A COLUMN WRITTEN BY KALIOPATE TAVOLA, PUBLISHED IN ISLANDS BUSINESS, MAR 2021
In the September/October 2019 issue of this magazine, I reflected on the ‘Death of Pacific Regionalism?’ (also known as Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). It was a leading question in my mind at the time having just witnessed signs of fracture. I concluded as follows: “There is disunity within the collective. The collective’s power is stymied. The collective has been manifesting malaise that points to, inter alia, inherent structural and compositional flaws. In the meantime, intense geopolitics in the region require self-re-examination of the Forum with fresh vigour, purpose and destiny. The proposed 2050 strategic plan needs to look seriously at refitting Pacific regionalism anew for the new challenges tomorrow.”
The fracture became a break when disunity reigned last February. The five Micronesian members withdrew their PIF membership following the divisive events of the virtual election of new Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) Secretary General (SG) Henry Puna.
The divisive mood prevailing at the time was not aided by Fiji’s deportation of Vice Chancellor and President (VCP) Professor Pal Ahluwalia of the regional University of the South Pacific (USP) about the same time as the elections. Fiji, in the eyes of many PIF/USP members, had been undermining the University’s governance structure, specifically the work of the USP Council. These members see such intervention by Fiji as unwelcome and as an unduly exercise of its influence – it being a large contributor to the University budget, the largest beneficiary and as its host.
The Micronesians’ withdrawal resulted essentially from their dissatisfaction with the loss of their candidate for the SG position when it was their turn for PIFS leadership role under a long-standing ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. In the eyes of the Micronesians, the unwritten rule of behaviour for the group was not honoured. National politics, subregional and geopolitical sensibilities should have gone in the way of regional solidarity, in their view.
The Micronesians’ withdrawal of their membership put an end to Pacific regionalism or PIF, as we have known it since 2000. Regional Leaders then had agreed to switch name of the group from the South Pacific Forum (SPF) to PIF to reflect its wider country membership at the time.
From the perspectives of nomenclature and composition, it can be said that Pacific regionalism is ‘dead’. The five Micronesian members have withdrawn their membership and PIF – reduced to 13 country members, is no longer the body it was. The reduced membership that has resulted can logically revert to being called the SPF that was created at the establishment of the forum in 1971.
My prediction embodied in my reflection of 2019 is thus a foregone conclusion. However, whilst this may be so, it is not the end of regionalism for Pacific Island Countries (PICs) and for their developed country members of Australia and New Zealand.
PICs, I believe, can be best characterized as prisoners of their own geography. Tim Marshall (2015, ‘Prisoners of Geography’, Eliot and Thompson Ltd), writes: “Geography has always been a prison of sorts – one that defines what a nation is or can be, and one from which our world leaders have often struggled to break free.”
PICs, as a group of nations, can be seen in this context. Our relatively small sizes, wide dispersal in the largest ocean on Planet Earth and remoteness from main markets will always define us and what we can do together – to be strong and effective. Our geography requires us to cooperate with each other, pool our resources and integrate our economies and politics. The accrued benefits for each member of the collective would be much greater compared to that if a PIC was on its own. Any rupture of this natural tendency for cooperation and integration can only be done at our own peril. Our future lies in our togetherness.
This universal truth is shared by many. Thus, efforts at repairing the rupture have begun. A number of regional leaders have spoken to plead for return to regional solidarity. Some regional commentators have pinned their hopes on a reversal of the decision to leave PIF during the 12-month period required for the ratification of the agreement jointly signed by all Micronesian Leaders. That clearly directs the hope to the lawmakers in these Micronesian countries to tap their vast reserve of goodwill and cooperation for continued regional collective efforts.
Furthermore, they are also envisaging ways and means by which newly elected SG Henry Puna can start right away to strategize creatively to repair the rupture. These commentators envisage a particularly strong and resourceful partnership between him and his Micronesian Deputy SG that can be sufficiently imaginative and resourceful to placate the unhappy Micronesians.
Dr Tess Newton Cain, an associate of the Development Policy Centre, sought my view on the matter. I commented as follows: “Puna should now reassure the Micronesians that his tenureship at PIF will mark a strong partnership with his deputy SG, who will be granted relevant authority and visibility in the conduct of the operations of Pacific regionalism. Moreover, their interests will be given special focus during his term” – see ‘Regionalism in retreat’, DevPolicyBlog.
Resuscitating the 18-member PIF is only one option open to the region. That depends very much on the goodwill of the Micronesian states and whether their respective ratification processes will allow that to happen. When it happens, we can expect that PIF will make some essential changes to its rules, for instance, to mark a new beginning. Samoa Prime Minister Malielegaoi is already envisaging formalizing the process of electing a new SG to that used by the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States, which is a strict regional rotation. Furthermore, we could expect a new surge of goodwill and solidarity from members and regional leaders, especially as the re-union will also mark the dawn of the 2050 Strategy.
But should the fracture be deep-seated, and a resuscitation of the 18-member PIF is untenable, then it is possible that the Micronesians will prefer their next best collective option; that is, to remain and strengthen their own subregional Micronesian Chief Executive Summit (MCES).
That strategic move is likely to impact the remaining 13 members who would feel the same to do likewise with their own respective sub-regions: the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) for the Melanesians, the Polynesian Leaders Group (PLG) for the Polynesians and perhaps Australia and New Zealand will fall back onto their Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations (ANZCER).
If this reformatting by the remaining 13 members is going on in the context of the SPF, to which PIF has become, then it is possible that the reformatting could advance to the stage where regionalism, in the form of SPF, formally and structurally becomes the sum of all three subregions.
Later, if and when the Micronesians return to the fold, the brand-new regionalism that will unfold – the new PIF, will be the sum of four subregional groupings. In retrospect, Pacific regionalism in the last five decades has never experienced that state of structural solidarity. The prospects for advanced cooperation and integration and enhanced benefits can be exciting.
In all that is happening – recent past and present, Fiji’s Bainimarama government is being viewed as an odd man out. The shenanigans at USP in recent weeks and the resulting offers to host the university and its VCP outside of Fiji, have re-enforced that view. The question becomes: what is likely to happen with Fiji – at the MSG for instance? In the MSG context, Fiji was the last to join the group. Should there be a strong anti-Fiji feeling there, it is foreseeable that Fiji will be dispensable.
At the regional level, however, Fiji’s position can be a lot more tolerable. Again, geography and Fiji’s centrality in the Pacific may dictate the way we transact our affairs and regionalism. In any case, Fiji political leaders, in particular, have to up the ante when it comes to charm, solidarity and respect in order to recover past glory.
Our ‘Pacific Way’ is fast losing its shine.
© Kaliopate Tavola and kaidravuni.com, 2025. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kaliopate Tavola, kaidravuni.com and Islands Business with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
kaidravuni 