A COLUMN WRITTEN BY KALIOPATE TAVOLA, PUBLISHED IN ISLANDS BUSINESS, SEPTEMBER 2021

The former Secretary General (SG) of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), Dame Meg Taylor, discussed her prescription for Forum leadership when she participated at the Blue Pacific Futures Webinar on 3 November 2020. Her prescription was that “regionalism can only work if we have strong leaders who remain committed to this ideal.”

I discussed Dame Meg’s idea in my opinion column of this magazine – see May 2021 issue. I did proffer the view that the former SG would have made such a statement fully cognisant of the nature of Pacific regionalism as being voluntary; as it has been so for the last 50 years.

I acknowledged in my own discussion that for national political leaders who also double up as regional leaders for Pacific regionalism, meeting the requirements of Dame Meg’s prescription is not easy. National political leaders are very much aware that the strength and prominence of their political status comes from winning national elections. Regional issues do not win elections for them.

I suggested a way forward at the national level where prospective regional leaders – national leaders who will be involved in Pacific regionalism by way of the respective political responsibilities they carry – can be assisted, prepared and managed. Such groundwork could direct, partially perhaps, the strength of their personalities and commitment for greater regional gains. Such, however, remains as food for thought for regional planners.

But Dame Meg has left for greener pastures after her six-year stint at PIFS. The selection of her replacement, former Prime Minister Henry Puna of the Cook Islands, has left the PIF fractured. Five Micronesian members of the Forum have left disappointed that the gentlemen’s agreement which would have led to the appointment of their candidate was not honoured.  Their decision to leave the PIF, however, is subject to respective ratification processes in each of the five Micronesian countries.

Clearly, regional leaders were unable to meet the leadership requirements prescribed by Dame Meg. If they were committed to regionalism, they would have complied with the gentlemen’s agreement, notwithstanding its informality. They would have honoured the same on the strength of their commitment to Pacific regionalism and enforced it. But this didn’t happen.

The task facing the Forum now is to reunite the group. There is convergence as regards this judging from utterances from leaders who have spoken on the matter. It can be derived therefore that the majority decision to derogate from the gentlemen’s agreement may have been a collective faux pas.  As such, it can be anticipated that the slip-up could possibly be corrected.

The question becomes one of leadership. If being strong and committed to regionalism didn’t stop the Forum from fracturing, how could the same values be exercised to reverse the process – and reunite the Forum?  Prima facie, it may not be easy. Regional leaders thus need new inspiration.

Current Forum Chair, Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, was inspired at the most recent virtual summit of the PIF Leaders on 6 August. The leadership values he suggested to respond to the Forum’s extraordinary challenges comprise being bold and decisive. Admittedly, the extraordinary challenges he envisaged facing the Forum comprise more than just the split in the Forum membership. He saw extraordinary challenges as presented “by a runaway climate crisis, a raging COVID-19 pandemic and a worsening socio-economic crisis.”

I would like to believe that the challenge presented by the necessity to reconcile the Forum is fundamental to all the extraordinary challenges highlighted by the Forum Chair.  It holds the key to the success of all the other challenges.

This article attempts therefore to address the reconciliation of the Forum under the inspired leadership of being bold and decisive.

As stated above, the five Micronesian countries are currently undertaking their respective ratification processes: their leaders having agreed to withdraw their membership from the Forum. These processes relate to national, legal and constitutional requirements.  These processes may or may not reaffirm the leaders’ decision to withdraw from the Forum.

It can be envisaged, however, that during this period of the ratification, it would be disrespectful for the Forum Chair or the Troika to force the issue of reconciling membership. In some ways, forcing the issue can be bold and decisive: as inspired leadership may require under specific circumstances. However, in the context of the ratification process currently underway, such boldness could be interpreted as being rude, brazen or brash. This would defeat the purpose. Boldness, in this case, would need an essential dose of diplomacy and savoir-faire.

From the Forum Chair’s perspective, he is working toward reunifying the group. Whilst he cannot force the issue right now, he is well placed to make offers to the Micronesians to incentivize the reunification we all wish for. These offers can then feed into the respective ratification processes for consideration.

Making offers, as proposed, is bold in the sense that it is adventurous to seek a solution and not being timid, sitting back and expecting others to conceive their own solutions.

The Forum Chair is already engaged in creating the circumstances around which these unifying discussions can proceed productively. He was part of the enlarged Troika that offered an apology to the Micronesians earlier in the year. In the most recent virtual meeting last August, he pressed the point for emphasis: “I offer you my deepest apology…..We could have handled it better.”

Discussions on prospective offers aimed at reunification of the group have begun in various circles in the region. Former Samoa Prime Minister Sailele Malielegaoi has suggested doing away with the ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ and replacing it with a more formal contractual agreement, similar to that being used by the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS). This is based on strict regional rotation of selection of its SG. Discussions on this may already be underway after the suggestion by former Prime Minister Malielegaoi.  The Forum Chair is best advised to progress the matter to a conclusion at which point an offer can be made to the Micronesians.

There are other ideas that can enrich the offer and thus incentivize a positive response. One relates to the sharing of Henry Puna’s current tenure as SG. On basis of regional history, Henry Puna is likely to be in the post for six years: two 3-year terms. In the context of the reunification of the Forum that we are all seeking, the idea of sharing this tenure with the Micronesian candidate has been advanced – 50:50 for example.

However, Henry Puna is likely to view this idea negatively – especially from a financial standpoint. He gave up a good job at the national level for a regional stint.

Inspired leadership on the basis of being bold and decisive would be on call again for a resolution. The idea of financial compensation for the contracted period to be given up by Puna has already been intimated by some regional commentators. The Forum Chair and his enlarged Troika could progress consideration of this matter. Final endorsement of the idea will be facilitated by relevant budgetary provisions to accommodate the compensatory amount.

The engagement of the enlarged Troika in this crucial matter of the reunification of the Forum exemplifies this inspired leadership of being bold and decisive. Or in the Forum Chair’s own words: ‘to rebuild trust and confidence”. The hope of all who care and cherish the Forum is that all our regional leaders in the enlarged Troika have taken US Rep. Ed Case’s urgent plea to heart: “Don’t let the Forum fail.”

---

© 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.