Attendees at the Pacific Island Round Table in Dili, Timor Leste, March 2013
By Makereta Komai, PACNEWS Editor
Fiji’s full return to all levels of Pacific ACP (African, Caribbean & Pacific) meetings on November 21 last year was ‘historical’ in many sense of the word. Historical because the decision was resolved in a truly ‘Pacific Way’ as described by Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna. “The Pacific came together as a family and dealt with an important issue in a way that a family should – a Pacific Way.’
Also historic in the sense that Pacific ACP leaders created their own ‘space’ to discuss an unresolved long outstanding issue – Fiji’s full participation – without the presence of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) executives in the room. PIFS executives were in Port Moresby to assist the chair of PACP facilitate discussions. The Forum Secretariat plays a key role in the relations between Pacific ACP countries and the European Union. Apart from facilitating the meeting of PACP leaders, the Secretariat’s Secretary General is also the Regional Authorising Officer (RAO) for the European Development Fund (EDF), the development funding assistance that forms the basis of the PACP/EU relationship.
Papua New Guinea’s offer to fund and host an interim secretariat for PACP leaders – away from the Suva-based Forum Secretariat – was a significant milestone of the Port Moresby meeting. As one trade expert in the region explained to me, ‘In PACP relations with the EU, the real power lies in who controls EU development assistance to the region. Right now, that power is in the hands of PIFS Secretary General.’ After Port Moresby, Pacific ACP leaders need to determine where to locate the RAO for the Pacific region.
While that is an issue best left to PACP leaders, the first step to shift PACP responsibilities away from the Forum Secretariat is a ‘bold step,’ said the regional trade expert who is familiar with the PACP relations with the EU.
That bold step is part of the new reformed regional thinking that has emerged in the past five years or so – for Pacific Islanders and their leaders to determine what’s in their best interest without the influence or control of donors and development partners.
Rethinking Oceania
The Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) in 2010 produced paper titled ‘Rethinking Oceania’ calling for a new form of Oceanic regionalism – ‘one that is marked by politics and economics of sufficiency and solidarity.’
“The key goals in such undertaking are to strengthen family life, our traditional economies, the principles of maximizing social and political relationships and the respect and holistic perspective our Pacific people have for the environment.”
“In essence, this proposed concept is about creating the space for Oceania people to claim it as their own,” said the PCC paper.
In recent years, this new form of regionalism has begun to take hold – with the emergence of a number of sub-regional groups and breakaway of specialised and technical organisation – with almost one aim – to claim their own space to discuss issues of common interest to their members.
“These are footsteps in the sand of a region that’s growing, manifested in the growing desire to be independent from the imposed decisions from outside, according to the regional affairs expert.
The PCC proposal said the 1970’s provided the Pacific with similar leadership which gave us the ‘Pacific Way’. “Today, Oceania requires visionary and pragmatic leaders who believe that an alternative future is indeed possible for our people.”
“The coming out now is timely. The region has had 40 years to grow into maturity and we’ve made mistakes as part of that learning process. However, we now understand the value of our resources and the strength of co-operating amongst themselves. You will see more of that reassertion of independence in the coming years, said the regional expert, according to the regional affairs expert. The political reconfiguration now underway in the region coincides with global discussion on the post 2015 agenda, at the expiry of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the implementation of the Rio+20 outcomes, which can link into the new ‘reformed regional’ architecture.
Break-away, an expression of ‘enough is enough’
One only has observe current political developments in the region in the last five years or so to see the emergence of sub regional groups as an expression of the desire of Pacific countries to claim their own space to discuss their own issues.
In trade, Forum Island Countries agreed to set up a separate Office of the Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA) in Port Vila in 2009 to provide independent advice and support in the negotiations of PACER Plus negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. OCTA was created to assist island nations develop and advance their negotiating positions in PACER Plus discussions.
Similarly in 2010, the same thinking was behind the formation of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Secretariat to allow its eight members namely Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu to take control of the management and conservation of their tuna resources for their benefit. Collectively the eight PNA countries control around 30 percent of the global tuna supply, whose estimated value of catch is over US$2 billion annually.
In New York, the formation of the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS), an informal group representing 11 countries at the United Nations in 2007 was an expression by these nations to work together to advance common interests in climate change, sustainable development in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, encouraging public and private sector investment and the sustainable management and conservation of marine resources.
The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), representing the four largest economies of the region established its own Secretariat in 1988 in the hope of identifying strengths within its membership to promote Melanesian identity and solidarity through political, social, trade and economic developments in the region.
On the margins of the Pacific Forum Leaders meeting in Rarotonga in August, the birth of the Polynesian Leaders Group (PLG) was formalised. Comprising Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, American Samoa, French Polynesia/Tahiti and Tokelau, PLG leaders amongst other things considered setting up a secretariat to co-ordinate ways to co-operate with each other at the sub- regional level. Cook Islands Prime Minister said in August the new body will not compete with other groups within the Forum. However, there are certain issues that are peculiar to Polynesia that can be dealt with at the sub-regional level.
Up north, the Micronesia Chief Executive’s Summit (MCES) has been meeting since 2003 to discuss common issues of interest to the Micronesian region. Because the islands of Micronesia are all communities that draw their economic livelihood, cultural values, spiritual well being and civic strength from their ocean-based environments, many common activities focus on environmental protection and sustainable development. The Micronesian Challenge is one of these initiatives which commit the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands and
Palau to conserve 30 percent of the coastal waters and 20 percent of their forest land by 2020. These cooperative arrangements form an emerging foundation of regional cooperation and governance.
Pacific Islands Development Forum
Buried deep in the communiqué of the August meeting of the Engaging with the Pacific meeting in Fiji was a proposal to convene a meeting of the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) in 2013 to engage leaders from key sectors to implement green policies for Pacific Island Countries. It’s the first ever reference to a new body to, initially discuss issues of common interest to Pacific Island Developing States (PSIDS). The common and ‘uncontroversial issue’ to get the ball rolling for this new group is ‘green economic policies’ as agreed to in the outcomes document of the Engaging with the Pacific meeting. However, the underlying collective objective of the group is to develop into a formal body to represent ‘Pacific values and interests’ without the control of Australia and New Zealand.
Three months later, the Fijian Government formalised PIDF as a successor to its Engaging with the Pacific initiative, a meeting of Pacific nations at the invitation of the Fijian Government after its suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum in 2009.
A cabinet statement issued on 06 November said the PIDF was seen by Pacific leaders at the Third Engaging with the Pacific in Nadi in August 2012, as an ‘opportunity for all national players in the Pacific Small Islands Development States (PSIDS) – governments, private sectors and civil society to unite in discussing and identifying options that will ensure sustainable development outcomes by establishing green PSIDS economies.’ Fiji will host the first ever PIDF Leaders summit in 2013 to demonstrate its ‘spirit of genuine interest and partnership in the overall Pacific community.’
PIDF is another example of an emerging informal group set up exclusively by Pacific leaders for their own benefit.
History repeating itself
Forty-one years ago, leaders of newly independent states from the Pacific created history when they broke ranks with the then South Pacific Commission to form the South Pacific Forum, out of frustration that political issues challenging their new democracies were not being allowed discussion at SPC meetings. This led to the formation of the South Pacific Forum (the forerunner of the Pacific Islands Forum) by Fiji, Cook Islands, Nauru, Tonga, Western Samoa including Australia and New Zealand. According to the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, the two metropolitan powers were needed for their economic assistance.
30 years later in Nauru, recounting the events of 1971, Ratu Mara said he may have regretted his inclusion of Australia and New Zealand in the group. Their inclusion, as he put it then, ‘was on the basis that political independence was meaningless without an economic component. However, the late Ratu Mara cautioned Forum leaders to ‘remain vigilant and take control of their destinies.’
“We found that aid had strings attached and projects were more in line with the thinking of donors than the recipients, said Ratu Mara.
The former Fijian PM and one of the founding fathers of the Forum said metropolitan powers in the Pacific imposed their solutions in an insensitive way. “When left to ourselves, we could work things out in what we call the ‘Pacific Way.
This is exactly the feeling amongst Pacific countries who have actively aligned themselves to groups of like-minded countries at sub-regional level, away from the membership of Australia and New Zealand. As highlighted above, the emergence of new configuration of Pacific interests points to a new reformed regionalism independent of Australia and New Zealand. Is it a case of history repeating itself?
