All posts by yumiwantok

Happy New Year: United Tribes of Melanesia for United States of Melanesia

The Proposal

I propose to to all of us to consider from now on to form one sociocultural group called United Tribes of Melanesia or Union of Melanesian Tribes and Islands as a Pan Melanesian-ism for Survival and Common Destiny, that in long term will become the United States of Melanesia.

The Background

We cannot depend on MSG as it is fully controlled by colonial masters to continue serve their interests and needs.

We cannot stay inside colonial mapping and naming and think that our work with colonial borders will bring changes for good to our peoples in long term. We are lying to our own instinct, we are acting against the voice of the spirit inside us.

Climate change threatens our survival, we need to immediately respond to this existential threat to our small islands and tribes by mobilising unification and collective consolidation to save our future.

Many parts of the world, different societies and humans are busy talking about and taking steps to get out from this existential threat. Melanesian and South Pacific region has become one of the major areas where threated by global warming and climate change. We, the people, Melanesians, are not doing anything as a people. We are putting too much hope on our Prime Ministers and Presidents to work for our survival. We are totally wrong. They are serving their own political and financial and family interests. They are serving the masters, the colonial powers, particularly the United States, Australia, France, and England. They are not that concerned about many islands and tribes in Melanesia will disappear in 100 years, if not 1000 years from now.

We need to wake up! We need to get up! We have to stand up! We must speak up! Step up our actions to protect our own being, to determine our own destiny after our small islands disappear into the deep Blue Continent.

The Roles, Functions and Objectives

The role of the organisation is to organize discussions and concepts with framework on problems Melanesians are facing within 100 – 1000 years from now and what we should do now in anticipation to those scenarios

The function of the organization is to mobilise and formulate shared views, perspectives, and understanding on our current existence and formulate our ambitions for future developments to maintain our Melanesian. Brotherhood to stay intact, united, sustained.

The objective of the body is to mobilise people’s power across Melanesian Archipelago to get united in determining our collective destiny as a people of the Blue Continent in response to Climate change and global warming!

The Nature

This movement should be a movement of the peoples, tribes, islands and clans and NOT NGOS because we NGOS are the ones that systematically disabling and destabilizing the Identity and power of our real Melanesia-hood and Melanesia-ness.

Closuring Remark

We have to stop colonial masters punish our collective destiny with death penalty based on colonial map and colonial interests, for the sake of serving our colonial masters. We have to stop this deadly nonsense. We have to come out clear and strong!

We as human beings, being created by God in His Own Image, should not wait and expect countries set up based on colonial map, namely West Papua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Bougainville, Kanaky to become our protector. We have to get out from them.

We, as human beings have to stand up as human communities of tribes and islands, starting determining our future from now on. Hoping nation-states to do anything at all is a suicidal act.

Holy spirit speaks so my task is to speak it out. I am channeling what is coming!

Wa wa wa wa wa wa wa

Further Reading:

  1. Sink or swim: Can island states survive the climate crisis?
  2. https://wearenature.club/
  3. https://wearenature.home.blog/
  4. https://salam.wearenature.club/

The United States of Africa vision originates from Marcus Garvey’s Poem “Hail United States of Africa ” and is a continuation of Garveys’ Legacy

The idea of a multinational unifying African state has been compared to various medieval African empires, including the Ethiopian Empire, the Ghana Empire, the Mali Empire, the Songhai Empire, the Benin Empire, the Kanem Empire, and other historic nation states. During the late 19th and early 20th century the majority of African land was controlled by various European empires, with the British controlling around 30 per cent of the African population at its peak.

The term “United States of Africa” was mentioned first by Marcus Garvey in his poem Hail, United States of Africa in 1924. Garvey’s ideas and formation systems deeply influenced former Africa leaders and the rebirth of the African Union.

Dr Kwame Nkrumah among other leaders championed for the realization of United States of Africa and stated the urgency of having a unified African nation – ‘The People Of Africa Are Crying For Unity’.

The African Union has its roots in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). It is thus fitting to look back in order to look forward. On 24 May 1963, as 32 independent African countries met in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, to find ways to unite the continent, Ghana’s then president, Kwame Nkrumah, gave one of the greatest speeches of his life, a speech which has since become the definitive blueprint for a strong, but so far sadly elusive, African unity. Here is African unity speech given by Tanzania’s founding president, Julius Nyerere, 34 years after Nkrumah’s 1963 speech.

I AM HAPPY TO BE HERE IN ADDIS ABABA ON THIS MOST historic occasion. I bring with me the hopes and fraternal greetings of the government and people of Ghana. Our objective is African union now. There is no time to waste. We must unite now or perish. I am confident that by our concerted effort and determination, we shall lay here the foundations for a continental Union of African States. A whole continent has imposed a mandate upon us to lay the foundation of our union at this conference. It is our responsibility to execute this mandate by creating here and now, the formula upon which the requisite superstructure may be created.

On this continent, it has not taken us long to discover that the struggle against colonialism does not end with the attainment of national independence. Independence is only the prelude to a new and more involved struggle for the right to conduct our own economic and social affairs; to construct our society according to our aspirations, unhampered by crushing and humiliating neo-colonialist controls and interference.

From the start we have been threatened with frustration where rapid change is imperative and with instability where sustained effort and ordered rule are indispensable. No sporadic act nor pious resolution can resolve our present problems. Nothing will be of avail, except the united act of a united Africa. We have already reached the stage where we must unite or sink into that condition which has made Latin America the unwilling and distressed prey of imperialism after one-and-a-half centuries of political independence.

As a continent, we have emerged into independence in a different age, with imperialism grown stronger, more ruthless and experienced, and more dangerous in its international associations. Our economic advancement demands the end of colonialist and neo-colonialist domination of Africa.

But just as we understood that the shaping of our national destinies required of each of us our political independence and bent all our strength to this attainment, so we must recognise that our economic independence resides in our African union and requires the same concentration upon the political achievement. The unity of our continent, no less than our separate independence, will be delayed if, indeed, we do not lose it, by hobnobbing with colonialism.

African unity is, above all, a political kingdom which can only be gained by political means. The social and economic development of Africa will come only within the political kingdom, not the other way round. Is it not unity alone that can weld us into an effective force, capable of creating our own progress and making our valuable contribution to world peace? Which independent African state, which of you here, will claim that its financial structure and banking institutions are fully harnessed to its national development?

Which will claim that its material resources and human energies are available for its own national aspirations? Which will disclaim a substantial measure of disappointment and disillusionment in its agricultural and urban development? In independent Africa, we are already re-experiencing the instability and frustration which existed under colonial rule. We are fast learning that political independence is not enough to rid us of the consequences of colonial rule. The movement of the masses of the people of Africa for freedom from that kind of rule was not only a revolt against the conditions which it imposed. Our people supported us in our fight for independence because they believed that African governments could cure the ills of the past in a way which could never be accomplished under colonial rule.

If, therefore, now that we are independent we allow the same conditions to exist that existed in colonial days, all the resentment which overthrew colonialism will be mobilised against us. The resources are there. It is for us to marshal them in the active service of our people. Unless we do this by our concerted efforts, within the framework of our combined planning, we shall not progress at the tempo demanded by today’s events and the mood of our people. The symptoms of our troubles will grow, and the troubles themselves become chronic. It will then be too late for pan-African unity to secure for us stability and tranquillity in our labours for a continent of social justice and material wellbeing.

Our continent certainly exceeds all the others in potential hydroelectric power, which some experts assess as 42% of the world’s total. What need is there for us to remain hewers of wood and drawers of water for the industrialised areas of the world? It is said, of course, that we have no capital, no industrial skill, no communications, and no internal markets, and that we cannot even agree among ourselves how best to utilise our resources for our own social needs. Yet all stock exchanges in the world are preoccupied with Africa’s gold, diamonds, uranium, platinum, copper and iron ore.

Our capital flows out in streams to irrigate the whole system of Western economy. Fifty-two per cent of the gold in Fort Knox at this moment, where the USA stores its bullion, is believed to have originated from our shores. Africa provides more than 60% of the world’s gold. A great deal of the uranium for nuclear power, of copper for electronics, of titanium for supersonic projectiles, of iron and steel for heavy industries, of other minerals and raw materials for lighter industries – the basic economic might of the foreign powers – come from our continent.

Experts have estimated that the Congo Basin alone can produce enough food crops to satisfy the requirements of nearly half the population of the whole world, and here we sit talking about gradualism, talking about step by step. Are you afraid to tackle the bull by the horn? For centuries, Africa has been the milch cow of the Western world. Was it not our continent that helped the Western world to build up its accumulated wealth?

We have the resources. It was colonialism in the first place that prevented us from accumulating the effective capital; but we ourselves have failed to make full use of our power in independence to mobilise our resources for the most effective take-off into thorough-going economic and social development.

We have been too busy nursing our separate states to understand fully the basic need of our union, rooted in common purpose, common planning and common endeavour. A union that ignores these fundamental necessities will be but a sham. It is only by uniting our productive capacity and the resultant production that we can amass capital. And once we start, the momentum will increase. With capital controlled by our own banks, harnessed to our own true industrial and agricultural development, we shall make our advance.

We shall accumulate machinery and establish steel works, iron foundries and factories; we shall link the various states of our continent with communications by land, sea, and air. We shall cable from one place to another, phone from one place to the other and astound the world with our hydro-electric power; we shall drain marshes and swamps, clear infested areas, feed the undernourished, and rid our people of parasites and disease.

Camels and donkeys no more

It is within the possibility of science and technology to make even the Sahara bloom into a vast field with verdant vegetation for agricultural and industrial development. We shall harness the radio, television, giant printing presses to lift our people from the dark recesses of illiteracy. A decade ago, these would have been visionary words, the fantasies of an idle dreamer. But this is the age in which science has transcended the limits of the material world, and technology has invaded the silences of nature.

Time and space have been reduced to unimportant abstractions. Giant machines make roads, clear forests, dig dams, lay out aerodromes; monster trucks and planes distribute goods; huge laboratories manufacture drugs; complicated geological surveys are made; mighty power stations are built; colossal factories erected – all at an incredible speed. The world is no longer moving through bush paths or on camels and donkeys.

We cannot afford to pace our needs, our development, our security, to the gait of camels and donkeys. We cannot afford not to cut down the overgrown bush of outmoded attitudes that obstruct our path to the modern open road of the widest and earliest achievement of economic independence and the raising up of the lives of our people to the highest level.

Even for other continents lacking the resources of Africa, this is the age that sees the end of human want. For us it is a simple matter of grasping with certainty our heritage by using the political might of unity. All we need to do is to develop with our united strength the enormous resources of our continent.

What use to the farmer is education and mechanisation, what use is even capital for development, unless we can ensure for him a fair price and a ready market? What has the peasant, worker and farmer gained from political independence, unless we can ensure for him a fair return for his labour and a higher standard of living? Unless we can establish great industrial complexes in Africa, what have the urban worker, and those peasants on overcrowded land gained from political independence? If they are to remain unemployed or in unskilled occupation, what will avail them the better facilities for education, technical training, energy, and ambition which independence enables us to provide?

There is hardly any African state without a frontier problem with its adjacent neighbours. It would be futile for me to enumerate them because they are already so familiar to us all. But let me suggest that this fatal relic of colonialism will drive us to war against one another as our unplanned and uncoordinated industrial development expands, just as happened in Europe. Unless we succeed in arresting the danger through mutual understanding on fundamental issues and through African unity, which will render existing boundaries obsolete and superfluous, we shall have fought in vain for independence.

Only African unity can heal this festering sore of boundary disputes between our various states. The remedy for these ills is ready in our hands. It stares us in the face at every customs barrier, it shouts to us from every African heart. By creating a true political union of all the independent states of Africa, with executive powers for political direction, we can tackle hopefully every emergency and every complexity.

This is because we have emerged in the age of science and technology in which poverty, ignorance, and disease are no longer the masters, but the retreating foes of mankind. Above all, we have emerged at a time when a continental land mass like Africa with its population approaching 300 million is necessary to the economic capitalisation and profitability of modern productive methods and techniques. Not one of us working singly and individually can successfully attain the fullest development.

Certainly, in the circumstances, it will not be possible to give adequate assistance to sister states trying, against the most difficult conditions, to improve their economic and social structures. Only a united Africa functioning under a union government can forcefully mobilise the material and moral resources of our separate countries and apply them efficiently and energetically to bring a rapid change in the conditions of our people.

Unite we must. Without necessarily sacrificing our sovereignties, big or small, we can here and now forge a political union based on defence, foreign affairs and diplomacy, and a common citizenship, an African currency, an African monetary zone, and an African central bank. We must unite in order to achieve the full liberation of our continent. We need a common defence system with African high command to ensure the stability and security of Africa. We have been charged with this sacred task by our own people, and we cannot betray their trust by failing them. We will be mocking the hopes of our people if we show the slightest hesitation or delay in tackling realistically this question of African unity.

We need unified economic planning for Africa. Until the economic power of Africa is in our hands, the masses can have no real concern and no real interest for safeguarding our security, for ensuring the stability of our regimes, and for bending their strength to the fulfilment of our ends. With our united resources, energies and talents we have the means, as soon as we show the will, to transform the economic structures of our individual states from poverty to that of wealth, from inequality to the satisfaction of popular needs. Only on a continental basis shall we be able to plan the proper utilisation of all our resources for the full development of our continent.

How else will we retain our own capital for own development? How else will we establish an internal market for our own industries? By belonging to different economic zones, how will we break down the currency and trading barriers between African states, and how will the economically stronger amongst us be able to assist the weaker and less developed states?

It is important to remember that independent financing and independent development cannot take place without an independent currency. A currency system that is backed by the resources of a foreign state is ipso facto subject to the trade and financial arrangements of that foreign country.

Because we have so many customs and currency barriers as a result of being subject to the different currency systems of foreign powers, this has served to widen the gap between us in Africa. How, for example, can related communities and families trade with, and support one another successfully, if they find themselves divided by national boundaries and currency restrictions? The only alternative open to them in these circumstances is to use smuggled currency and enrich national and international racketeers and crooks who prey upon our financial and economic difficulties.

Our resources

No independent African state today by itself has a chance to follow an independent course of economic development, and many of us who have tried to do this have been almost ruined or have had to return to the fold of the former colonial rulers. This position will not change unless we have a unified policy working at the continental level. The first step towards our cohesive economy would be a unified monetary zone, with, initially, an agreed common parity for our currencies. To facilitate this arrangement, Ghana would change to a decimal system.

When we find that the arrangement of a fixed common parity is working successfully, there would seem to be no reason for not instituting one common currency and a single bank of issue. With a common currency from one common bank of issue, we should be able to stand erect on our own feet because such an arrangement would be fully backed by the combined national products of the states composing the union. After all, the purchasing power of money depends on productivity and the productive exploitation of the natural, human and physical resources of the nation.

While we are assuring our stability by a common defence system, and our economy is being orientated beyond foreign control by a common currency, monetary zone, and central bank of issue, we can investigate the resources of our continent. We can begin to ascertain whether in reality we are the richest, and not, as we have been taught to believe, the poorest among the continents. We can determine whether we possess the largest potential in hydro-electric power, and whether we can harness it and other sources of energy to our industries. We can proceed to plan our industrialisation on a continental scale, and to build up a common market for nearly 300 million people. Common continental planning for the industrial and agricultural development of Africa is a vital necessity!

So many blessings flow from our unity; so many disasters must follow on our continued disunity. The hour of history which has brought us to this assembly is a revolutionary hour. It is the hour of decision. The masses of the people of Africa are crying for unity. The people of Africa call for the breaking down of the boundaries that keep them apart. They demand an end to the border disputes between sister African states – disputes that arise out of the artificial barriers raised by colonialism. It was colonialism’s purpose that divided us. It was colonialism’s purpose that left us with our border irredentism, that rejected our ethnic and cultural fusion.

Our people call for unity so that they may not lose their patrimony in the perpetual service of neo-colonialism. In their fervent push for unity, they understand that only its realisation will give full meaning to their freedom and our African independence.

It is this popular determination that must move us on to a union of independent African states. In delay lies danger to our well-being, to our very existence as free states.

It has been suggested that our approach to unity should be gradual, that it should go piecemeal. This point of view conceives of Africa as a static entity with “frozen” problems which can be eliminated one by one and when all have been cleared then we can come together and say: “Now all is well, let us now unite.”
This view takes no account of the impact of external pressures. Nor does it take cognisance of the danger that delay can deepen our isolations and exclusiveness; that it can enlarge our differences and set us drifting further and further apart into the net of neo-colonialism, so that our union will become nothing but a fading hope, and the great design of Africa’s full redemption will be lost, perhaps, forever.

The dangers of regionalism

The view is also expressed that our difficulties can be resolved simply by a greater collaboration through cooperative association in our inter-territorial relationships. This way of looking at our problems denies a proper conception of their inter-relationship and mutuality. It denies faith in a future for African advancement in African independence. It betrays a sense of solution only in continued reliance upon external sources through bilateral agreements for economic and other forms of aid.

The fact is that although we have been cooperating and associating with one another in various fields of common endeavour even before colonial times, this has not given us the continental identity and the political and economic force which would help us to deal effectively with the complicated problems confronting us in Africa today.

As far as foreign aid is concerned, a United Africa should be in a more favourable position to attract assistance from foreign sources. There is the far more compelling advantage which this arrangement offers, in that aid will come from anywhere to a United Africa because our bargaining power would become infinitely greater. We shall no longer be dependent upon aid from restricted sources. We shall have the world to choose from.

What are we looking for in Africa? Are we looking for Charters, conceived in the light of the United Nations’ example? A type of United Nations Organisation whose decisions are framed on the basis of resolutions that in our experience have sometimes been ignored by member states? Where groupings are formed and pressures develop in accordance with the interest of the groups concerned?

Or is it intended that Africa should be turned into a loose organisation of states on the model of the Organization of American States, in which the weaker states within it can be at the mercy of the stronger or more powerful ones politically or economically and all at the mercy of some powerful outside nation or group of nations? Is this the kind of association we want for ourselves in the United Africa we all speak of with such feeling and emotion?
We all want a united Africa, united not only in our concept of what unity connotes, but united in our common desire to move forward together in dealing with all the problems that can best be solved only on a continental basis.

We meet here today not as Ghanaians, Guineans, Egyptians, Algerians, Moroccans, Malians, Liberians, Congolese or Nigerians, but as Africans. Africans united in our resolve to remain here until we have agreed on the basic principles of a new compact of unity among ourselves which guarantees for us and our future a new arrangement of continental government. If we succeed in establishing a new set of principles as the basis of a new charter for the establishment of a continental unity of Africa, and the creation of social and political progress for our people, then in my view, this conference should mark the end of our various groupings and regional blocs.

But if we fail and let this grand and historic opportunity slip by, then we shall give way to greater dissension and division among us for which the people of Africa will never forgive us. And the popular and progressive forces and movements within Africa will condemn us. I am sure therefore that we shall not fail them. To this end, I propose for your consideration the following: As a first step, a declaration of principles uniting and binding us together and to which we must all faithfully and loyally adhere, and laying the foundations of unity, should be set down.

As a second and urgent step for the realisation of the unification of Africa, an All-Africa Committee of Foreign Ministers should be set up now. The Committee should establish on behalf of the heads of our governments, a permanent body of officials and experts to work out a machinery for the union government of Africa. This body of officials and experts should be made up of two of the best brains from each independent African state. The various charters of existing groupings and other relevant documents could also be submitted to the officials and experts.

We must also decide on a location where this body of officials and experts will work as the new headquarters or capital of our union government. Some central place in Africa might be the fairest suggestion, either in Bangui in the Central African Republic or Leopoldville [Kinshasa] in Congo. My colleagues may have other proposals.
The Committee of Foreign Ministers, officials and experts, should be empowered to establish: (1) A commission to frame a constitution for a Union Government of African States. (2) A commission to work out a continent-wide plan for a unified or common economic and industrial programme for Africa; this should include proposals for setting up: a common market for Africa; an African currency; an African monetary zone; an African central bank; a continental communication system; a commission to draw up details for a common foreign policy and diplomacy; a commission to produce plans for a common system of defence; a commission to make proposals for a common African citizenship. Africa must unite!

Endnote: The day after Nkrumah’s speech, the 32 independent African nations assembled in Addis Ababa failed to go the full hog for a strong United States of Africa. Instead they settled for a loose and weak Organisation of African Unity (OAU) whose Charter was signed the same day (25 May 1963) by the following countries: Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa), Dahomey, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia, Libya, Malagasy, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanganyika. Tshad [later Chad], Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, UAR [Egypt], and Upper Volta [later Burkina Faso].

In February 2009, upon being elected chairman of the 53-nation African Union in Ethiopia, Gaddafi told the assembled African leaders: “I shall continue to insist that our sovereign countries work to achieve the United States of Africa.” The BBC reported that Gaddafi had proposed “a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent”. Other African leaders stated they would study the proposal’s implications, and re-discuss it in May 2009.

The focus for developing the United States of Africa so far has been on building subdivisions of Africa – the proposed East African Federation can be seen as an example of this. Former President of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, had indicated that the United States of Africa could exist as early as 2017. The African Union, by contrast, has set itself the task of building a “united and integrated” Africa by 2025. Gaddafi had also indicated that the proposed federation may extend as far west as the Caribbean: Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, the Bahamas and other islands featuring a large African diaspora, may be invited to join.

Gaddafi also received criticism for his involvement in the movement, and lack of support for the idea from among other African leaders. A week before Gaddafi’s death during the Libyan Civil War, South African President Jacob Zuma expressed relief at the regime’s downfall, complaining that Gaddafi had been “intimidating” many African heads of state and government in an effort to gain influence throughout the continent and suggesting that the African Union will function better without Gaddafi and his repeated proposals for a unitary African government.

After the death of Gaddafi

Gaddafi was ultimately killed during the Battle of Sirte in October 2011. While some regard the project to have died with him, Robert Mugabe expressed interest in reviving the project. Following the 2017 Zimbabwean coup d’état, Mugabe resigned as President. On 6 September 2019, Mugabe died.

The idea behind this project is to create Strong Institutions that Africa needs to become an Economic Power.

The nations of Eritrea, Ghana, Senegal, and Zimbabwe, have supported an African federation. ] Others such as South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria have been more skeptical, feeling that the continent is not ready for integration. North African countries such as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and post-revolution Libya who have traditionally identified more with rival ideologies like Arab nationalism, Berberism and Islamism have shown less interest in the idea.

Doubts have been raised about whether the goal of a unified Africa can ever be achieved while ongoing problems of conflict and poverty persist throughout the continent
Utilizing our collective will and desire to see a Unified Africa through Investing time and money in what we believe in is the most effective way to make direct contributions to support this noble initiative.

The proposed federation would have the largest total territory of any state, exceeding the Russian Federation. It would also be the third most populous state after China and India, and with a population speaking an estimated 3,000 languages.

In the fictional Star Trek universe, the United States of Africa exist as part of the United Earth Government. Commander Uhura and Lieutenant Commander La Forge originate from Kenya and Somalia respectively, both within the United States of Africa.

In the fictional Halo universe, the United States of Africa exist as a nation of the United Earth Government, within the United Nations Space Command.

Arthur C. Clarke’s 1987 science fiction novel 2061: Odyssey Three features the formation of a United States of Southern Africa.

The 2006 French-Beninese film Africa Paradis is set in the United States of Africa in the year 2033.

The 1990s cartoon Bots Master has a United States of Africa, and its President is one of the few people who believes that Ziv “ZZ” Zulander is not a terrorist.

It was only fiction until the United States of Africa obtained its legal status on 30th June 2020 and now exists in perpetuity.

The United States of Africa is an Independent and Registered Non Profit corporation in the United States to unify African people in the diaspora and Africa towards a common goal geared towards the rebirth of African Nationalism and regeneration of Africa.

Donate to support United States of Africa.
https://www.patreon.com/USAfrikagov
Submit your proposals on United States of Africa via:
info@usafrikagov.com For more information visit: https://usafrikagov.com/the-united-states-of-africa-now…/

NCD Governor Powes Parkop – 60 Years After 1 December 1961

West Papua and its struggle or case for self determination reached the floor again. Today.

In 2019, Opposition Leader Belden Namah asked the Prime Minister James Marape to confirm if PNG had a foreign policy on West Papua.

Today, NCD Governor Powes Parkop asked 4 questions to the Foreign Minister Seroe Eoe, on West Papua.
Among them was for the Minister to confirm PNG’s position on West Papua as a member of the MSG regional sub political group.

In addition, Governor Parkop wanted the Foreign Minister to inform the House on the status of resolution reached by the 79 ACP countries on the re – enlisting of West Papua on the UN Committee of 24 list of Non – Self Governing UN Trust Territory as defined by the ACP countries, including Papua New Guinea.

In 2019, the ACP countries leaders met in Nairobi, Kenya. PNG was represented by Foreign Minister then Patrick Pruaitch. He signed the resolution on West Papua.

Governor Parkop also asked if the United Liberation Movement For West Papua or ULMWP which has united the pro – independence lobby Inside West Papua and in the diaspora will be recognised officially by the government, and funded to perform its functions as an MSG observer.

Minister Seroe Eoe asked Governor Parkop to request him in writing to respond to the questions.
He said the matter raised by the NCD Governor on West Papua deserves serious attention.
And, he will sponsor a Cabinet submission for its consideration especially on the way forward for ULMWP.

The Minister told Parliament post – MSG and PIF resolution on West Papua is a sensitive matter, and only Cabinet can decide what to do in the national interest.

West Papua is one of the longest independence movements in international politics.

For sixty years, today, 1 December 2021, the original Melanesian community of West Papua has campaigned for independence from Indonesia.

Since 1975, PNG has conducted its international relations with other countries including Indonesia.
It has put less focus on West Papua and its status as a colonial territorial conflict, and independence movement.

For decades since 1960s, Indonesia placed West Papua under its sovereignty.
And, finally the Dutch gave up.

In 1962, the New York Agreement saw the formation of the Temporary UN administration (untean) over West New Guinea, or West Irian as also known, before being forwarded to Indonesia.

As part of this agreement, a referendum was intended to be held in 1969 to decide whether West Papua will remain part of Indonesia or independence.

However, the vote finally – called the free choice action – very flawed.

Nonetheless, the results were supported by the UN General Assembly. Since then, and with a background of serious human rights violations, the West Papuan independence movement has campaigned for another referendum.

Although most of the world still considers the region as part of Indonesia, it seems that the support has the potential to grow.

PNG must step up on West Papua.

Racism at its best in Australian NRL

.Commentary By Noel Anjo, Sunday Bulletin

PNG’s International Justin Olam scored the first try (penalty try) for Melbourne Storms.

Fijian International Suliasi Vunivalu through individual effort intercepted a long pass and ran 80m to score the second try.

PNG government and about 90% of NRL followers in PNG supported cheering for Melbourne Storms because Justina Olam was playing in the grand finals.

Suliasi Vunivalu was playing his last NRL game, he will be switching codes to rugby union next year.

[text-box color=”blue”]
Justin and Suliasi should be given the opportunity to speak on camera by fox sports commentators and sideline commentators on the field.your content [/text-box]

The two Melanesian brothers should be given the opportunity speak to promote the spirit of the game in PNG and Fiji and Pacific as a all.

There is racism in NRL, all Pacific Islanders playing in NRL should follow the footsteps of Tonga, refuse to play for Australia and represent the Pacific Islands in any International matches.

The Effects of Colonial Mentality on Filipino-American Mental Health

By Kubo Guest Writers – 

By Joriene Mercado

In a survey of San Diego public high school students, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a striking 45.6% of Filipino-American female adolescents have thought about committing suicide, which was the highest rate among all ethnic groups in this study (Wolf, 1997). Data collected by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health showed that the depression rate was 13.6% among Filipino-American female adolescents, which is a higher rate than other Asian American adolescents (Kim & Chun, 2013). The literature lacks information on Filipino-American males. While it is clear that mental health issues disproportionately affect this population, there is an alarming dearth of information on why incidences of suicidal ideation and depression are so high.

Research suggests that this health disparity may be linked to the psychological phenomenon of colonial mentality. People who possess colonial mentality have a perception of ethnic or cultural inferiority that is a specific consequence of colonization. For Filipinos, this involves an automatic and uncritical rejection of anything Filipino and an automatic and uncritical preference for anything American or white. Studies show that Filipino-Americans who possess colonial mentality have poorer mental health.

I’ve been able to recognize my own colonial mentality growing up, particularly not being satisfied with my appearance and wishing I looked more white.

When I first learned about Philippine history during my sophomore year of college, I discovered that my negative self-perception was rooted out of colonialism in the Philippines.

And today I am still healing from the intergenerational trauma that affects Filipinos. We should collectively heal by learning about our history so we can better understand the source of mental health issues in our community.

Filipino-American psychologist E.J.R. David argues that it is critical for Filipinos to know and understand the catalysts of their colonized thoughts, attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. This entails learning about the tragic history of colonialism in the Philippines. Since colonial mentality and poor mental health are linked, Filipino-Americans can better understand their own mental health with knowledge of the history of colonialism in the Philippines.

My struggles with mental health and the impact of learning my people’s colonial history have inspired me to educate Filipino-American high school students about mental health and our collective history. Partnering with the Filipino Mental Health Initiative, a grassroots organization striving to improve the wellness of Filipinos in San Mateo County, we’ve developed workshops for our community that teach the history of colonization in the Philippines and how it relates to mental health and ethnic identity development. In addition to facilitating the workshops, we examined how participants’ perceptions of mental health and ethnic identity changed based on the use of a decolonization framework in the workshops.

Based on the findings from our workshop, students have an increased awareness about their heritage, ethnic identity, and mental health. Throughout the workshop, they reported feelings of inspiration and empowerment and found value in learning about their peers’ personal experiences and connection with the topic. Additionally, their attitudes towards colonization changed to being completely negative, and they drew connections between colonization and mental health and ethnic identity. These preliminary outcomes suggest that educators should consider the sociopolitical forces and structures that may influence the mental health of marginalized communities.

We must continue to learn and share our ethnic histories as a means of empowerment and healing.

I call upon community health initiatives to think critically about how our histories of oppression have influenced the wellness of our communities. How does teaching youth about their collective history impact their ethnic identity development and mental health? What will happen to our youth if they are not exposed to their collective history? I would have been much better off if I learned about my collective history when I was younger, and I believe all students deserve to learn about their collective histories.

Joriene Mercado is a recent graduate from Stanford University with an interest in education and mental health. As an aspiring educator, he aims to work towards developing an education system that’s reflective of the histories and legacies of marginalized groups.

What Is a Colonized Mind?

England was once so proud of its colonial regime that it boasted, “The sun never sets on the British empire.”

Today, colonialism is a bad word. It is fashionable to say we live in a ‘post-colonial’ world.

The truth is the world continues to involve relations of domination and exploitation, under new names: “globalization,” for example.

None of this is news to observers of history and contemporary affairs. The “Occupy” movement, whatever else it may be, is evidence of widespread awareness that 1 percent of the population dominates 99 percent, an arrangement similar to colonialism except it happens within as well as between nations.

The interesting—and complicated—thing about colonialism is that it encompasses not just politics and economics, but consciousness. Critical theorists such as Frantz Fanon and Paulo Freire have pointed this out.

Fanon, a black man born in the French colony of Martinique, became a world-renowned psychoanalyst and philosopher, working in Algeria. He wrote, “For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity” [The Wretched of the Earth].

Fanon’s study of psychology and sociology led him to the further conclusion that colonized people perpetuate their condition by striving to emulate the culture and ideas of their oppressors. He wrote, “Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, is best known for his development of what might be called ‘liberation literacy,’ teaching literacy and political awareness together. Freire agreed with Fanon, “The oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressors.” He said, “the oppressed must be their own example.” Unlike Fanon, he argued that oppressors also could (and those who wanted to end colonialism must) change their own thinking: “those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly” [Pedagogy of the Oppressed].

How do we apply these thoughts to the situation of American Indians today? The problems start with the notion that the United States is not a colonial power, or that the colonial era of American history is over. These notions are sometimes stated openly, more often concealed as assumptions behind our rhetoric.

When an Indian speaks about “our country,” what country is being talked about? Is it an Indigenous Nation or the United States? When an Indian refers to “my President,” which president is being discussed, the president of an Indigenous Nation or the president of the U.S.? These kinds of statements need to be examined to determine whether the speaker is asserting something that supports or undermines consciousness of Indigenous sovereignty.

The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act declared, “all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…are…citizens.” Reaction among Indians was diverse, some welcoming the chance to more closely assimilate and others wary of the loss of Indigenous sovereignty. Prior citizenship acts had been tied to allotment, for example. Non-Indians were also divided in their views, some saying citizenship would “redeem… the tribes,” and others saying citizenship would empower Indians.

It may be the case that an Indian values U.S. citizenship and seeks an active role in the political system that dominates Indian nations. This approach may have some utilitarian value in struggling for Indian self-determination; but it is an approach fraught with difficulty because it uses language that can trap the speaker and listeners in an illusion of self-determination and cause them to miss opportunities for the real thing.

Patrice Lumumba, the first indigenous leader of the Republic of the Congo, called for mental decolonization in his speech to the 1960 Pan-African Congress, saying we have to “rediscover our most intimate selves and rid ourselves of mental attitudes and complexes and habits that colonization … trapped us in for centuries.” Lumumba thought it possible to work together with the former Belgian oppressors; for their part, they saw him as an enemy and facilitated his assassination.

We might say that collaboration among Indian nations and the U.S. is the best of both worlds. Even here, however, we must be careful. To ‘collaborate,’ in its root meaning, is to ‘work together’; but there is also a different meaning: ‘traitorous cooperation with the enemy.’ Which of these we mean—and which we engage in—depends on whether our minds are decolonized. ‘Working together’ requires all participants to work on themselves, their thinking, assumptions, perspectives, beliefs, and habits of mind. Decolonization is personal and political.

Indonesia is an “imagined community”, Melanesia is a REAL community!… BUT…

A Melanesian Dilemma

It is a human tragedy today is that “the REAL Melanesian community think they are unreal, and then they believe and treat the “unreal Indonesian community” as a real one,

They think un-real Indonesia poses real threats and danger, that therefore it is a sensitive issue that should be treated cautiously. They are fearful that supporting and defending the Real Melanesia means offending the “unreal Indonesia”. What are human tragedy. And this tragedy is imposed by Melanesians ourselves, because we Melanesians do not have a clear self-image ourselves. That is why we cannot see the image of other humans as they are. We are believing on what they told us about who they are.

It is Benedict Anderson that branded Indonesia as an un-real community because “Indonesia” only exists as a country, not not as a people. There is no Indonesian island, Indonesian tribe, Indonesian village to this date, but there is Indonesian state called the Colonial Unitary Republic of Indonesia (CURI). In other words, Indonesia does not exist as a people, but only as a nation-state.

An imagined community is a concept developed by Benedict Anderson in his 1983 book Imagined Communities, to analyze nationalism. Anderson depicts a nation as a socially constructed community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.[1]:6–7 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community>

The first Note:

  1. There is no single tribe called Indonesian tribe;
  2. There is no single village called Indonesian village;
  3. There is no single island called Indonesian island; and
  4. Therefore, in fact, there is no single person called Indonesian.

The second Note:

  1. There are Java tribe; Batal Tribe, Bugis Tribe, Bali Tribe, Lani Tribe, Yali Tribe, Mee Tribe, etc.
  2. There are villages like Genyem, Banyuwangi (Java), Sragen (Java), Bogor (Java), Bogia (PNG), Eratap (Vanuatu), GabaGaba (PNG).
  3. There are islands like New Guinea Java, Bali, Eromanggo, and Borneo.
  4. There are peoples like Javanese, Sumatran, Dayak, Bugis, Melanesian, Balinese

The third Note:

  1. Indonesia is not a real identity of human being, it is just an identity of a country, a colonial boundary created for the sake of their economic interests, disregarding and undermining human beings who live in islands included into Indonesia.
  2. Melanesia is a real identity, but we are divided up by colonised by different masters at different times, and finally we were given independence, but still following the maps of our colonial masters. Consequently, we are identifying ourselves according to colonial map, not according to the truth of our own identity.
  3. Indonesia has declared the country as “one people – one land” (sebangsa setanah air), either foolishly or cleverly ignoring the matter of fact that there are MANY nations and MANY islands included into Indonesia.
  4. Melanesia never declared herself as “One People – One Origin, One Destiny”,
    • that is really why we are thinking Melanesia is not real but West Papua is real,
    • therefore I am West Papuan, Melanesia is not real but PNG is real, therefore I am Papua New Guinean,
    • that is why I am ni-Vanuatu, not Melanesian.
    • therefore I am a Fijian, and West Papua issue is an internal Indonesian issue, I am as Fijian stay outside, West Papuans are Indonesians.
  5. In fact, it is not difficult for Melanesians to say to ourselves and to the world, “We are Melanesians”:, “Yes We are ONE, Melanesian People!” and
    1. WE ARE NOT West Papuans;
    2. WE ARE NOT Papuan New Guineans;
    3. WE ARE NOT Fijians;
    4. WE ARE NOT ni-Vanuatu;
    5. WE ARE NOT Solomon Islanders;
    6. WE ARE NOT NEW CALEDONIANS,

Therefore, Free West Papua is not to Free West Papuans, but Free West Papua is to Free Melanesians from colonial power. Occupying West Papua is occupying Melanesian ancestral land.

We should not be fooled by colonial-made governments of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and think that West Papua issue is an internal affair of Indonesian peoples.

We Melanesians a Facing Dilemma on our Own Self-Image

Our Melanesian our self-image is already over-painted by foreign powers. We are holding our image made-up by foreign colonialists. And today we are thinking according to what our colonial powers want.

They told us you are NOT Melanesians, and we are agreeing that we are not so. They told us West Papua is part of Indonesia and governments of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) are thinking the that way too.

Finally Indonesians themselves told us this

If you cannot figure out your own self-image, then let me tell you, “YOU ARE MONKEY!”

So right now, this struggle is not between West Papuan people and Indonesia anymore. This is a struggle between us all “monkeys” from Melanesia against those “imagined human community” of Indonesia.

Let us unite! Let us declare our image: Yes we are monkeys! Let monkeys stay in our own forests, and let imagined humans go back to their homes.

We are ONE: 1 Ancestor, 1 Land, 1 People, 1 Destiny.

We are not West Papuans, We are not Papua New Guineans, We are not Fijians, We are not Solomon Islanders, we are not Ni-Vanuatu, we are not New Caledonians, “WE ARE MELANESIANS!”

This is all about Melanesian nationalism! The nationalism of the “monkeys” against imagined society of Indonesia.

Declared Port Vila land owners visit President

Back row L to R: Principal Private Secretary Peter Bong, Jean-Paul Virelala, Steven Kalsakau, Erick Kaltapang mo Ps. Russel Bakokoto, Assistant Private Secretary Yan Dapang mo long Front row L to R: Kalkot Kaltabang, Kalsef Tangraro, President Obed Moses Tallis and Chief Denny Nmak Kalmet.
Back row L to R: Principal Private Secretary Peter Bong, Jean-Paul Virelala, Steven Kalsakau, Erick Kaltapang mo Ps. Russel Bakokoto, Assistant Private Secretary Yan Dapang mo long Front row L to R: Kalkot Kaltabang, Kalsef Tangraro, President Obed Moses Tallis and Chief Denny Nmak Kalmet.

On Monday last week the declared custom land owners of the land Port Vila town has been built on met President Obed Tallis to officially inform him of the declaration.

The declaration was reportedly made in May last year by the Efate Island Court last year.

The declared custom land owners from Erakor, Eratap, Pango and Ifira assured that now the ownership issue has been decided, there will be no more disturbances on land issues within the central business district of Port Vila.

During the meeting with the Head of State, the delegation presented the green certificate for the land that was issued by the Customary Land Management Office.

With this assurance, the President told the delegation that the people of Efate have a good heart to allow people to settle on their land.

He said the development pace of Efate today is testament that reflects the good nature of Efate people.

The President thanked people of Efate for allowing people from other islands to reside in areas like Teouma and Etas.

Source: http://dailypost.vu/

Chief Worwor expresses concerns about upcoming chiefs elections

Chief Isaac Worwor officiating at the 2018 Chief Day on March 5. By Jonas Cullwick
Chief Isaac Worwor officiating at the 2018 Chief Day on March 5. By Jonas Cullwick

The caretaker President of the Port Vila Town Council of Chiefs and member of the caretaker Malvatumauri council of chiefs has raised concerns about what he said was a new method being introduced for election of Malvatumauri, island councils of chiefs and the two urban councils of chiefs due next month.

All the councils of chiefs including Malvatumauri were dissolved last month and all of them are now serving in caretaker roles.

“The new method for elections will be a surprise to everyone because even the national council of chiefs, Malvatumauri, was not aware of it because it was not put through to the council to know how the new election procedure would be undertaken,” Chief Worwor, who is a member of Malvatumauri said.

‘The new election system will result in a lot of confusions in the nakamals,” he added.

Since the Malvatumauri was established in 1981, this is the first time a new voting system will be implemented, but Chief Worwor said he was not against new election systems, except that it should be put to the Malvatumauri for consultation before it was approved for use.

He said since Malvatumauri was dissolved last month, members have not yet been paid their gratuity payments.

He said the office of the Customary Land Management Office (CLMO) and those in the office of Malvatumauri are currently visit the islands of the country speaking with Area Council Secretary to inform them of the new election process, which he said should first be done with Malvatumauri.

The Daily Post hoped to get clarification from the government in the coming days as everyone in CLMO and Malvatumauri administrations are all out in the field.

Source: Vanuatu Daily Post

Jonas Cullwick, a former General Manager of VBTC is now a Senior Journalist with the Daily Post. Contact: jonas@dailypost.vu. Cell # 678 5460922