For six months, the Commonwealth country Papua New Guinea has been in a political crisis. This has culminated in a failed coup d’état by a small section of the army led by Colonel Yaura Sasa. This small island country has been independent since 1975 and in the past has been relatively stable so what led to the mutiny?
Due to ill health the Prime Minister, Sir Michael Somare, via his wife announced his retirement as Prime Minister and from politics. He was the leader of PNG when it became independent of Australia and served four terms as Prime Minister. It took until second of August before the Speaker of the House, Jeffrey Nape, declared the position vacant and Peter O’Neill was elected by a majority of MPs. Next in the crisis was the PNG Supreme Court who reinstated Somare as PM stating that Parliament had acted illegally. Mr O’Neill then claimed that the majority of state institutions, the Civil Service, Police, Army and his fellow MPs supported him. A few days later Sir Michael Ogio, the Governor-General then endorsed Mr O’Neill. Approximately a month later Sir Michael and several of his supporters were ejected by MPs and despite an appeal the Deputy Speaker ordered him out of the chamber. Just over a week later Colonel Sasa led the mutiny and is now claiming it was ordered by Sir Michael saying he was “carrying out the government’s orders” as he arrived in court earlier. Colonel Sasa has now been charged with incitement to mutiny against the government.
Through his daughter the following statement was emailed to various news agencies, Sir Michael appeared to endorse Colonel Sasa stating ”If this is to be my last and biggest battle I will fight for the constitution, the underlying law that holds the very fabric of our democracy and democratic institutions together. I appeal to the leaders of our disciplinary forces to look beyond the current circumstances and come to terms with why you (are) a member of a law enforcing agency. You are here first and foremost to uphold and enforce the law of the land and the orders of the Supreme Court.’
I was unable to find any official statement from the FCO but the Commonwealth Secretariat in London released a statement on its website stating “…We deplore the extra-constitutional action taken by some elements in the military, and we are pleased that the situation has been brought under control and the country remains peaceful.
The Commonwealth unreservedly rejects any use of military means for domestic political purposes. We urge all concerned to continue to work towards resolving differences through dialogue, and in accordance with the Commonwealth’s values.”
As the world economy continues to experience massive downturns it is countries in the Commonwealth, like PNG, that the UK government should turn to. This organisation of 54 independent sovereign states shares a unique history and bond that no other organisation shares. It also includes one of the fastest growing economies in the world, India, and the members should be our new trading partners as Europe is falling into economic meltdown, while the US is already there.
This trading requires stability in all member states of the Commonwealth however, and the UK should be a leading figure in restoring stability to the PNG and any other member. With Queen Elizabeth as Head of the Commonwealth and as Head of State to PNG HM Government should be trying to help restore stability and end the impasse.
Elections in PNG due in June 2012 we can expect further stability as the courts there support Sir Michael while the political and law enforcement establishment are supporting Mr O’Neill. End the crisis and we can begin extending our trade and promoting British business there and in other Commonwealth nations in the area using Australia as an old-fashioned trading base. It is through the links that bind our peoples together that the UK will end the economic problems. This is the solution, and not Europe or America. Use our links, expand our trade with them and let Europe and the US sort their own messes out.
Hear, Hear.
As I have previously argued:
http://politicsontoast.com/2011/10/28/the-eu-time-to-put-wealth-back-into-the-commonwealth/
http://www.stevebaker.info/2011/07/the-commonwealth/
Posted by Tim Hewish | February 1, 2012, 4:20 pmI find the whole situation in Papua New Guinea very confusing. Not sure it makes for a great advert for further British involvement with the Commonwealth but, that aside, I do agree that I would like to see the United Kingdom forge much stronger links with our Commonwealth cousins – not because I think it should be the business of the Her Britannic Majesty’s Government to step in and sort out the internal problems of some of Her Majesty’s more dysfunctional realms but because I think that elsewhere in the Commonwealth there are extensive opportunities for trade that are being neglected.
Just briefly regarding PNG, what I want to know is where is the Governor-General in all this??? As Her Majesty’s representative, it should not fall to the GG to step in and take a lead on this. Maybe I don’t understand PNG’s parliamentary system but, assuming it’s based on the Westminster model, I don’t understand how the Speaker has acquired so much authority in this matter. Surely it is the GG who appoints and dismisses prime ministers?
Posted by A.P. Schrader | February 6, 2012, 5:50 pmThe Governor-General in PNG is unusual as he is appointed by a vote in Parliament rather than the PM like the other Commonwealth nations. As for interfering even though the GG has the power doesn’t mean he should exercise it. For exaple, mo matter what people think of a British PM, if the Queen were to exercise her right of dismissing a PM without Parliamentary refusal, the public would be outraged.
From what I understand of the crisis, the GG has sworn in Sir Michael as PM, and as a result the PNG Parliament has nominally suspended the GG and temporarily appointed the Speaker of the House in his name.
Posted by Alex Patnick | February 6, 2012, 6:22 pmIndeed, it is very strange.
Just on the subject of the Queen, I’m trying to think of a comparable example. If, say, after Harold Macmillan had resigned because of ill-health in October 1963 (for the purposes of comparison, let us imagine that he had not tendered his resignation personally to Her Majesty but had his resignation announced by his family, as in the case of Sir Michael Somare). Let us then say that Mr Macmillan re-emerged in April 1964 – six months later – and announced that his resignation had been announced prematurely, that he was fully recovered and still the legitimate PM. If a constitutional tussle then broke out between Mr Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home over which of them was the legitimate PM, I don’t think the British public would have any qualms whatsoever about the Queen mediating on this dispute.
The difficulty for PNG is their rather confused constitutional set-up. The fact that the PNG Parliament apparently appoints the GG, I think, rather illustrates how blessed we are in this nation to have a hereditary monarch, who owes her appointment to no-one. The situation in PNG, it seems to me, is muddied by the fact that Parliament supports the new PM, Mr O’Neill, while the Supreme Court has ruled that Sir Michael is still PM. This just strikes me as utterly bizarre.
I think it is inconceivable that, in my scenario, the UK Supreme Court would rule that Mr Macmillan were still PM and call for Sir Alec to be dismissed. But, then, the Supreme Court (for now) does not try to act like a constitutional court. It would ultimately be up to Parliament to resolve the issue, as the judgement on who is the British PM is decided by the Queen based on whoever commands a majority in the House of Commons. It would be pretty clear, under our constitutional system, that Sir Alec was the legitimate PM.
Following the decision of the PNG Supreme Court, the GG – Sir Michael Ogio – recognised Sir Michael Somare as PM and was then removed from his office by Parliament in favour of the Speaker, Jeffrey Nape, until Sir Michael Ogio agreed to recognise Mr O’Neill and was reinstated. The answer here is clear – Parliament should never have the power to remove the GG. Once the GG – as the representative of “Missis Kwin” – had recognised Sir Michael Somare, that should’ve been an end to it… though, that said, the ruling of their Supreme Court in this matter seems mightily queer, given that Sir Michael’s resignation – whether intended or not – had been accepted by the GG and a new PM was in situ.
Posted by A.P. Schrader | February 7, 2012, 4:10 pm