A thought provoking article for me. Just what is the right policy I wonder? I am not sure that we would gain much from party politicising the issue, or listening too intently to those who have Rousseau like views about the nature of humankind and the best conditions for development.
The analogy of parents raising adolescents strikes me as somewhat applicable (forgive me if this is patronising). How to best encourage the kids to become responsible adults, good example, firm discipline, benevolent wishes, lots of support and encouragement, and readiness to try again when everything falls into a screaming heap.
I think Mr Howard and Mr Downer are doing not too badly, but we should watch and be ready to change tack when necessary and not be bound by any doctrine.

Runner,
"has he done anything right in his life" no mate not yet but at 67, he is nearing the age when he will finally do the right thing.

What are the roots of the problem? Poverty and social injustice? A lack of economic independence? Perhaps we should invite the Cubans for a spot of nation building.

I don't mind that we send the police or military to restore order and train the locals. Apart from the human rights aspects it is bound to be cheaper than dealing with a flood of boat people in years to come. And surely you need order to tackle the root of the problem.

Newly independent countries are bound to be hyper sensitive about their sovereignty so we need to use a little tact when bullying them around.

Shahar Hameiri’s concise yet cogent article exposes the usually obscured politico-economic structures and neo-liberal agenda being imposed upon untold numbers of ‘ordinary’ indigenous peoples of ‘developing countries’ across the Asia-Pacific region said to be ‘in crisis’.

(Mis-)led by cabals of various combinations of local monarchs, self-styled Presidents or the like, expatriate ethnic minorities renowned for their entrepreneurial money-making business codes and connections, plus foreign ‘investors’ and their managerial representatives, both the natural and cultural heritage of their homelands, as well as their labour are ‘targeted’ for the ‘competitive advantages’ they present to these predatory ‘leaders’ of their ‘underdeveloped/developing’ state.

Portrayed by our duplicitous political and bureaucratic ‘leaders’ and an obsequious media as ‘failed states’, these once harmonious and ‘idyllic’ societies are today seriously divided along ethnic and sometimes religious lines that tend to obfuscate the socio-economic class divisions extant. It is a combination of the gross exploitation of their natural environment and their labour and the resultant imbalances of wealth that give rise to rebellions, coups and attempted coups and, in the case of Bougainville for instance, armed resistance, insurrection and secession, often in the face of superior military force supplied by Western governments in order to protect the financial interests of national and trans-national corporations.

As Shahar correctly points out, various failures of the ‘free market’ ideological agenda across the region have caused our various ‘leaders’ to give much more attention to “building the capacity of state institutions for efficient governance” (whatever this latter term means), whilst attempting to shore up the market-friendly ‘reforms’ that have led to the significant social unrest and dislocation. His conclusion that “For as long as the fundamentals of the government’s development dogma remain unquestioned, Australian troops and police officers will continue to be deployed to Pacific states to put out spot-fires, without truly addressing the root of the problem” is most apposite.

There is no doubt that the Howard government is the worst government as it is the least credible government Australia has ever had the misfortune to experience. Because of this anything the Howard government does will be met with cynicism by Australians. Selective memory combined with a stream of constant negative policy has that effect.

In the Pacific Howard can never be right in every bodies eyes but what the government is doing is necessary and on this issue we have no right to harshly judge Howard. The stability of our neighbours is central to our own security and the wellbeing of all. Where there is martial dissent and a break down of governance then terrorists, drug cartels, arms traders and human traffickers have an opportunity to strengthen and create a base from which to launch their activities into neighbouring countries including Australia.

We are in fact all in this together and it is not an issue of colonial power. We are the richest nation in this region and our fortunes are partly derived from what we have extracted from our region. We can not morally turn our backs on suffering. Secondary aid such as NGO gathered charity is on the whole ineffective in combating poverty although can lessen the suffering of a relatively few individuals. Mass programs that can only be supplied by governments are the only real effective ways of dealing with large amounts of people. With climate change many Pacific islanders will by necessity be Australians and share the ancestry of our decedents with us. We should do what we can to lessen the inherited trauma (similar to the mess we have because of the Palestinian conflicts) that will be imported into our future.

Perhaps Howard’s rhetoric has been a bit too much akin to cowboy homoerotic war mongering and should be more careful not to drivel on like a shock jock about his moral piety and his military glory - but in the Pacific he is doing the right thing

gusi,
G'day mate how's the weather on Zircon today? This part of Earth is hot and sunny.