A Return To Confidence

Robert A. Underwood

When one travels around the Pacific, there are two themes that emerge in almost every discussion about politics. The themes center on the viability of self-governance and the sustainability of the local economy. No island is immune from this discussion. It matters little whether they are independent or a territory or even if they receive significant financial subsidies from large countries. Nearly everywhere we go in the Pacific, questions arise about the capacity of Pacific Islanders to run their own governments. They need outside help and guidance.

Some observers see this as a kind of "recolonization" of the Pacific psyche. For the last few decades of the 20th century, Pacific Islanders became conscious of their new and enhanced role in their own lives as small islands became independent and the territories arrived at new structures. Building new nations, making a break with the colonial past and awakening to a new consciousness about Pacific Islands generated optimism and hope.

The experiences of the new millennium have been anything but positive in many islands. Coups in Fiji and questions about the viability of island nations such as Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have led to the use of "cooperative intervention" in the latter.

In earlier decades, this would be seen as neocolonialism. Never ending corruption investigations and the appeal to outside authorities is a major part of the political dialogue in Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa. The new compacts with the Freely Associated States have U.S. officials overseeing American dollars in a more intrusive way than even in U.S. territories.

It is a gross exaggeration to see all of these conditions as being identical or similar. For example, it is inaccurate to say that Guam and the Solomon Islands share similar questions because questions arise about the capacity for self-government and economic trends dominate political conversation. No military force has arrived on Guam's shores to ensure civil authority and there is no real comparison between the standard of living in the heavily subsidized U.S. and French territories and everyone else. We would be comparing apples to oranges.

But both are fruits and, in today's discussion, they have the same bitter taste. Everywhere the discussion seems to focus on the inabilities of Pacific Islanders to be truly autonomous or independent. Is self-governance really possible? Are Pacific Island governments viable? Are Pacific Islanders equipped for governance or do traditions keep them from modern day participation in stable governments?

I don't think these are legitimate questions. There are no other options than autonomy or independence if Pacific Islanders are to continue to exist. No form of governance can be as satisfying or conducive to good order if the adjective "self" does not precede it. There is no room for the recolonization of the Pacific reality. Yet, we have lost that sense of confidence that animated so much of Pacific politics in the last century and we must recover it.

This new optimism cannot be a false or superficial confidence in mythical "Pacific Ways" or be based on stereotypic views of "exotic island cultures" that dominate how we market ourselves. Our new confidence must be realistically based on our common humanity with the rest of the world and our unique experience as inhabitants of the largest water continent on the planet. We must know our limitations and acknowledge our need for outside assistance. But assistance is different from intervention and cooperation is different from guidance.

Pacific Islanders have a responsibility to be caretakers of the land and waters that sustain them and to be mindful of the real obstacles to the continuity of our existence as islanders. Our common responsibility for future generations of Tongans, Fijians, Chamorros, Pohnpeians and Ni Vanuatu demands that we revive that confidence now.

The writer is the former Guam delegate to the U.S. Congress.