Regionalism debate becoming contentious
Discussions are ongoing in different Pacific island nations concerning regionalism, particularly in the wake of a Fiji drive to reset the regional architecture. Fiji’s wants to redraw the regional organizational map, particularly when it comes to Australian and New Zealand involvement.
There are differing views from around the region on this issue, but with the major power shifts in relation to aid and development in the region, it seems inevitable there needs to be a redefining of the geopolitical landscape that is emerging.
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is the major regional organization to which sovereign island states belong, and is the focus of a lot of the discussions. In true Pacific style, the nature of this debate may force some island states to take sides, but the issue of regionalism will not go away easily, not for some time.
When Fiji’s Foreign Minister, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola called on Tonga’s recently elected Prime Minister, Samuela ‘Akilisi Pohiva, in January, the chief interest of the discussions was to find out what was Tonga’s stance on Fiji’s call for a reconstruction of the regional architecture.
Prime Minister Pohiva told a press conference in Nuku’alofa during a visit by New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, that his government has not yet decided on a position regarding Fiji’s initiative for a new regional architecture that would sideline Australia and New Zealand.
However, Prime Minister Pohiva did point out then, that Tonga is not opposed to active involvement by Australia and New Zealand in the PIF.
In Nuku’alofa during Foreign Minister Bishop’s visit at the beginning of April, Prime Minister Pohiva said: “We respect Fiji’s position as they stand in accordance with their own interests, but we continue to be committed to our traditional development partners of Australia and New Zealand.”
When Fiji was suspended from the regional organization in 2006 due to the military coup led by Commodore Vorege Bainimarama, both Australia and New Zealand imposed sanctions that strained relations, forcing Fiji to look elsewhere for assistance.
The strained relationship between Fiji and the two ‘Western powers’ of the Pacific became further agitated by Fiji’s open embrace of China as a significant development partner.
Diplomatic relationship between Fiji and other Asian economic powers such as Japan, South Korea, and India became closer, and even rich Arab nations such a UAE started investing in Fiji.
A conditional demand advanced by Australia and New Zealand, backed by the United Stated, on a re-normalization of relations with Fiji depended on holding a free democratic election.
Pressures concerning timing for a democratic election that were put on Bainimarama’s interim government were largely ignored. Fiji set September 2014 as the time that would be suitable for them to hold elections, and so they did.
The political party created by Bainimarama won what was declared a fair and free election, and the Commodore was elected Prime Minister.
During the period of the marginalization of Fiji by both Australia and New Zealand, Fiji continued to grow economically despite the diplomatic roadblocks by those termed by Bainimarama as ‘old friends’.
There were also huge infrastructural developments being carried out with Chinese aid focusing on the provinces outside the main urban centers. Obviously Fiji was developing ‘new friends’ who were more active in assisting Fiji move forward in its development agenda.
But now that Fiji is back to being governed by an elected civilian government with a new constitution and a set political and economic roadmap for the future, those that had left Fiji’s side because of the 2006 coup were back beckoning for closer co-operation.
A new government was elected in Australia, and first off the block to greet and have talks with Fiji was Foreign Minister Julie Bishop. She met with Prime Minister Bainimarama and Foreign Minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. They worked out ways to ‘re-normalize’ relationships that have been cooled by hostile decisions of the previous Labour government.
New Zealand followed suit. And then the door swung open for Fiji to rejoin the Pacific Islands Forum.
This is where the problem lies, at least as far as Fiji is concerned. It has made moves to reset the regional architecture, with Australia and New Zealand playing less of a lead role in the running of PIF.
Fiji’s position, as expressed in various speeches by Prime Minister Bainimarama, is advocating they do not need the Forum for their development. In fact Fiji had also been vocal that they do not need the conditional aid from Australia and New Zealand. Partnership with their ‘new friends’ has apparently worked very well for this Pacific nation still dubbed ‘the hub of the Pacific islands.’
Fiji is proposing, at least in discussions around the region that a new organization should replace PIF, focused more on economic development, and that Australia and New Zealand should not be members.
Even before Fiji’s 2014 election, it had taken the lead in forming a new regional body, the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) which has received the support of a number of Pacific Island countries including Timor Leste, but also includes non-independent island states like American Samoa, Guam, French Polynesia, and New Caledonia.
PIDF has its secretariat in Suva.
But while Papua New Guinea, the biggest economy among Pacific island states, is supportive of the objectives of PIDF focused on economic development, it does not want to jeopardize its relationship with Australia.
PIDF restricts membership to Pacific Island states, without Australia and New Zealand.
In its inaugural meeting in 2013, Prime Minister Bainimarama declared: “We are one ocean, one people, seeking common solutions.”
In its second summit in 2014, keynote speaker, Dr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia said: “The green economy is certainly essential for our resilience. It becomes a new economic paradigm which promotes economic progress without harming our riches and resources.”
The popular sentiment among Pacific nations however is that PIDF does not need to replace PIF, but can be complimentary by having a different focus, and being inclusive in its membership.
Foreign Minister Bishop made it clear that Australia will continue to play an active role in the region, but will not drive the regional agenda.
Even though she was interested in hosting a Pacific leaders meeting in Sydney, outside the auspices of the Pacific Islands Forum, to discuss the regional architecture, New Zealand’s High Commissioner in Tonga said they were totally against such an idea.
He said Fiji was invited to return to PIF last year and they had no interest in discussing the regional architecture any further.
Samoa opposed the setting up of PIDF. Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi said that PIDF ‘would never replace PIF.’
Tonga’s position on this regionalism issue is that of neutrality.
PIF, the regional organization with the Secretariat also in Fiji, has for years been accused of being more or less a ‘country club’ gathering for Pacific leaders who blindly consent to Australian and New Zealand regional agendas because of aid.
But PIF’s new Secretary General, Dame Meg Taylor, while acknowledging the concerns within the region about the relevance of PIF, was very clear in her statement that the organization has an important role to play within the wider context of regionalism.
In an interview for Pacific Conversations in March, she said: “There’s a debate that the Pacific Islands Forum is becoming irrelevant, that it’s not needed. I want to be able to assure the people of the Pacific, because when they were asked… about regionalism, they responded that they needed a regional organization that represented their countries. And PIF is one that represents the independent states of the Pacific. And that’s a very precious mandate for me. And we’ve got to make sure that it is protected but also effective.”
Dame Taylor also said: “… the key emphasis is about changing the paradigm of the way development is done in the region, where the leaders of the Pacific are the ones that make the decision as to what are the regional priorities.”The Secretary General was also asked about her thoughts on the regional and sub-regional landscape as it currently stands, and how she thought it might evolve in the future particularly with opportunities offered by sub-regional organizations like the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).
She answered: “I think that what we’ve got to be open to as a regional organization is that there are some things a sub-regional can do and do them well. There are other things and issues that a regional organization has to have responsibility for and take leadership on. And to be able to exchange ideas and not to be afraid of it.”
