PNG has endured a horrific year of conflict – but peace rarely comes from the barrel of a gun

Papua New Guinea has had a difficult year, which began with serious rioting and looting in the capital Port Moresby and several other towns.

After a payroll glitch led to a police walkout, the so-called Black Wednesday riots on January 10 left shops burned out and at least 20 people dead.

In February, a conflict between different ethnic groups in the restive Enga Highlands province left about 70 people dead.

And late last month, a marauding gang of young men calling themselves “I don’t care” terrorized rural residents in East Sepik province, killing at least 26 people, raping unconfirmed numbers of women and girls, and setting fire to several homes.

It’s time to take another look at why these problems arise and why a different approach is needed.

A spotlight on police work

While it is difficult to make accurate measurements due to limited data, most agree that violence and lawlessness are increasing in many parts of Papua New Guinea.

The broader context for this violence includes:

• rural decay
• lack of economic opportunities
• exploitative resource extraction
• a debilitating cost of living crisis, and
• frustrations with a political system that fails to deliver services or development to a young and rapidly growing population.

But despite the many factors contributing to Papua New Guinea’s law and order problems, it is common to focus on just one: the shortcomings of the country’s law enforcement agencies.

The solution is therefore often simplistic: more forceful police action.

This usually involves the deployment of heavily armed mobile units, often long after events on the ground have already gotten out of hand.

This is usually followed by an abrupt withdrawal of these units when the fighting is over.

This year, national leaders again called for reactive and militarized policing, including the use of deadly force. In February, police warned, “We shoot to kill anyone who brandishes a weapon.”

There is a superficial appeal to the logic of violent police responses. After all, instead of bows and arrows, today’s warriors are armed with powerful firearms.

As we see in conflicts around the world, the temptation to respond to violence with more violence is incredibly strong. Yet we also have decades of experience that such approaches simply do not produce positive change in PNG.

Worse, such responses often exacerbate trauma and undermine local peace efforts.

A different approach

Perhaps we should instead look to Bougainville for inspiration. This autonomous region of Papua New Guinea, ravaged by conflict in the 1980s and 1990s, has since become a poster child for post-conflict peacebuilding.

The peace process in Bougainville was driven by local actors – traditional leaders, women’s organisations, church communities and others – who creatively adapted older forms of peacekeeping and reconciliation to the new circumstances.

This approach is being applied in numerous micro-experiments across the country, including informal regulation in urban settlements.

For example, Gerehu, a sprawling suburb of Port Moresby, was once marked by carjackings, burglaries, drugs and violence. It has transformed into a relative oasis in recent years, thanks to the work of motivated individuals who are driving local transformation by connecting dispersed state resources and civil society energy.

It is time for all of Papua New Guinea to embrace such an approach, where policing is seen as part of a shared governance agenda, involving civil society as active partners.

Changing the Framework of Violence

An important first step is to change the way violence is framed in Papua New Guinea.

It is incorrect and unhelpful to portray it as the domain of unruly tribes, lawless individuals or criminal gangs separate from society and the state.

It suggests that these groups ‘are somewhere’ and need to be ‘civilized’ by the state.

However, some reports suggest that Papua New Guinea’s political and business elite could be involved in financing this violence.

They can gain electoral advantage from violence and insecurity, or from economic gain, such as land grabbing.

Failed states also contribute greatly to violence. The erosion of services such as health, education and justice has accentuated societal frustration across the board, not least among displaced youth who are often blamed for violence and disorder.

This frustration is fueled by the lack of economic opportunities for the growing youth population.

It is also reported that the protagonists of contemporary crime in Papua New Guinea come from outside the country’s borders. There are increasing problems with drug and arms trafficking.

The problem of violence must be seen as a problem driven by both the state and society. The responsibility for finding a peaceful way forward must also be shared.

This requires genuine collaboration with local leaders, including women leaders, to address existing and emerging security threats.

There is hope that investment in such long-term partnerships will be supported by at least some of PNG’s most senior leaders. It is encouraging that PNG’s police chief, David Manning, said in January this year that “police need to empower community leaders.”

Another high priority is bringing courts and other justice services to areas where they often have a limited and volatile presence. Local leaders often need state support to resolve minor disputes before they escalate into warfare.

If violent forms of self-help are to be avoided, people need to see that perpetrators of violent crimes face the consequences. This includes the entrepreneurs and beneficiaries of conflict, not just the combatants on the ground.

Bringing peace to Papua New Guinea requires much more than just demanding it with a gun.