JACK KLOMES
SINCE its political independence in 1975, PNG has always has always carried the image of a developing state facing a lot of challenges politically, economically and socially.
Originally the “failed state” tag was not prominent when describing PNG affairs, however it gained prominence after Australia’s then prime minister John Howard and then foreign minister Alexander Downer began using it in describing PNG and Solomon Islands when their foreign policy of the Pacific shifted from a more hands off approach to active engagement with Pacific Island states.
The concept of the failed state is very controversial as there is no definitive principle defining how it is used or upon whom it is used.
That said, proponents of the failed state concept generally agree that it will be seriously failed in all of economic, social and political aspects.
This means a state will display evidence that it is totally incapable of protecting its constituents or is totally incapable of controlling what is happening within its jurisdiction as a sovereign state.
In other words, the state apparatus is inept at providing the most basic services and lacks the legal personality to interact with other states in the international arena.
Upon evidence of a state displaying such actualities, it may then be classified as ‘failed’.
Taking advantage of the lack of definition of this concept, journalists and political commentators take it upon themselves to employ its use as they see fit.
Thus it has become one of the most abused concepts in international relations.
In most cases, its use is apparently motivated either by the need for political or journalistic theatricality.
Papua New Guinea, Australia’s closest neighbour, has a system of governance that could be described as weak.
The core mechanisms function quite well - as evident in its record of drafting new legislation and policies, an independent and functioning justice system, functioning basic services in the provinces and its continuous interaction in the international arena.
However government service delivery is weak where policies fail to translate into tangible development and benefits to people.
The point here is that the state mechanism is functioning but as service delivery and development move from core to periphery their efficacy weakens.
The failed state discourse dawned in the Pacific in the aftermath of Australia’s involvement alongside USA on the war on terror.
Fearing for their own national security should there be repercussions in taking sides with the US, Australia decided to shape the Pacific according to its own terms and conditions.
However Australia’s lack of trust of the Pacific Islands meant that a fair partnership was not an option. Howard and Downer wanted a relationship that would be remote controlled from Canberra.
They solved the dilemma by coming up with a clever little idea called the “Cooperative Interventionism Program” under which Australia would intervene in small Pacific Island states which they considered to have failed or be failing.
Australia would then assist with what it termed “state building”. It would supply its own experts to work alongside recipient states in rebuilding their institutions.
The program looked and sounded good but the catch was that its remote control from Australia led it to operate more like a government within a government, and that this would mean a high likelihood of state sovereignty issues occurring.
The obvious problem it faced was that nearly all the Pacific Island countries are politically independent and had often expressed animosity towards Australia regarding certain polices which radiated colonial and patronising overtones.
So how would Australia’s international image cope with PNG or Solomon Islands complaining about infringements of their state sovereignty?
Australia needed to create a perception that would justify and gain approval from other states who were concerned about the potential for terrorism.
Banking on the existing image of PNG internationally, Australia needed to selectively play with words to make a good speech or newspaper headline.
Hence began the carefully orchestrated plan whereby Howard and Downer, with the aid of the media, advocated that failed and failing states in the Pacific were possible breeding grounds for terrorism and related activities.
To drive the message home, PNG and Solomon Islands were continually labelled as failed or failing states. The way was now clear for Australia to do something about this problem of failed states in its backyard.
In his book The new rulers of the world, John Pilger writes: “In the media age, ignorance is strength and omission standard practice”. The use of the ‘failed state’ tag ‘ by Howard and Downer was not by chance but designed to achieve a specific ulterior objective.
Since terrorism was upmost in people’s minds and was often associated with failed states, in the international arena the image of PNG would be likened to those states. This would provide justification for cooperative interventionism in the eyes of allies should sovereignty issues arise.
Thus PNG began to be referred to as a failed or failing state and the nomenclature became widely accepted by many commentators, journalists and academics who had never been in PNG or whose only experience was a couple of days in a fancy hotel in Port Moresby.
Sadly there are also people within PNG’s educated elite who have fallen for this political gimmick.