sending police to PNG, is adopting an expedient solution that will not work in the ethnically and culturally diverse country that is PNG. If we are lucky, this deployment will have a minimal impact. If we are unlucky, the consequences for people on the ground and for our long-term relationship with our closest neighbour could be devastating.

Australia would do well to stop telling PNG what to do and start listening to the many people in PNG who know their complex country and are focused on seeing it attain its own long-term and sustainable path to development. To not listen and to threaten the sovereignty of the country can only further destabilise the region and create a reliance on Australia for many years to come.

[Tim O'Connor works at Aid/Watch, an independent watchdog monitoring impact of Australia's aid and trade polices. Visit <http://www.aidwatch.org.au>.]

From Green Left Weekly, February 11, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.