John Hayes - A closet Colonialist?

Part 2

In my last column we discussed an assertion made by John Hayes in his speech on October 20, 2009 to the Institute of International Affairs of New Zealand that “small countries could never pursue an independent foreign policy”. In this column I wish to discuss with you one other statement he made in his presentation. He said, “The fact is that the age of decolonisation has ended”.
This rather cynical statement is interesting for the fact that it is, at once, wrong and is a revelation of the state of mind of an official who worked in MFAT (NZ) for a very long time and is now Chairman of the New Zealand Parliament Select Committee for Foreign Affairs, Trade and Defence. This latter fact should not be forgotten even although he has stated that all the views expressed by him were his and his alone.
Contrary to what John Hayes said, I maintain that colonisation has NEVER ended and never will. There never was an age of decolonisation. A true blue colonialist will tell you that and those who lived long under the heavy boots of colonialism can confirm. Down through the ages the history of mankind is replete with empire building, colonisation and decolonisation. Now the only remnants of the British Empire in the Pacific are Pitcairn and Cable & Wireless.
From a historical perspective, no one could really be faulted for thinking that the “age” of decolonisation began with the establishment of the UN Committee on Decolonisation given that the purpose and the objective of it was widely known and debated. That Committee’s principal concern, however, was the shifting or the devolution of POLITICAL authority and power from the colonisers to the colonised at a time of serious unrest in the colonies. The focus was primarily Africa. No one, therefore, was more surprised than the colonisers themselves and the UN Committee when small island nations such as the Cook Islands put their hands up wanting the same devolution process extended to them as well.
New Zealand found itself caught in a quandary of its own making for having fervently supported the rationale behind the establishment of the UN Committee, it could not back away from its internationally declared position.
It had to let Samoa go. That happened in 1962. There was no turning back then. It had to let the Cook Islands go in 1965! Other island nations, like Niue, followed.
What would be an interesting MA thesis is an essay on the question of whether or not New Zealand really intended to grant the Cook Islands full political independence or was it all a face-saving measure designed mainly to protect its favoured international reputation and position in the United Nations?
Given the existence of freedom of information legislation in both countries, access to hitherto unpublished information on this issue, a major debate between the two countries in the late 50s and early 60s, should be relatively easy. It would certainly add scholarship to the declared objectives of the Institute of International Affairs of New Zealand. John Hayes has opened the window, perhaps unwittingly, and someone should now walk through it and exit with a Masters degree.
We may be seeing the end days of political decolonisation but colonisation continues quite vigorously under varying devious disguises. It is just that some do not see it.
Our educational curriculum is not ours, so much so it prepares us better for living in Auckland or Brisbane and, therefore, living there is a better fit than in the Cook Islands. That’s a good reason why many people leave. That also is another reason why parents, believing that the “New Zealand style curriculum” is not being properly taught here, send their children to New Zealand.
We have been the grateful recipients of much needed New Zealand aid from the very beginning but over the years it has become cumbersome, expensive to administer and is almost always predetermined in Wellington. Although annual discussions are held here in Rarotonga to determine content and size it is not always what we need that we get, mostly it is what Wellington determines we should have.
We borrow from the ADB, after a lengthy expensive justification process, the money is given but with strict terms and conditions on how it is to be spent. We borrow from the Chinese. They give with the left hand and take it all back with the right hand through labour and materials and then, on top of that, we have to pay the same amount back with interest!
The IMF and the World Bank send highly paid “experts” all over the world to tell everyone how to become fiscally responsible. (This is bit of a laugh given the Wall Street financial tsunami). The United Nations are forever creating new agencies to develop Convention after Convention requiring compliance from around the world although they may be culturally invasive. The American culture of educational permissiveness is now all over the world.
We have 3 banks in the Cook Islands, we own one, but we do not have our own currency except for the 3 dollar note and remnant coins and we have no control over interest rates. Our homes and entertainment centres are invaded on a daily basis by foreign television programmes, films and music. We wear the clothes of the colonialists, speak their language, eat the food we import from them and drive around in their expensive machines. Then New Zealand decides to subsidise their own plane from our aid allocation while we subsidise the flights to Fiji and Australia.
These are just a few of the disguises. There are others. I am sure you now know exactly what I mean. No, Mr. John Hayes, colonialism is well and truly alive.

Herald Issue 463 10 June
- World famous activist assisting residents
- Budget will decide if residents prosecute Government over landfill
- Forestry project sucking Mangaia dry
- Budget 2010 – fiasco or disaster?