permaculture

["John Schinnerer" <john@eco-living.net>]

Aloha,

> 1. Solomon Islands (where the national government will probably vote
> tomorrow to invite in a military-supported, mixed police force of
> Australians, New Zealanders and other Pacific islanders for peace
> enforcement to create the situation in which civil society can
> implement its agenda to end the crime and violence).

Well, I hope that sort of intervention works.

I'm also curious to know who "civil society" is, and how they are
designing culturally to end crime and violence beyond the immediate and
hopefully temporary imposition of rule of force.

Really what I'm interested in is self-determination for locals.  This can
happen under the protection of non-locals.  Historically however the
non-locals didn't facilitate self-determination for the locals.  They just
took over and imposed systems to get what they wanted.

> Tell me what is sad about people being free from violence and having
> access to essential services such as medical and educational services
> (both of which have virtually ceased in the Solomon Islands due to the
> internal security situation)?

Nothing is sad about that.  What I think is sad is the historical patterns
that got the situation to this point.

The persecutors now become the rescuers, having often forcibly created the
victims in the first place.  In many (most?) cases the
persecutors-turned-rescuers do not accept responsibility for their
persecution, but do boast of their rescuing.  That to me is sad.

> So who is a colonial power? What colonies does Australia have? The only
> external territory Australia administered was PNG and they hurried that
> country towards independence in 1975 at a pace that even some who lived
> there say was too fast to properly get systems in order.

I suppose everyone's been a colonial power to some greater or lesser
degree at some point through history.  My point is that the consequences
linger even though the formal aspects may have ended.  Colonialism these
days is more economic than political in many situations.  The former
British colonies, after rejecting colonial status and becoming the USA,
have now become the biggest colonizer around.

> I understand what you are getting at, but why don't "these folks" have
> the right to choose what they want?

Will they now have that opportunity?  That's what I'm wondering.  They
certainly didn't when the haoles with all the big guns showed up and said
"this is our land now and you work for us now."

And it's not that simple of course.  In Hawai'i some land was outright
stolen, and some was given away to foreigners by the government (royalty)
of the time.  In New England there was a fundamental cultural difference
in the parties' relationships with land that made 'sale' or 'purchase' of
it an intercultural non-sequitur.

> If Australia fails to provide assistance to the
> Solomons, for instance, others, such as Taiwan which wanted to use one
> of the islands as an industrial waste dump, will move in.

See, I don't know much about the actual intent of the Australian
government.  If Australia "provides assistance" to faciliatate
self-determination, which may include telling Taiwan to leave the place
alone if that's what the locals want, then that is great.

Using the "threat" of Taiwan to justify being the lesser of colonial
evils, however, is the oldest scam in the book.

> At least in
> Australia there are enough people and organisations that keep a
> watching brief on what goes on and that will hassle the government and
> business on damaging practices.

This is good, if there's still accountability that has some effect. 
Doesn't seem to be much in the USA.

> So foreign businesses are the colonials?

These days it appears so, more than 'governments' per se anyhow. 
Colonization is economic and cultural (or anti-cultural as the case may
be).

> I think we have different definitions of 'viable'. The context,
> mentioned in my original email that referred to the discussion of
> Pacific affairs currently underway in Australia, was used in the
> context of social cohesion.

Yeah, I think we do...no doubt there's a messy situation at present, as I
gather from your posts.  What I'm advocating is that external intervention
be for the sole purposes of a) basic humanitarian aid while needed and b)
facilitating self-determination as to how to get out of the mess.  IMO b)
may include threat of or use of force by the interveners, soley in order
to prevent disruptions of self-determination.

>> How about another alternative (there's always an infinite number)
>
> Like? Where is this "infinite number" in small South Pacific island
> states?

I gave one; I could come up with others; I think it's the job of the
inhabitants (regional self-determination) to design what they want, with
support from others as requested/offered.  Even with the existing external
constraints there are more than "the" alternative.  They might have to
deal with current social and economic systems in less preferable ways
initially while designing how to change that and also pursuing reparations
under international law and so on.

My direct experience is in Hawai'i.  Despite the insistence of the
occupation government/business complex (the USA) that they are "the" way
to go, there are a lot of creative people there working on a variety of
alternatives in various realms - political, cultural, economic etc..

> Some don't want self-sufficiency but a fair price for their coffee and
> other products on the world market and access to markets in countries
> that espouse free trade but, hypocritically, put up barriers to the
> importation of commodities, such as the US (due to lobbying by American
> farmers) and the EU.

If they get a "fair price" that's great.  Trouble is, as you point out
about the larger entities' manipulations, these small countries don't
appear to have much say in whether they do get that fair price or not.  If
they don't have basic self-sufficiency and don't get the price they want
(or need to equal subsitence), they get the consequences of being
dependent on export cash crops in a market they have little or no
influence in.

> The challenge is to encourage regional and local self-reliance as well
> as finding niches through which aspirations for global participation
> can be achieved. A number of Australian NGO attempts to do this.

That I support - it is good to hear that there are some organizations
doing that sort of work.

> Does this include intertribal warfare, raiding and cannibalism that
> only ended with the arrival of Europeans?

It's nothing the Europeans weren't doing for thousands of years too. 
Certainly the intertribal warfare and raiding and so on.  Cannibalism
perhaps less; we had stuff like the inquisition, the witch-hunts; they ate
each other sometimes.  I really don't think any particular bunch of humans
is qualified to cast the first stone.

> Foreign aid as practiced by many (Australian) NGOs is certainly not
> "charity" and is not motivated by "pity". The NGOs I have worked with
> facilitate self-help. Their programmes rely on local initiative and the
> acquisition of skills by local people. This has worked.

Great!  It's hard to come by example like that in USA foreign "aid,"
especially anything with government money involved.



John Schinnerer, MA
-------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Cultural & Ecological Designing
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net