On October 15, more than 130 Solomon Islanders — representing the rival militia of the Malaita Eagle Force and Guadalcanal's Isatabu Freedom Movement, as well as the central Solomon Islands government and the Malaita and Guadalcanal provincial governments — signed an agreement to end the "ethnic" conflict on the main Solomons island of Guadalcanal.
Up to 100 unarmed Australian and New Zealand troops may be sent to the Solomons as part of an "International Peace Monitoring Team". The troops will supervise the peace process, which includes the surrender of arms and the demobilisation of militia members, an amnesty for militants and an inquiry into the conflict over land between indigenous Guadalcanalans and Malaitan settlers. A commission will be established to consider constitutional change to give greater autonomy to the Solomons' nine provinces.
The deal contains vague promises of "improved health and education services" and "fast-tracked economic development" for the Malaita and Guadalcanal provinces. Militia members are to be repatriated to their home provinces and a program of public works "in conjunction with non-government organisations" will begin within three months to provide employment.
The seeds of the conflict between the Guadalcanal customary landowners and Malaitan settlers lie in the distorted capitalist development of the Solomons imposed first by British colonialism, and later by British, US and Australian imperialism.
British and Australian plantation owners, the US military during the second world war and the British colonial administration until 1978 mainly employed people from Malaita, who settled around the capital Honiara, where most economic development became concentrated. Guadalcanalan land — which is owned in common — near the capital was privatised without consultation and with little compensation.
The rest of Guadalcanal and Malaita remained largely undeveloped, fuelling migration to the main island and resentment among the majority of Guadalcanalans who were excluded from the work force because of their traditional ties to the land.
The British groomed the small layer of Malaitans and other settlers who dominated the professions, the political class and local business, to take over the reins at independence.
The Guadalcanal people have reacted to their economic and political marginalisation by directing their anger, not at the tiny Honiara elite, but at all Solomon Islanders of Malaitan descent. Opportunist politicians have exploited this ethnic chauvinism.
While the end of the fratricidal conflict in the Solomons is to be welcomed, the peace deal is likely to bring only a short-term respite. The deal's provisions bear the hallmarks of the pressure applied by an Australian government that seeks regional "stability" (maintenance of the status quo) above all else. It fails to provide what could end the Solomons conflict — genuine economic and social development.
The Australian government should provide the Solomons with massive amounts of development aid, with no strings attached, so that all Solomon Islanders can share in the development of their country. It is about time that Australia returned the huge amounts of wealth that have been extracted by Australian big business from the Solomons' people, and those of the other Pacific countries, since the turn of the 20th century.
Only a fraction of Australia's annual $11-13 billion military budget — which is used to ensure that the Pacific islands remain part of Australian imperialism's sphere of influence — would seriously redress the uneven economic and social development between Honiara and the rest of Guadalcanal and Malaita that underlies the Solomons conflict.
A report buried in the October 18 Sydney Morning Herald revealed that federal cabinet has approved a $500 million boost in defence spending for the financial year. That is the equivalent of about two-thirds of the Solomons' annual gross domestic product. If the Australian government was really serious about promoting "regional stability", it would boost its aid to the poor Pacific countries by such amounts, rather than the military budget.