No abstract

The Australian government's 5 June 2003 decision to lead a Pacific Islands Forum (pif) regional intervention into Solomon Islands marked a dramatic change in Australian policy toward the Solomons in particular and the Pacific Islands region in general. It demonstrated Canberra's willingness to play a more assertive role in the domestic affairs of Island countries. Prior to June 2003, Australian authorities had ruled out any possibility of deploying military or police to help Solomon Islands subdue the civil unrest that has affected the country since late 1998 and they had ignored requests for assistance from two previous Solomon Islands prime ministers. Canberra's June 2003 decision reflected a fundamental change in the global security environment following the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States; it also illustrates the perception (held particularly by some western countries) that international terrorism has made it difficult to separate external and internal security. To understand the change in Australia's policy, one must examine not only events in Solomon Islands but also the nature of Anglo-American security policies, as well as Australia's collaboration with the United States and Great Britain in the war against international terrorism. Anglo-American security discourse in turn has influenced the approach of the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (ramsi), especially its focus on strengthening a "failed" state to prevent terrorists from manipulating it and threatening Australia. The state is important in the context of global security. But the effort to build sustainable peace in Solomon Islands raises other questions: Who controls the state? Can a strong state apparatus alone create a stable nation committed to a shared identity and mission among its peoples? And is the state the only institution that can facilitate peace building and national reconstruction?

In this essay, I examine the dominant representations of Melanesia as a place and Melanesians as peoples and how these have influenced understandings of and responses to contemporary developments in this subregion. I begin with an overview of the discourses that influenced the mapping of Oceania and the negative representations of Melanesians. These have, in turn, framed and influenced discourses about and relationships with Melanesia and Melanesians, including Melanesian perceptions of themselves and their relationships with others. Against this background, my focus is on how Melanesians have recently appropriated the term “Melanesia” and are using it in positive, empowering, and progressive ways to mobilize, redefine, and re-present themselves. In the process, they have constructed a pan-Melanesian identity that embraces and celebrates the subregion’s ethno-linguistic and cultural diversities. This is manifested through the concepts of “the Melanesian Way” and “wantokism,” intergovernmental organizations such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group, the arts, and popular culture. Through all of these, Melanesians are “altering” the native and “re-presenting” what might be called the “ignoble savage.” This process and discourse constitute “Melanesianism.”

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract