day 3; tiredness sets in

Today opened with a delegation from Bougainville; they got a lot of applause, and it was exciting and heartening and hard, too, to hear about their experiences and struggles and disarmament. They stressed a lot of what was introduced by the Kup women for peace group. For instance, initiatives about gun control must come from the community, if they’re simply ordered by the government they’ll fail.

I’m not exactly sure what the purpose of the Summit is. To tick the community consultation box, yes. But there are no clear aims: the summit takes a bit of a scattergun approach, if I may. We hear about everything and anything that even vaguely relates to gun culture in png: guns and : border protection – pack rapes – poverty and its opposite – legislation – disposal – tribal fights – political leadership etc etc. Some provinces (ie. SHP) get attention, most are ignored. It might have been more productive to streamline proceedings a bit more: grass-roots responses to guns, for instances; provincial info; legislation… Making such a varied, knowledgeable audience sit and listen to such a varied assortment of topics isn’t utilising the experience in the room.

But the outcomes of the summit are also unclear: recommendations for parliament (which we broke up into groups to debate today and tomorrow)? Practical steps we can make locally towards lessening the culture of guns? Towards physically getting rid of guns? Towards…setting up a permanent gun control council, is that it? Towards various political careers?

During the breaks today I spoke separately to two guys I know who are both from different parts of the highlands. The conversations were almost identical – not that I’m boring, but: both acknowledged that whatever was said about banning guns/removing guns/evil of guns, it wasn’t going to affect the number of guns in the highlands. In many areas up here, every village will have guns. Not individuals: villages. The whole community will contribute money towards purchasing guns. They do this for many reasons: having guns makes them feel more powerful, respected, safer, protected; they know other communities have guns; they know enemies have guns. And this doesn’t automatically lead to violent crime. Everyone has guns, everyone knows everyone else has guns, and they sit comfortably. Disarming them without replacing guns with meaningful projects/jobs would be a disaster.

I know there are a thousand more examples from real events where guns are causing immense damage, destruction and death. But my point is: more people at the summit need to be talking more specifically to make it useful. At the moment, I imagine we’ll come out with some tweaking to legislation, newspaper campaigns, a push for more money for defence and police, and … what else? There isn’t a lack of good intentions, but again, initiatives about gun control must come from the community, if they’re simply ordered by the government they’ll fail.

For an introduction that does gesture towards some of the complexities of guns and png, look up:
Sinclair Dinnen and Edwina Thompson: “Gender and Small Arms Violence in PNG”. SSGM Discussion Paper 2004/8. http://rspas.anu.edu.au/melanesia/discussion.php

For Jerry Singirok’s latest, see:
JS. “The Use of Illegal Guns: Security Implications for PNG”. SSGM Discussion Paper 2005/5. http://rspas.anu.edu.au/melanesia

For more on the KWP see State, Society and governance in Melanesia Discussion Paper 2004/4 http://rspas.anu.edu.au/melanesia