Honolulu
December 4, 1970
It may well be that the Pacific Islands will be mostly preoccupied with their own emergence and development in the early years of the 1970s. Regionalism has special problems in an ocean so vast. Still, there has been both past experience and growing feeling on the question. Much of it centers on the area’s major ongoing organization, The South Pacific Commission, the closest thing to a Pan-Pacific Islands parliament.
SPC Meeting in Suva
The Commission was formed in 1947 by the so-called “metropolitan” or colonial powers — Australia, France, New Zealand, Britain, the U.S., and the Netherlands (which quit in 1962 when its West New Guinea colony went to Indonesia). Western Samoa was admitted to the metropolitan group when it became independent in 1962. The tiny but rich republic of Nauru joined in 1969. Independent Fiji is now eligible. So is the kingdom of Tonga, but its leaders have decided to hold back in a bid for more islander power.
The Commission was set up with headquarters in Noumea, French New Caledonia, to work in matters of health, education, and economic development. Political development was not included, and some suspect a quiet colonial goal was to help sidetrack such matters.
Still, islander demands for a greater role in the organization emerged, not as the new members joined the Commission but from what started as a small auxiliary body of islanders meeting every three years under the similar name of South Pacific Conference. Their 1965 meeting was a turning point. There, Ratu (chief) K.K.T. Mara, now knighted and Fiji’s prime minister, stood up and bitterly attacked the Commission as “an exclusive club.”
With the towering figure of Mara leading over the years, the islanders have won virtual control over South Pacific Commission spending; they have their own annual meetings and the right to make most important decisions. In 1969,in Noumea, their influence led to the selection of the first islander to serve as SPC Secretary-General — Western Samoa’s Afioga Afoafouvale Misimoa, a jolly but canny 70year-old part European known affectionately as “Uncle Harry.”
The colonial powers have gone along with more than they have fought the growth of islander power in the organization. But France has been increasingly nervous and wary about Ratu Mara’s frank inclination towards the political arena. In fact, the translated bi-lingual fencing between Oxford-educated Mara and the sharp-eyed French delegate, Henri Nettre I was one of the outstanding features of SPC meetings up to last year s meeting in Suva, Fiji.
Non-Showdown in Fiji
The September sessions in Suva opened with some showdown potential: Islanders made sometimes-eloquent speeches that a new political era was finally coming in the Pacific. (“A tropical storm is moving throughout this great area,” said a New Guinea delegate.”) The French reiterated they didn’t went the SPC in politics, and if islanders wanted to discuss such matters they were welcome to form their own completely separate regional assembly.
But Mara was busy preparing for Fiji independence and stayed out of it; some other activist leaders were not on hand, and generally there was a feeling that it was not the time to push politics too far. As a result, when the nine-day Conference ended, one observer commented: “This has been a Pacific pussycat.”
France’s Nettre (standing left) and Conference Chairman Koya
That judgment is partly unfair, of course. Delegates from the 16 island areas gained significant control over the traditional programs in health, education, and economic development; the new arrangement was ratified by the annual meeting of the parent Commission which followed. However, in terms of political matters the islanders did end up pussyfooting back from a brink they reached when the Conference pushed into a discussion of objections to French nuclear tests southeast of Tahiti.
French delegate Nettre walked out in protest when the Conference chairman, Fiji leader S.M. Koya, ruled the nuclear test discussion was authorized as a health and social welfare matter. But in closed-door talks that followed, the islanders agreed to pull back. On the final day the delegates agreed to remove even the one-sentence reference to the discussion from the official Conference report. Nettre ended up smiling; he left early, skipping the formal closing talks.
It was a compromise that left the French with their principle intact against discussion of potentially embarrassing political matters, such as more self-government for their territories. (“Their definition of political matters,” said one newsman, “is anything that affects French national interest.”) For the islanders there was at least the satisfaction of a few headlines, of having made another show of independence, and of the knowledge that political questions can be brought up under various social welfare forms. Fiji even managed to use its closing speech to praise visiting Australian and New Zealand politician-observers — and to jab at those nations, restrictive immigration policies.
Color And Contacts
If the big political spark wasn’t there, however, there was ample color:
The cast of characters ranged from a pretty 21-year-old Nauru school teacher named Echo Gadong, who talked of the need for more women delegates, to the Samoan Secretary-General of SPC, who celebrated his 70th birthday with his daily swim and hefty round of social life. The range also included the Sandhurst-educated Crown Prince of Tonga who was born to the purple, mission-educated Melanesians who came from poor villages, cautious conservatives, and a number of rebels in the best sense. One result, shared by even urbane Europeans on hand for the first time, woo admiration for the quality of so many island leaders. In its relative way, it is higher than that of a number of non-islanders who took part.
As usual, it was said the private meetings and social contacts were often more important than the formal sessions. But the endless round of lunches, receptions, and dinners took its toll: Great political significance was read into the absence of one delegation from a key session, for example. But when contacted, the delegate said: “Actually, the significance is we didn’t get home till 7 this morning and overslept. What a time!”
There was more of real significance for the SPC, however. A review committee report giving islanders more control of SPC affairs was adopted. Among other things it called for three-year budget programming; an important planning meeting will be held early next year in this regard. Other seemingly small programs have great importance for the islands involved. A new rat control project is not dramatic on paper, but it can eventually involve millions in United Nations aid and it has real economic meaning; rats may eat up to 30 per cent of the copra crop, a main source of income for much of the area.
If the shape of the organization was on the agenda, even deeper implications were also on many minds. The Conference opened with calls for more discussion of political matters. It closed on notes of caution, even with some islander warnings that politics could wreck the organization.
Still, two sometimes-conflicting facts of Pacific life seem to remain: One is that islands moving toward more freedom are, like the big powers, jealous of their sovereignty and reluctant to give up the right to deal for themselves. The second is that the SPC remains the only pan-Pacific islands forum; it is natural that political matters of common interest will come up.
Some feel Pacific islanders really don’t have much to discuss, that politics would fizzle if allowed. But besides nuclear testing, island delegates suggested topics might include such matters as territorial limits and control of riches under the sea. The French remain a bar to political discussion. But some political experts feel that while the French might scream in protest, they would still stay if SPC became a political forum because leaving would be a blow to their prestige and the organization serves useful intelligence purposes. The possibility of a new political organization seems to depend on how much independent Fiji can and wants to push it. It was not a live issue in 1970.
But the real challenge to the SPC now seems to be redefining its economic role in a time of evolving island political independence and a new era of transportation and tourism development. Said one veteran delegation from a big power: “The budget should be five times higher than $1 million. The small budget means you get small people and small thinking.”
Still, any restructuring of role involves more than money. The French, who were especially blunt in Suva, appear to see it in have and have-not terms and parent-child relationships. That is not far from the view that pertained when the SPC was founded back in 1947. Others talk about a system akin to the British Commonwealth Colombo Plan. In that view the SPC would have few or none of its own projects. Instead it would specialize in research and seminars and as a coordinating clearing house for bi-lateral aid between donors and aid recipients.
If the Pacific is really lucky, a new form of aid and cooperation in other fields will emerge. If not, the SPC may well fade or wither in low budget limitations.
What U.S. Role
At the Fiji meeting, the United States delegation was known as “The Silent Americans,” which is probably just as well because we couldn’t meet our share of the proposed budget increase — and because American Pacific policy is looking to islanders increasingly like that of the French, right down to testing weapons and wanting to hold onto our territories.
The SPC remains partly a European club since the big powers still hold the purse strings. But increasingly it has become the platform for Pacific islander aspirations. In varying ways, the powers are making their adjustments: The British want to withdraw gracefully, the French to stay firmly. New Zealand publicly identifies with the islanders and Australia looms as the power-protector for most.
The U.S. role remains shadowed. In the view from Suva, American policy seemed neither attractive nor clear. The unfortunate fact might well be there is no positive policy at all.
Received in New York on January 20, 1971.
Mr. John Griffin was an Alicia Patterson Fund award winner on leave from the Honolulu Advertiser. This article may be published with credit to Mr. fin, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Alicia Patterson Fund.
