What now for the debate on the future of Pacific regional architecture?

imageThe cancellation of the planned Sydney summit of Pacific leaders should not be taken as signaling the end of the debate about the future of Pacific regional architecture. Although there have been a number of reviews of the structure and functions of Pacific regional institutions, there is still a need for a debate about the overall governance and configuration of future regional architecture in the light of Fiji’s recent return to democracy in September 2014 and its refusal to resume its membership of the Pacific Islands Forum unless it undergoes radical reforms.

Dame Meg Taylor, the dynamic new Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum, has recognised this need. She has been reported on Radio New Zealand International as saying that ‘a discussion on regional architecture at this time, is I think, important. To ignore it is just to put a lid on sentiments that have been expressed and I think it is important to have a rigorous discussion around this’. She went on to say that:

They have to get in a room. They have to discuss this. They have to consider before they come into the room all the consequences of all the different scenarios of what could happen. I would like to see Fiji be back as a very active member of the PIF because it is a very valuable member of the Pacific region.

What are the scenarios currently on the ‘table’? The first is the Fiji Government proposal that the Pacific Islands Forum become an all–island Forum run by Pacific islanders, for Pacific islanders. As explained by Prime Minister Bainimarama, ‘we are not interested in going back until it [the PIF] stops being the play thing of the Aussies and Kiwis. When it becomes a genuine expression of the will of the Pacific Islanders themselves, then we will go back, then we will think about re-joining the Forum’. This model draws on the example of regional organisations of developing countries elsewhere in the world – ASEAN, CARICOM, African Union, etc. In such a scenario, Australia and New Zealand would become special dialogue partners in an inner circle of Forum partnerships with donor countries. Underpinning this model is the idea that the Pacific island states need to control their own diplomatic agenda without the distortion provided by the very different agendas of their large, developed neighbours; and that to deal effectively on key global agendas such as climate change it is a strategic necessity that the region organise as an association of small developing island states so that they can be accepted in global southern coalitions such as AOSIS, and G77 and China. Leveraging Pacific positions through such coalitions, it is argued, is crucial for small island states in contemporary global diplomacy. The strategic case for exclusion has been most persuasively argued by Ambassador Kaliopate Tavola and by Derek Brien of the Pacific Institute of Public Policy. Foreign Minister Bishop has indicated that Australia would not take the adoption of such a model ‘lying down’. It has also been rejected explicitly by Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister, Peter O’Neill, and Palau’s President, Tommy Remengesau. There has as yet been no explicit support for the exclusion proposal by any Pacific island leader.

A second scenario, proposed by the Fiji Government as an alternative if the first scenario is not agreed to, is one in which all Pacific development partners – Japan, China, Korea, USA, etc – are invited to become full members of the Pacific Islands Forum sitting alongside the Pacific island states as equal members. Given the Fiji Government’s strong stance on achieving an independent Pacific voice in regional diplomacy this has the ring of a rhetorical point rather than a serious alternative. It is surely a debating point, meant to emphasise the inappropriateness of Australia and New Zealand sitting in the Islands Forum as equal members in a southern organisation when they are in fact development partners rather than developing island state recipients. This proposal clearly goes against the principle of regional self-determination that Fiji has enunciated and acted upon elsewhere. It would in any case be a non-starter politically for all other Pacific island states, and for Australia and New Zealand, which would not welcome the membership of any other metropolitan powers.

A third scenario is that of doing nothing and maintaining the status quo. This will be the default outcome if no debate takes place. Under this scenario, Fiji will not resume its membership of the PIF; and it will continue to promote the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF), Pacific Small Developing Island States grouping (PSIDS), and the Melanesia Spearhead Group (MSG), as an alternate and competing regional system financially supported by Russia, China, UAE, Indonesia and others. Furthermore, if there is no debate about how the Pacific Islands Forum system might work with other parts of this alternate diplomatic system – a system which has gained considerable support from Pacific Island countries – then we would see the entrenchment of two competing Pacific regional systems with overlapping membership. This would hamper Pacific unity on important issues and spread scarce human and financial resources thinly and inefficiently.

A fourth scenario follows from the more conciliatory language in recent pronouncements by the Fiji and Australian foreign ministers. The Fiji foreign minister, Inoke Kubuabola, has denied that Fiji’s position was one of being ‘bent on the eviction of Australia and New Zealand from the Pacific Islands Forum’. Rather he is reported as saying that ‘regional governance of the Pacific Islands is primarily the responsibility of the island nations themselves’ and it is therefore ‘logical that metropolitan developed countries like Australia and New Zealand take a step back’. Foreign Minister Bishop provided an equally important basis for dialogue on a compromise scenario in her comments on the proposed regional summit during her visit to Papua New Guinea in December 2014. She said ‘it was time for Pacific leaders to chart their own course … adding that a Sydney summit early next year could set the regional architecture in place for that to happen.’

There are a number of reform strategies that could be discussed under the broad umbrella of this fourth scenario which ensure Australia and New Zealand ‘step back’ and the Pacific island states have a greater control over ‘charting their own course’. I canvass some of them in my recent SSGM Discussion Paper ‘Recapturing the Spirit of 1971’. They include: embracing, rather than competing with, the new Pacific island–controlled diplomatic system which has emerged outside the PIF network in the past five years to meet strategic needs in global and regional diplomacy; the re-introduction of the island caucus system within the PIF; and changing the financial arrangements of the PIF to allow for more Pacific island ownership (Australia and New Zealand currently provide about 95 per cent of the combined core and regular budget).

Greg Fry is an associate professor in the School of Government, Development and International Affairs at the University of the South Pacific (USP), where he is academic co-ordinator of the Graduate Studies in Diplomacy and International Affairs program. He is also an adjunct senior fellow in the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at ANU. This post is based on his recent SSGM Discussion Paper [pdf].

Greg Fry

Greg Fry is an associate professor in the School of Government, Development and International Affairs at the University of the South Pacific (USP), where he is academic co-ordinator of the Graduate Studies in Diplomacy and International Affairs program. He is also an adjunct senior fellow in the Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at ANU.

5 Comments

  • Well Prime Minister Key said that:

    ‘’When it comes to the Pacific Island Forum its Australia and New Zealand that put in the money and most typically and we there to support our Pacific friends whether its Fiji or Tonga or Samoa or in Melanesia or Solomon Islands or PNG whatever it might be – so a Pacific Forum without Australia and New Zealand would be an interesting thing I suppose and that those leaders would be able to talk about things but exactly where will they get the money to do anything and the answer is nowhere – none of them have that – So I don’t think you want to take him seriously… I am not and I don’t think other people will be either’’.

    • I think Prime Minister Key’s comments are phrased in unfortunate terms. But they are indicative of why a shift (which is actually a return) in approach is required. Both Sir Mekere Morauta during the review of the Pacific Plan and more recently Dame Meg Taylor have stated clearly – what is wanted at the level of the Pacific Islands Forum is political leadership. It is not about who pays for what, it is about the political leadership leading politically. The Pacific Islands Forum was formed largely out of the frustrations of Pacific island leaders who were constrained from discussing issues that were of political importance at the South Pacific Commission, including sovereignty, nuclear testing by the USA and France. Australia & New Zealand were allowed/invited to join in the belief that they shared the political vision of other leaders. In recent years, the political function of the Forum has been diluted and instead replaced with technocratic discussions in which Australia and New Zealand’s other role (of principal donors) has been allowed to overtake their role as political partners. This has not been helped by their non-appearance at PIF Leaders’ meetings and their sending of AusAID/DFAT officers to regional ministerial meetings. The PIF’s requirement that membership be restricted to sovereign states should mean that each member has an equal voice and that each can introduce issues for discussion without worrying that they might be offending someone else with whom they may need to discuss development assistance at a later date.

      It is true and not surprising that the Fiji position is not one that will receive much support from other Pacific island leaders but that does not equate to an unequivocal approval of the Aus/NZ role within the Forum. If what the leaders of the region are seeking is a political (re)settlement then they need to be talking about many more things than aid.

  • The situation with the PIF is simply the outcome of a dubious Australia/NZ policy to isolate Fiji. The whole point of the PIF is to engage, in spite of differences. Instead, the Tasman 2 decided to use the heavy hand, and it backfired. Prior to 2006, one couldn’t see a single Chinese symbol in Fiji. Now, it’s all over the place, and Fiji has been visited by the Indian PM and the Chinese Premier in quick consecutive fashion. If the Tasman 2 thinks that’s a good thing, then god help them. This is their creation. Now from Fiji’s perspective, should it side with the 2 biggest emerging economies of the world who helped in its time of need, or should it smile and go back to the Tasman 2, after being sabotaged at every point by them in the last 8 years?

    It’s a no brainer…really! And it’s not even personal, it makes smart business sense. Fiji’s isolation has forced it to look outside the cocoon that the Tasman 2 has enclosed it in. In 8 years, it’s made many friends globally, and realizes the forum doesn’t serve the interests of the Pacific. You see, Fiji’s diversity has given it the belief in self achievement (with some help of course)…PM Frank wants the country to be the “Singapore of the South Pacific”…. PM Frank may have been a military leader, but his ideology and vision is one that the Tasman 2 have never witnessed before. It’s a massive miscalculation on the guy and his abilities. They disliked him more for his charisma, ability, and ambitions for his country, and they are fearful of his influence, especially under the democratic banner (which they can’t cry about anymore).

    The difference between Fiji and the other islands is clear. The rest are used to the perks that being obedient to the Tasman 2 comes with, whereas Fiji is willing to get off the welfare and make a prison break for greener pastures. And that doesn’t set well with the Tasman 2.

    If one was to construct a “hall of shame”, it would start with Helen Clark, and include a Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and all the other hardline yet ineffective politicians in New Zealand. Poor Mr Abbott is merely paying for the crimes of his predecessors.

  • Hi Greg

    My thanks too for your important paper.

    To me, Fiji’s refusal to return to the Forum appears to be mainly about Prime Minister Bainimarama. Suva’s probably more isolated than Canberra at the moment, and the PIDF seems more and more a phantom menace.

    I agree with you, though, that it would be a mistake to view that with any sort of satisfaction. Bainimarama won a thumping victory at the polls so will be influential for years to come. And as Graeme Dobell puts it, the Forum without Fiji is like ASEAN would be without Indonesia (or perhaps Thailand). It remains viable but is greatly weakened.

    So you’re right a circuit-breaker’s still needed in the absence of other Pacific Islands support for the sort of summitry Ms Bishop and Mr Bainimarama proposed. While Australia and Fiji are both keen on different types of deeper reform of the Forum, I get the sense other Forum members would like Canberra and Suva to just get over themselves for now.

    If we’ve reached an impasse, perhaps Port Moresby’s hosting of the Forum leaders’ summit in September will provide an opportunity to move forward? That might seem an odd suggestion, given the rivalry between Moresby and Suva, and Papua New Guinea’s 40th birthday celebrations that month. But if PNG can show the sort of regional leadership it claims, and other members agree, Prime Minister O’Neill could invite Bainimarama to co-chair a special session on the future of the regional infrastructure to clear the air, let parties reconcile, and hopefully agree who needs to step forward or back a bit.

  • Thanks for this Greg and thanks for the discussion paper, which I would recommend to others interested in this topic. When the Sydney summit was announced late last year, Matthew Dornan and I argued that we thought it neither appropriate nor necessary. Based on what has happened since, including the most recent statement by the prime minister of Tonga, rejecting the position that Australia and New Zealand should leave the Forum (further to his previous assertion that he has more important things to think about), it would appear that our judgment is one that is shared.

Leave a Comment

Tweet
Share
Share
+1