Indigenes or citizens in Papua New Guinea?

Savage Minds

Despite the fact that it is my area of expertise, I do not normally comment on the mining and petroleum scene in Papua New Guinea. Despite having studied the industry for more than a decade, I will never know as much as my ‘informants’ — the people actually living with mines and oil projects. This is particularly true for current affairs, when the ‘real story’ of what happens on the ground is often much different from reports circulated by the press. Nevertheless, I do feel compelled to say something about the shameful events that have recently taken place in country — and the way they are being received by the anthropological community and others.
The government of Papua New Guinea recently amended the country’s Environment Act to make it illegal to appeal permitting decisions made by the minister. The immediate reason for this change is clear — the national government relies on large, internationally-financed resource developments to fund it budget. The Ramu NiCo mine in Madang province, majority-owned and operated by a Chinese firm, is planning to dispose of tailings by dumping them into the sea — a move that many, many people in Madang oppose. When anti-mining groups got an injunction against the mine, the government responded by making it illegal to oppose their decision to let the mine go ahead.
The issue is actually more general than this. Landowner groups and others who oppose mining and petroleum developments often challenge environmental permitting in order to pressure or halt operations. Mining leases are rarely reviewed and renewal is largely a matter of course, but water use permits (for toilets on site, for instance) more regularly come up for renewal — and miners need toilets. The Ramu case is just one instance of a much broader tactic used by people opposed to mining.
The big picture is that Papua New Guinea is torn — between politicians in Moresby who are want to use mining revenue to enrich and develop the nation, and grassroots Papua New Guineans who don’t see why they should suffer so others can gain the benefits of mining revenue. When Papua New Guinea became independent in 1975, the country inherited the benevolent paternalism and technocratic confidence of its colonizers — the first generation of educated Papua New Guineans were going to lead the country forward and help develop the grassroots in the name of national progress. Now the worm has turned and Papua New Guinea’s leadership seems to see Papua New Guineans as ungrateful and stubborn — after a peaceful protest organized by Transparency International outside parliament, the prime minister called those who participated “satanic and mentally insane”.
In an article I am working on right now, I examine newspaper coverage of these issues in order to understand contemporary transformations of nationalism in Papua New Guinea. My conclusion – which at this rate will not be published until my kids head off to college! — is that Papua New Guinea is torn between two different idioms to express this conflict between grassroots and the political elite. Within the country, the language used is that of the nation: ironically, the nation-making project of the independence period was so successful that many Papua New Guineans now see themselves as uniting against the state in the name of national unity. Externally, however, the language used to describe these conflicts is that of indigeneity. Coverage of recent events by a UN-sponsored website, for instance, describe the problem as one in which “indigenous people lose out on land rights”.
What I do not say in the article — since it is all scholarly and everything — is how incredibly disappointed I am in the government of Papua New Guinea. Democracy is not fun or easy, and the paralysis induced by lawsuits can be a huge pain, but the solution to these problems is not and can never be removing people’s rights to participate in the processes that will affect their lives. This is particularly true in the case of Ramu, where environmental concerns are justified and deeply felt, not simply cynically used as tactics in a political process. Transparency, accountability, and participation are all incredibly stupid and ridiculously ineffective ways to run a government — but we chose them because democracies put people’s rights ahead of convenience or practicality.
Additionally, I am very uncomfortable with labelling this as a conflict featuring ‘indigenous’ people — despite the fact that I know appealing to international forces using the idiom of indigeneity is often yields useful leverage in political contests like the one at Ramu. But in fact Papua New Guineans are indigenous only in the (often oppressive) eco-authentic sense: they are brown, they have ‘exotic’ languages and cultures, and they live in a place full of endangered species of animals. They are not, however, ‘indigenous’ in the much more important political-emancipatory sense: there is (and was) no real settler colonialism in Papua New Guinea, no large scale expropriation of land, and not even an ethnic majority to oppress minority groups. Despite how easy it is for outsiders to shoe horn Papua New Guinea into popular and easy paradigms of indigenous struggle, such a construal of Papua New Guinea’s story does not do the country justice.
Eco-authentic definitions of indigeneity perpetuate stereotypes of Papua New Guinea as savage backward by giving them a positive moral valuation. They obscure from sight the large number of educated Papua New Guineans, and they stigmatize Papua New Guineans’ decisions to take part in urban, cash-based economies as an abandonment of precious indigenous heritage.
Most importantly, however, these idioms tempt Papua New Guineans to give up on their country and its government. With corruption in the civil servant rampant and elections in Papua New Guinea too-often a mere shadow of genuine democracy (there is video footage of political henchmen unapologetically — and literally — stuffing ballot boxes), it is easy these days for Papua New Guineans to opt out, to declare the government an illegitimate opponent of the grassroots rather than to hold it to account as the voice of the people. Perhaps they do not need the ‘indigenous alternative’s’ help in abandoning any conception of state legitimacy. But I think Papua New Guinea loses something important when it gives up on its dreams of independence and self-government. Even though it may require people to dig deep, I would urge Papua New Guineans not to give up on the light at the end of the tunnel, and to insist that they are citizens, not indigenes, of Papua New Guinea.

Comments

  1. Oh stop it, Terry. Government officials don't want mining revenues to develop the nation. They want mining revenues to have more money in Waigani to dip their little fingers into and steal. Haven't you learnt anything from the resent exposes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why should anyone have to SUFFER for the greater good. You state that as if it is a given, a reality of life not worth challenging. "Suffering" is far worse than being inconvenienced or sacrificing as is more true in countries where people must give up their land for the greater good. In those countries, people are highly mobile, they mix, land is bought and sold readily. None of this is true in PNG.

    The model being imposed on PNG by which some people (always villagers) must suffer so that others (nearly always towns people) can benefit has enough sad results in the so-called developed countries. The scenario fits our melanesian culture and traditions even less. When the people of Panguna lost their land, they suffered. They cannot just pick up and leave like Europeans are accustomed to doing. They either are yanked out of their ples, destroying their cultural roots as they are resettled elsewhere, or they remain in place and are thus exposed to all the horrors of seeing their land polluted if not destroyed.

    In NO society should anyone have to suffer like this for the greater good. It is not a mark of being advanced or 'civilised' to allow such a conditiono. If the situation exists, then something is wrong and the rules of that society should change.

    PNG has enough challenges with our own current cultural norms, such as domestic violence, to deal with without needing the additional, massive complications imposed by foreign resource developers.

    Finally, let's put an end right now to the notion that "the people support these resource development projects" in PNG. No, it's not the people. It is a few conmen from the villages, often in combination with town wantoks who push the whole agenda. These people either want to escape village life or they longer depend upon the land and thus have lost respect for it. It is these two groups of landowners, both out for their personal financial gains rather than the betterment of their people in the village, who combine to lobby the majority of villagers to put up or shut up, sign the agreements and welcome the 'development'. Once the resource royalties start flowing in, it is these same individuals who invariably steal money meant for others in the community, shoot off to Moresby, and squander away all the wealth of the land, some of it non-renewable and never to be replaced, on wine, women and gambling in the Ela Beach, Crowne Plaza, or another of Moresby's hotels. They fritter away what is often an opportunity of eternity. The village people suffer. To what end?

    Nothing of this common, sad scenario argues that we should fund Waigani's pockets with the wealth of the people as we do through mining, logging, even fisheries projects. If the government was using these funds in useful ways, at least their would be a counterargument. But it does not. The government wastes and squanders, paying attention to the towns but not the villages, offering everyone an illusion of health care (misdiagnoses are the norm) and a piss-poor government education that prepares no one very well for any kind of advocation (witness the government's invitation to Fijians, Bangladesh citizens, and Australians for fast-track jobs with the LNG project). Government workers rarely work, offices are empty. The whole ambiance is that of squandering money, spending as if there is no tomorrow. There is no motivation in Waigani to develop the nation except in the abstract. That attitude will never change until government workers become fearful of keeping their jobs, and the fat cats above them are replaced. Until then, let's not even entertain supporting that rotten to the core establishment. Instead, let's direct our efforts to empowering the village people so that they once more (as they once always did) bring their conmen wantoks back under control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. thanks for the post and for provoking a comment in me for the first time on savage minds. I understand why you want to critique a globalizing, even exotifying version of the indigenous. But your critique actually reads to me a little like that of the Kupers, and Browns of our discipline. The whole point of the passing of the UN Declaration, for all its faults, was to align indigenous rights with those of citizens and frame indigeneity within a universal human rights frame. Remember, no matter what you think of the exceptionalist claims underpinning the category of the indigenous, these are people who have been denied the full democratic process (e.g. self determination) for most of the twentieth century in most places (including PNG). The whole reason why indigineity is galvanized in contexts like PNG, and Vanuatu (where the situation is different because there isn’t resource extraction of this scale and competition) is as a critique of the inherited post-colonial democracy which so often does not seem to work in favour of the “people”. they connect up with settler-colonial indigenous movements, but the term has expanded in other directions. I think it’s a grass-roots political movement that aims to rethink democracy in very interesting way. In this way, the discourse of the indigenous is a vital political strategy which uses identity politics as a very real filter for political critique and activism. to align indigeneity with “brown exotic people” (to condense your comment above), diminishes the achievements and work of indigenous people who are not necessarily that visibly brown (Sami, metis, some Maori, the list goes on) to rethink alternative structures of governance and community participation. I suppose I’m saying that there are problems with the category but also that there are some very real political issues and that the global indigenous rights movement is not, intrinsically, a “bad” thing. Despite its problems, ultimately I think it works for the good! Take away the tools of indigeneity and what voice do people have to combat the mines? I would be genuinely interested in your take on this? What other strategies are effective in the face of a govt that just changes the laws when law works against it?

    Indigenous resistance is incredibly effective within the global media, galvanizing money from international organizations and so forth. Just because it may be strategic doesn’t make it inauthentic by definition. Once more, if we start with the authenticity thing, we end up in a difficult and unproductive place. Lets look at this as a political movement and critique of democracy, which lets face it, doesn’t always get us into good places…especially in regards to the environment. In Vanuatu, some people consider the state to be indigenous and the same argument could be made in PNG – you don’t have to read this as indigenous against the state, you could also see the discourse of indigeneity as a way to combat the pressures of global capital interest, which, despite independence, remain as influential as ever in government.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is quite obvious that the second blogger is frustrated (like many of us) on the inability of translating resource wealth to equate the delivery of services to our people.

    Yes, it’s been a hard lesson for our people. They have had to endure environment destruction, cultural degradation and the tragedies of social ills such as crime and AIDS. They have suffered from mismanagement of their chiefs squandering lifestyle. They have fought amongst themselves for the benefits and we know many have died in this tragedy.

    But wantoks, this is the “growing pain” of development. You simply cannot avoid these costs; they are part of our progression. What is perhaps positive and this is where I have great divergence with the writer, is that his/her comments do lack appreciation on the positive developments landowners have done in the past 30 years.

    The MRDC that currently manages and assists 9 landowning companies have become one of the greatest success stories in PNG. What’s more amazing is that the MRDC and its companies are wholly owned and in most cases, operated by PNGns. That’s right, our people. From all the suffering the landowners have endured, their sons and daughters have prevailed in gaining higher degrees around the world to manage their resources.

    These companies have acquired and invested in major service sectors of real estate, construction, banking, equities, aviation, health and education services, catering, insurance etc… Their assets have been in positive growth for many years and they are indeed leading the diversification of our economy from natural resource based to a services economy. It is a resounding success in that many PNGns are benefiting from their ventures. Accountants, insurers, engineers, pilots’ doctors, chefs and many more are employed by them. The impressive fact is that that it is not only landowners but other PNGns as well.

    They have also ventured into providing technical assistance to other landowning companies in other resource projects. Some landowners in the forestry sectors have consulted MRDC on investment management and have signed JV agreements with some of their construction and catering companies. They have also actively negotiated major contracts in the LNG project. Most notably, the acquisition of Heavy Lift to operate cargo to Komo and other sites.

    They are indeed leaders of intra investment in PNG and they are far more aggressive and ambitious than international investors. They are a growth sector and it’s only fair they are recognized for their contribution to PNG.
    I know it’s hard for many of us to fathom landowners been intelligent because we all maintain a stereotype perspective of their Stone Age lifestyle who are vulnerable and displaced in their own land. But guys, they are fast becoming our Wall Street hawks and they’re doing this with so much drive and ambition.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please free to leave comments.

Popular posts from this blog

MARAPE & PAITA ABOUT TO SIGN AWAY PNG GOLD

HIGHLANDS FRAUD F*CKS RUNNING GOVERNMENT AGENCY,,,

Connect PNG Unveiled: A Tale of Ambition, Scandal, and the Quest for Accountability

James Marape's Missteps Openly Exposed at Australian Forum

PNG GOVERNMENT MINISTER IN PORN VIDEO

James Marape: A Complex Political Trajectory

IS THE PM'S WIFE INVOLVED IN LAND GRABBING?