kia anei nga korero o nga kiia a te pririmia o ahiteiria
Australian Prime Minister John Howard has revealed the realmotivations behind his government's interventions in the South Pacificand foreshadowed permanent military operations there. Speaking to theSunday Telegraph on December 31, Howard acknowledged his concern thathostile rival powers, such as China and Taiwan, could "take over" theregion. The prime minister also pointed to Washington's expectationthat Australia would take responsibility for maintaining "stability"in an area US imperialism regards as its own sphere of influence.Howard's comments are intended to signal that his government will notback down in the face of mounting hostility to its activities in theregion, and will be prepared to utilise military force to suppressopposition. The Telegraph interview confirms that Australia's recentinterventions in East Timor, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea(PNG), Tonga, and Fiji are only the beginning of its long-term plans.Howard's Pacific agenda is marked by recklessness, arrogance andcomplete disregard for international law. The government—and behind itthe entire Australian political establishment— aims to politically andeconomically restructure the South Pacific in line with the strategicand economic interests of Australian imperialism. National sovereigntyand the basic right of ordinary Pacific Islanders to determine theirown future are regarded by Howard and his accomplices as totallyirrelevant.The emergence of Australian neo-colonialism in the Pacific occurs amidthe eruption of US militarism and the re-surfacing of bitterinter-imperialist antagonisms, comparable to those that dominatedworld politics in the 1930s. Under the banner of the "global war onterror", the Bush administration has torn up international law andconventions, embarking on pre-emptive wars of aggression in an attemptto overcome America's declining economic status relative to itsEuropean and Asian rivals. Bush's recently announced escalation of theIraq war, and its likely extension to Iran and Syria, underscores thespeed with which the American ruling elite is resorting to outrightcriminality and truly barbaric methods of rule.No part of the globe—including the South Pacific—is immune from theconsequences of the breakdown of the international order establishedafter World War II. Howard pointedly warned the Australian people toget used to permanent military deployment throughout the region. "Thisis a long, hard road, and it will need great patience andunderstanding by the Australian public to live with, probably for aperiod of 10 to 20 years, with a two-steps-forward, one-step-backwardsituation," he told the Telegraph."I can understand Australians saying, `Well, look, let's forget aboutit. Leave them to their own devices; don't waste any money', butthat's the wrong approach to take, because they will fall into thehands of the evil from other countries and we have to work very hard,"he continued. "Certainly there's a bit of a battle between China andTaiwan... If we just throw up our arms and go away, you'll end up withthese places being taken over by interests that are very hostile toAustralia."Notably, the prime minister made little effort to repeat hisgovernment's usual justifications for Australia's neo-colonialinterventions: rescuing "failed states", preventing terrorism,providing humanitarian aid, combating corruption, promoting democracyand the rule of law, etc. That he set these aside, pointing instead tothe "evil" from Australia's rivals, indicates his alarm at the growingopposition to Canberra's manoeuvres among ordinary Pacific Islandersand the move by sections of the political elites in East Timor, PapuaNew Guinea, Solomon Islands and Fiji towards other powers, especiallyChina, as a counterbalance to Australian demands and dominance.China's growing influenceThe South Pacific has long been an arena for great power rivalriesbetween the old colonial powers, France, Britain, and Australia, aswell as Asian countries including Japan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Therising economic and diplomatic influence of China, however, is a newand profoundly destabilising factor that is challenginglong-established relations. While Howard describes the South Pacificas Australia's "special patch", Beijing now has substantial economicinterests in the region, and is seeking to develop its geo-strategicposition.The Chinese and Taiwanese governments are competing to securediplomatic recognition from the various Pacific states. Of the 24countries in the world that recognise Taipei over Beijing, six are inthe Pacific (Palau, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, SolomonIslands, and Kiribati). Governments in the region have played off thetwo powers against each other, granting diplomatic recognition andsupport in the UN General Assembly to the highest bidder in terms ofaid and trade agreements. Both China and Taiwan have been accused ofbribing favoured politicians and factions to ensure the installationof friendly governments.China's interest in the South Pacific, however, goes far beyond thequestion of Taiwan and the "one China" policy. An estimated 3,000state-owned and private Chinese companies operate in the region,including in mining, logging, fishing, and tourism. Economic ties arerapidly developing. Bilateral trade between China and Papua NewGuinea, the South Pacific's largest economy (and until 1975Australia's colony), has increased from $A5 million in 1991, to $A233million in 2000, to $A540 million in 2005.The region's natural resources now help fuel China's ongoingindustrial expansion. Papua New Guinea, for example, was China'ssecond largest source of logs in 2005, behind Russia, and 80 percentof PNG's log exports go to China. One of China's largest overseasinvestment projects, the Ramu nickel mine, is located in PNG. Openedlate last year, the mine was developed by China's MetallurgicalConstruction Corp after Beijing reached a $US915 million financingagreement with the PNG government. The investment was directly drivenby a shortage of raw materials for China's stainless steel industry.The Beijing bureaucracy is investing considerable resources in itsdiplomatic relations with the South Pacific countries. China now hasmore diplomats in the region than any other country, and Pacificleaders visiting Beijing are granted lavish receptions. While thereare no official figures available, Chinese aid to the South Pacific isestimated at more than $A300 million annually—a sum nearly twice thetotal gross domestic product of the three poorest nations in theregion (Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu). Much of Beijing's aid is devotedto prominent "prestige projects"—sports stadiums in Fiji and Samoa, aparliamentary complex in Vanuatu, and new foreign ministryheadquarters in PNG—and unlike Australian aid money, Chinese fundingdoes not require Pacific governments to fulfil "good governance" andother obligations.Several American and Australian foreign policy analysts have warned ofthe long-term strategic implications of China's growing influence. InWorld War II, the US was forced to wage a series of bloody battlesagainst the Japanese to secure control of the Pacific Islands. Afterthe war, US authorities considered the entire Pacific Ocean to be an"American lake". In partnership with allies such as Australia,Washington's intent was to maintain exclusive control and prevent anypotential adversaries from gaining a foothold in the strategicallysignificant region.Stratfor, an American security and intelligence think tank, has warnedthat, "China's need to counter American power—combined with Beijing'slimited naval capability—makes a Pacific Island strategy as natural tothem as it was to the Japanese decades ago." Stratfor raised theprospect of Beijing attempting to counter US naval dominance bystationing missiles in South Pacific countries. "While Beijing isunlikely to deploy forces to the South Pacific soon, its relationshipswith the island nations offer it a strategic tool to counter US navalpower in Asia. The Chinese military has paid great attention to thedevelopment of shore-based anti-ship missile systems it eventuallycould deploy throughout the South Pacific and Southeast Asia."The US has already made clear its unwillingness to allow any erosionof its military position in the Pacific. Washington paid considerableattention to a satellite tracking station constructed by the Chinesegovernment in Kiribati in 1997. While Beijing insisted the station wasonly used for scientific and commercial purposes, the Bushadministration alleged that it was being used to develop a Chinesespace warfare program and also spy on the US military's missiletesting facility in the neighbouring Marshall Islands. This facilityis vital for the development of the Bush administration' s StrategicDefence Initiative ("Son of Star Wars") missile defence system. TheChinese tracking station was shut down in 2004 after Kiribati'sgovernment recognised Taipei. Although never proven, Washington waswidely believed to have been involved in behind-the-scenes manoeuvresencouraging the diplomatic switch.Canberra as Washington's proxyCanberra fears Beijing's growing influence in the South Pacific for anumber of reasons. China's increasing commercial ties—particularly itsaggressive pursuit of oil, gas, minerals, timber, and fishinginvestments—threaten s corporate Australia's dominant position in theexploitation of the region's natural resources. Canberra's foreignpolicy establishment is also hostile to Beijing and Taipei's aid andtrade rivalry, which it considers a threat to its efforts to cultivatecompliant pro-Australian regimes in the Pacific states.Canberra's alliance with Washington is a critical factor shaping theHoward government's response to Beijing's entry into the SouthPacific. Bush has previously designated China as a "strategiccompetitor" and looks to Canberra to defend US interests in the region.In the Sunday Telegraph interview, Howard explained, "That's why we'vebeen increasing the size of our army. It's all designed to give us thecapacity to deal with things in the region. And this is ourresponsibility. The rest of the world looks to us to do it, and themore we are able to play our part effectively here, the less islegitimately expected of us in other parts of the world. That's not tosay we won't do other things, but if we can have an effectivestabilising role in the whole Pacific region, I can assure you that ismightily important to the Americans and to our allies in Europe."The Howard government has unconditionally backed the Bushadministration' s criminal interventions in the Middle East,dispatching troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq. In return, Washingtonhas provided critical backing for Canberra's operations in thePacific. Underlying this quid pro quo is a convergence of interests,with the Howard government advancing its agenda in the region underthe aegis of US imperialism' s claim to global hegemony. This is theessence of Howard's self-proclaimed role of "deputy sheriff".The Bush administration' s so-called war on terror and its doctrine of"regime change" and pre-emptive war were the basis for the Howardgovernment's takeover of the Solomon Islands in 2003, when itdispatched hundreds of soldiers, police, and bureaucratic personnel tothe tiny country. The Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands(RAMSI) was subsequently hailed as a model military-led interventioninto a "failing state" that could be applied throughout the region.When announcing the expansion of the Australian military last year,Howard named Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Vanuatu as further potentialtargets.The Bush administration has repeatedly expressed its appreciation ofCanberra's role. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked lastmonth whether she was disappointed that Australian troops were notplaying a more front-line role in Iraq. "I would never use the worddisappointment in the same line with Australia," she replied. "This isa country that, not only in Iraq, not only in Afghanistan, not only intsunami relief, not only in support for all that we're doing in theAsia Pacific, but also in taking really primary responsibility inplaces like the Solomon Islands, Fiji, East Timor, has put itsresources and its assets at the disposal of peace and security in theregion, and in the spread of freedom. And I just can't think of abetter friend and a better ally."Nevertheless, Canberra and Washington do not share identical positionsin relation to Beijing. The Howard government has generally adopted aless belligerent stance than the Bush administration. This is due tothe Australian ruling elite's interest in maintaining its lucrativeexports of natural resources such as gas, gold, iron ore, coal, andaluminium to China. These exports have been crucial for Australia'seconomic growth—and Howard's electoral successes—over the past decade.Canberra is currently seeking to negotiate a free trade deal with Beijing.Despite these differences, the Howard government and the Bushadministration agree that no potentially hostile power can bepermitted to advance its strategic and economic interests in the SouthPacific at their expense. That Howard abandoned his usual caution inthe Telegraph interview and identified China as a rival indicates justhow much is at stake.The struggle against neo-colonialismThe Howard government's vision of neo-colonial military-ledinterventions in the Pacific lasting 10 to 20 years presents enormousdangers to working people and youth in the Pacific Islands and inAustralia.It will inevitably produce a catastrophe. The population of thePacific Islands have suffered a long history of British, French,German, and Australian colonial domination. It is impossible that suchforms of rule can be peacefully imposed in the twenty-first century.Pacific Islanders have every right to resist Canberra's machinationsand it is only a matter of time before Australian soldiers and policeare targeted. The initial stages of such a struggle are alreadyevident in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Canberra will respondby escalating its violence and repression, unleashing military forceon a scale not seen in the Pacific since World War II.The domestic repercussions will be no less calamitous. Democraticrights are already under sustained attack, and this will intensify asopposition to Howard's agenda mounts. Bourgeois democratic norms andbasic legal and constitutional rights are fundamentally incompatiblewith a state of permanent military mobilisation. In its efforts toforge a constituency for war and divert mounting social tensions, thepolitical and media establishment is pumping out the poison ofnational chauvinism—involving the incitement of anti-Muslim racism andpromotion of "Australian values"—and glorifying militarism.Young people face a future of being dragooned into the armed forces ascannon fodder for military interventions. School children are alreadybeing encouraged to enlist in the cadets and then the army. The Howardgovernment has introduced a military "gap year" for those who havefinished school but do not wish to immediately begin their tertiaryeducation. Last year Howard announced that an additional $10 billionwill be spent to recruit another 2,600 troops, on top of a 1,500increase announced in December 2005, bringing the total increase to 20percent. Half a billion dollars has also been committed for the neardoubling of the Australian Federal Police's "international deploymentgroup"—an outfit focussed on operations in the South Pacific.Inevitably, these initiatives will soon be accompanied by moves tointroduce conscription.The billions of dollars in public funds being poured into the militaryrepresent a massive social misappropriation. While funding for publichealth and education, social infrastructure, and welfare and socialservices have all been gutted by successive state and federalgovernments, "defence" spending has skyrocketed. Australia is now theeleventh largest military spender in the world and ranks ahead ofcountries such as Israel, Turkey, Brazil, and Iran.The political starting point for a struggle against the turn tomilitarism and war is the recognition that not a single element withinthe Australian political and media establishment opposes any aspect ofthe Howard government's neo-colonial operations in the South Pacific.To the extent that the opposition Labor Party and its new leader KevinRudd have any criticisms of the government, they are all from theright. Rudd accuses Howard of incompetence for allowing an "arc ofinstability" to develop, and advocates greater tact in diplomaticefforts aimed at browbeating Australia's neighbours. Like the Greens,Labor calls for the redeployment of Australian troops from Iraq to theSouth Pacific in order to bolster operations in East Timor, theSolomons, and elsewhere.The unanimous defence by Labor and the minor parties of Australia'sPacific interventions ultimately derives from their support for theprofit system and the nation-state system upon which it rests.Opposition to war, militarism, and neo-colonialism can only beadvanced on an independent socialist and internationalist basis.The Socialist Equality Party (SEP) will be standing candidates in theNew South Wales state election scheduled for March 24 and the federalelection due later this year. Our campaign will be focussed onbuilding a mass movement of the working class against militarism andwar—in Iraq, the Middle East and in the South Pacific. We demand theimmediate withdrawal of all US, Australian and other troops from Iraqand Afghanistan, and all Australian soldiers, police, and bureaucraticpersonnel from the Pacific. We demand an end to all those regional"aid" programs that function as nothing more than international slushfunds for Australian corporations.Instead, billions of dollars in genuine aid must be spent to lift thePacific Islands out of poverty and undo the terrible legacy ofcolonialism and the damage still being inflicted by InternationalMonetary Fund and World Bank programs. |
