State Society and Governance in Melanesia

RSPAS home | Search | Directory | Site Map | ANU home

Warning: include(/home/rspas/web-pas/rspasweb/web/_includes/ssgm_eventslinks.inc) [function.include]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/rspas/web-pas/rspasweb/web/papers/melanesia/seminars/solomons3.php on line 82

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/rspas/web-pas/rspasweb/web/_includes/ssgm_eventslinks.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/php/include') in /home/rspas/web-pas/rspasweb/web/papers/melanesia/seminars/solomons3.php on line 82

Seminar series

Problems in the Implementation of the Townsville Peace Agreement and the Peace Process in the Solomon Islands

by Joses Tuhanuku (President of the Solomon Islands Labour Party, Advisor to the National Union of Workers, Advisor to the Council of Trade Unions)

Notes from an SSGM Seminar: 26 April 2001


1.  Introduction

•  Since the end of 1998 and up to the signing of the Townsville Peace Agreement, an ethnic conflict that developed into a violent conflict between the Malaita and Guadalcanal peoples erupted in the country, on the island of Guadalcanal, which led to the loss of so many lives on both sides.

  The impact of the ethnic conflict was not restricted only to the two ethnic groups that were directly involved, namely the Malaita and Guadalcanal peoples.

•  It affects the people of all the nine provinces, or the entire country for that matter. In fact it has transformed the country in a very negative way.

2.   The Origin of the Ethnic Conflict

2.1   Guadalcanal Grievances

  The Guadalcanal people, over the years, have been demanding that the government takes steps to deal with their three major grievances. Firstly, the settling of people from other provinces, the majority of whom are of Malaitan origin, throughout Guadalcanal.  Secondly, the return of the land on which Honiara is situated to its traditional or original owners.  Thirdly, some form of compensation to be paid to the people of Guadalcanal for their men, women and children who have been brutally murdered over the years within Guadalcanal, by people from other Provinces.

  Since the attainment of political independence in 1978, successive governments have been unable or unwilling to address these grievances.  By the end of 1998, a group of armed, young Guadalcanal men - self-styled as the Isatabu Freedom Movement (IFM) - started to physically force settlers, who were mostly of Malaitan origin, out from where they have been settled for several generations.

  2.2   Malaita Grievances

   The Malaita settlers who were forced out, appeared to have accepted to leave on the condition that either the Guadalcanal people or the central government pay them compensation for the properties they were forced to leave behind. 

   When the central government was either unwilling or slow to do some thing about this demand, the displaced Malaita settlers formed a militia group, now commonly known as the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF), with the purpose of bringing pressure on the government to meet their demand. 

   On 6 June 2000 the MEF carried out a coup which led to the ousting of the Ulufa'alu Government and the coming to power of the Sogavare Government.

  3.   The Peace Process

In pursuit of the desire for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, the Solomon Islands Government facilitated and secured the signing of the following agreements:

 4.   The Townsville Peace Agreement

On 15 October 2000 the Townsville Peace Agreement (TPA) was signed between the warring parties, the Isatabu Freedom Movement (IFM) and the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF), bringing to an end the worst ethnic, bloody, conflict that has taken place in the Solomon Islands since the attainment of its political independence in 1978.

The following principal provisions in the TPA are crucial to either the success or failure of the Agreement, depending on whether or not they are properly and effectively implemented as intended by the spirit of the TPA:

(a) That a general amnesty to be enacted by an Act of the National Parliament, be extended to the former members of the Malaita Eagle Force (MEF) and the Isatabu Freedom Movement (IFM), on the condition that they hand in their arms within a given time frame.

(b) The Townsville Peace Agreement (TPA) charges the Peace Monitoring Council (PMC) with the responsibility to implement the TPA.

(c) The same agreement gives the power to the International Peace Monitoring Team (IPMT), which is currently headed by an Australian, to supervise the actual handing in of arms by the two warring parties. The mandate for the IPMT was negotiated and signed on 7 December 2000, at the request of Australia and New Zealand, between themselves and the parties to the TPA.

(d) The recruitment of former members of the MEF and the IFM to help with returning law and order to Honiara, and throughout the country, and with the collecting of arms. 

5.   Implementation of the TPA

The most problematic areas in the course of implementing the TPA are as follows:

   The handing in of arms.

   The granting of the general amnesty to former militants of both groups.

    The call by the MEF to re-negotiate the TPA.

   The conflicts between the MEF and the IFM, the IPMT and the PMC over the interpretation of the TPA and its implementation.

   The role of the Police Field Force (PFF) and the Special Constabulary, especially the former militants, in the implementation of the TPA, the returning of Honiara to law and order, and the rule of law generally.

6.   The Flaws and Weaknesses of the TPA

The TPA covers a very wide range of issues, some of which are potential areas of conflict, and thus introduce more vulnerability to the smooth and effective implementation of the agreement, eg., economic issues.

The reinstatement to the Royal Solomon Islands Police (RSIP) of the officers, most of whom are members of the PFF, who took part in the May coup.

The recruitment of former militants to the special  constabulary and the general expansion of the Force, which now includes persons of questionable character.

The confusion between the IPMT and the PMC in their respective roles and the absence of outside Police or military presence, which forces the IPMT and the PMC to depend almost entirely on the PFF, which lacks credibility in the eyes of the Solomon Islands public.

7.   The Role of Australia

   Australia can make a difference in the South Pacific Region.

   Australia should take a more bold and decisive approach in the current situation in Solomon Islands.  Whether Australia likes it or not, it is impossible for Australia to shy away from problems or leadership in the South Pacific.

   Australia needs to have good people on the ground, to guarantee sound and accurate understanding of the situation back in Canberra.

   Australia, and others who are already participating in the IPMT, should jointly send a police contingent under the auspices of the Commonwealth to assist the RSIP in implementing the TPA.

   The current crises in Solomon Islands and Bougainville are feeding off each other, and therefore finding lasting solutions to both, can only be achieved if they are dealt with simultaneously.

[Top of Page]