A COLUMN WRITTEN BY KALIOPATE TAVOLA, PUBLISHED IN ISLANDS BUSINESS, JAN 2022

The initial ruckus, brought about by the signing of AUKUS – the new trilateral security pact amongst Australia, UK and USA last September seems to have died down. Its ripple effect, however, will continue to impact and shape the geopolitics in the Pacific region for years to come. The Pacific region, it has to be said, is home to the PICs: small island states.

From the perspectives of the PICs, there are two critical issues of concern. The first is that AUKUS and all related deliberations are all going and have all gone ahead without their involvement and consultation. Essentially, the PICS continue to be pawns in such an international arrangement, notwithstanding their past occasional grievances on this matter.

This concern is particularly salient given the fact that Australia is part of the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) – comprising 16 PICs (including two French territories) and two developed countries – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) members of Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Despite Australia’s membership, it has not bothered to reach out and consult other PIF members about AUKUS. From PICs’ perspectives, AUKUS is an imposition into their home.

But this is not the first time this has happened. In the lead-up to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD)-sponsored Indo-Pacific, the geopolitical remapping exercise that gave rise subsequently to AUKUS, no consultation whatsoever was carried out with PIF or any of the PIC Leaders. ANZ had their bilateral consultations. Furthermore, Australia consulted with France and even invited UK to sign onto Indo-Pacific. However, Australia did not bother to consult with the PICs.

Japan, a QUAD member, used the opportunity of its annual meeting with PIF Leaders, PALM 2018, to inform PICs Leaders about Indo-Pacific. There was no consultation whatsoever. Note further that all AUKUS signatories and QUAD members are all PIF’s Dialogue Partners.

To PICs Leaders, this lack of common sense on the part of Australia only goes to underline the power divide that exists – between the developed and developing/least developed, rich and poor, donors of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) and ODA recipients, the strong and the weak, the haves and the have nots. All these intrinsically underscore the fundamental and widening global inequality that prevails.

The second critical concern of the PICs is that if the security in the region is threatened in any way at all and global tensions develop beyond joint patrols (exercises), arms race and war games, then the prospect of a two-sided full-fledged warfare will develop – USA and its allies versus China and its allies. The Pacific region in the middle will essentially be reduced to a battleground, like World War 2. The prospect of collateral damage to the PICs in such a situation would be incalculable. In such a situation, a nuclear apocalypse cannot be ruled out. It has to be noted that the region had been reluctant testing ground for nuclear bombs in the past.

In the interest of clarity and empathy, from Australia’s perspective, both AUKUS and Indo-Pacific have been instigated in the context of the country’s geopolitical considerations. If geopolitics is the politics of especially international relations as influenced by geographical factors, we can then start to appreciate where Australia is coming from. Note that geographical factors would comprise Australia’s physical features and human activities as they affect and are affected by these, including the distribution of populations and resources and political and economic activities.

Note further that these geographical factors essentially limit the choices that a country makes, to the extent that a country becomes a prisoner of its geography. Tim Marshall discussed this phenomenon in his book, ‘Prisoners of Geography’ (2015).

Moreover, other commentators have posed the question whether it is simply geopolitics when it comes to configuring international relations. The ongoing ‘Big Power Rivalry in the Pacific Webinar Series’: Webinar 3 – ‘Australia in the Pacific’ posed the question: Is it Simply Geo-politics’ last September. Presenter Dr Michael O’Keefe concluded: “No it’s not simply geopolitics, but geopolitics is more important than ever.”

Tim Marshall has followed up, this year, with another publication: ‘The Power of Geography’ – Ten Maps that Reveal the Future of our World. It is “an urgent study of the forces shaping our future on earth and beyond.” Interestingly, Australia is the first of the ten maps/countries/regions profiled in this sequel to the 2015 bestseller.

Prima facie, it could be said that Australia’s foreign policies are essentially deterministic – configured principally by its geopolitics. To some regional commentators, such may be best framed by Don Bradman’s cricket citation: ‘Play it tough, all the way. Grind them into the dust.’ Considering Australia’s tough stance on especially climate change, for example, that is inconsistent to that of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), such commentator can be forgiven for taking such a position.

Determinism alone, however, is incomplete in framing foreign policies. There is the will of the Australian people as a whole for example, that needs to be considered and factored in. Furthermore, Australia is a PIF member – a foundation member of the club with effect from its establishment in 1971. Such membership fundamentally epitomises unity of purpose and minds. This deserves celebration and solidarity. Pacific regionalism, embodied by PIF, is the collective – the Blue Pacific Continent – its current moniker – that elicits such celebrated support. It is not cricket.

In this context, Australia’s geopolitics would need to be tampered with a proper dose of equity to enable a vital and functional regionalism to prevail. In reality, Australia has already started in this direction by way of its Step Up, soft power initiatives and Vuvale arrangements. Its Kava Importation Scheme, started on 1 December, will include non-PACER Plus signatories like Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Moreover, its research on climate-change-resistant ‘food of the gods’, dalo, is going to benefit many PICs as well.

However, more can be done. If a webinar, under the current theme: ‘Big Power Rivalry in the Pacific’ were to be conducted tomorrow to address ‘Australia and the Pacific: Is it simply Geopolitics with Equity?’, the conclusion that could be drawn would be similar to that drawn by Dr O’Keefe, i.e. ‘No, it’s not simply Geopolitics with Equity, but Geopolitics with Equity is more important than ever.’

So much so that Australia, for instance, needs to rethink about its climate change policies to be consistent with those of the PICs and thus with PIF’s Boe Declaration. Apart from equity, it just makes a lot of sense from solidarity perspective as a member of Pacific regionalism. COP26 exposed the lack of regional unity on this matter.

Australia also needs to temper its geopolitics under Indo-Pacific/AUKUS to allow breathing space for PICs to determine their respective China, et al, policies. This would necessarily mean a re-examination of its “deepest, oldest instinct in the South Pacific: strategic denial, striving to exclude other major powers from the region.” This respects the sovereignty of each PIC and honours the solidarity of the collective. Furthermore, the larger familyhood implied by the Vuvale arrangement demands this.

All this can be suitably framed into the ‘2050 Strategy’ that is yet to be finalized.

---

© 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.