Free markets add to woes of Solomon Islands

Comment by GEOFF TUCKER*

Two years ago I spent three months in Honiara, the capital of Solomon Islands, trying to rescue a struggling non-government organisation. After some progress, the New Zealand aid funding was withdrawn, so the project was closed down.

I had previously worked in Honiara 27 years ago, so I noticed a few changes. For example, there were more people around - 167,000 in 1974 and 460,000 now. The "permanent and pensionable officer of the Colonial Service" was a key person in 1974 before independence; now ministerial advisers and consultants are the key people.

The Solomons were peaceful until about five years ago, when serious ethnic tension between two groups on the main island of Guadalcanal culminated in a coup. The Prime Minister was held hostage in his residence until Parliament agreed to a new government. The aftermath of the instability has led to the planned military intervention.

The Solomons had a well-established oil palm industry, a fishing industry in partnership with Taiyo, of Japan, and a goldmine. All these closed when the tension erupted and the foreign investors returned home, leaving behind a country nearly bankrupt.

Interestingly, a report published while I was there indicated that the Solomons-Japan joint fishing venture had not contributed substantially to the local economy during its 25-year operation.

Now we have a country that could only hold its general election in December 2001 because the total budget for the poll came from overseas, mainly Australia and New Zealand.

The Solomons are regarded by the United Nations as one of the "least developed countries", as are some other small nations in the South Pacific with fragile economies.

What happens to a country when it has nothing to export, where the "free market" means freedom for the larger countries to send their goods into a country that cannot really afford to buy them without borrowing or begging from some "development partner" overseas?

Where the whole economy depends on development aid from Taiwan, the European Union or Australia and New Zealand? Where the biggest spenders are not tourists but the consultants or advisers from the UN or the World Bank?

The countries of the Pacific Islands Forum, which include nations from Papua New Guinea in the west through to the Cooks in the east, are under pressure to open up their markets, not only to each other but to the more developed countries on their borders.

What will this mean? It could well mean, for example, that the Solomon Islands Brewery, employing about 100 people and producing enough for internal consumption, will be forced to lay off staff because beer brewed in Papua New Guinea by Australian brewers will be imported at a price it cannot match.

It means the country will not be able to develop its own industries and will be dependent on aid from its "development partners" from overseas. This economic dependence is equally true for the non-government organisations, which both Australia and New Zealand see as having an important role in the recovery of the country.

No non-government organisation is able to support itself from internal resources. They are all funded from overseas. And that includes the churches. The Anglican Church is dependent on the Melanesian Trust here in Auckland.

These least-developed nations are caught in a downward spiral of increasing dependency. It is all very depressing. It amazed me that the people were still able to laugh, play football, fill the churches and survive.

What then is the future of places such as the Solomons, Niue, Tuvalu and Kiribati? Do we let them die? Who was it that spelled out the lifeboat theory in regard to small and poor nations? You can only fit a certain number of people into a lifeboat - and you have to let the others go.

Surely there must be a different kind of development by which people are able to live off the land and the sea and where, with the right kind of help, they can improve their standard of living.

We have not found it yet in spite of all the reports written by World Bank and International Monetary Fund advisers, UN staff and NGOs.

The West continues to tell these least-developed countries that "in order to grow your economy you have to open up your markets to improve your lives and receive the benefits that we, in the more developed countries, have to offer".

Free trade really helps the poor, said President George W. Bush in Genoa not long ago. Go to any small nation in the South Pacific and you will see this is just not true. The level of dependency is increasing rapidly and there is no bright future in sight.

Economic activity in the Solomons is no greater than it was 27 years ago. In fact, with the ethnic tension it has become a whole lot worse. This deteriorating situation enables the economic gurus to say it is the islanders' own fault - if they were not fighting among themselves, they would be alright.

The gurus choose to forget that ethnic tension began when the country was a British protectorate, where divide and rule was the easiest way to keep the peace.

So is there hope for the Solomons? The people are still able to laugh and play and the churches are full. It must be said that the churches have played a positive role in the difficult times of the past few years. They managed to get people to stop pillaging villages, played an important part in the peace agreement, and are still doing great work to help people to live in harmony.

There are a few signs of hope but overall the situation does not look good. Probably the best thing we can do is to press for a different kind of development - a development that will give ordinary people in the villages prospects of improving their way of life without destroying it.

That would allow the Solomons people to choose the kind of economy they want, rather than having the free-market model imposed upon them by the World Bank-IMF or some "development partner".

That would recognise and build on the ethnic diversity that exists in a multilingual society and would use, in a sustainable way, the natural resources. It would be a development that did not a rely on a foreign investor who would take all the profits out of the country, and it would not require the Solomons to beg yet again for overseas loans or aid.

Is all that possible? I hope so. But it does need more than a military solution.

* Geoff Tucker is a community worker from Rothesay Bay.