A COLUMN WRITTEN BY KALIOPATE TAVOLA, PUBLISHED IN ISLANDS BUSINESS, AUG 2022
Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders identified and discussed the various elements that could constitute the 2050 Strategy at their annual meeting in Funafuti, Tuvalu in August 2019. They then tasked the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) “to work closely with Members to prepare a draft strategy for Leaders’ consideration” at their next meeting. The next meeting did not take place, as planned, as Covid-19 intervened.
My Islands Business article published in December 2019 analysed the discussions of the PIF Leaders, their implications; and speculated on the likely direction the Strategy would take. I concluded then that: “The novelty of an approach with which to envision the new Strategy, sanctioned by Forum Leaders, is constructive. It is also a tacit acknowledgement that run-of-the-mill solutions for Pacific regionalism may have seen their heyday. It is time to be innovative. A new reality dawns………a sea change for the Blue Pacific Continent beckons.”
Three years later, last July at their 51st meeting, PIF Leaders released the ‘2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent’. However, the Strategy currently lacks an implementation plan as well as Leaders’ determination as regards a regional architecture. The 2050 Strategy is thus incomplete.
As regards an implementation plan, the Forum Communique states: “In taking forward the Strategy, Leaders emphasized that an implementation plan will need to be developed that articulates key priorities and actions, delivery arrangements and resourcing requirements.”
As regards a regional architecture, the Communique merely serves as another reminder that the architecture needs “to ensure that ‘requisite governance and resourcing arrangements that promote, govern and deepen collective responsibility and accountability to deliver the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent’ are in place.”
I had been reflecting on the idea of ‘Pacific integration’ but was reluctant to raise it earlier thinking that the 2050 Strategy would incorporate it as its central framework, going forward. It did not. I’m thus persuaded to advance the idea for the regional brains trust to evaluate its utility and ascertain its effectiveness in especially filling in the gaps left by the 2050 Strategy. This will be a means to providing a regional architecture for a new-look PIF whose structures, measures and policies will aid the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of its regional projects and development as a whole.
Pacific integration is the concept I have given to regionalization efforts that have developed well beyond regional cooperation, regional economic integration, deepened regional integration and which has proceeded in a similar direction to the European integration project. Caution is called for however that what is central by invoking this simile is its directionality rather than its contents. Any Pacific integration project can only aim to achieve what will be critical for its members. It does not necessarily have to proceed to its fullest extent.
For PIF, Pacific integration represents a new fork on the road to regionalization. Regional experts, over the years, have consistently argued that PIF’s own brand of regionalization is voluntary. National leaders who make regional decisions have no legal obligation to implementing them. And it is all a matter of lack of sovereignty to transact their own decisions.
Sovereignty properly lies with the states at the national level. Since the establishment of the Forum in 1971, no transaction of sovereignty from the various state capitals has been transferred to the centre to enable it to frame decisions with the force behind them that have legal obligations regarding their implementation. Regional leaders have obviously found other means to legitimize or officialise their decisions to date. Dr. Greg Fry in his book: ‘Framing the Islands’ (2019) discussed the ‘political significance’ that regional leaders perceive in their conduct of regionalization as a way of justification of their patronage.
Regional experts, including those from outside the region, have thus pronounced that our brand of regional efforts currently should properly be referred to as regionalization rather than regionalism. The latter implies regionalization that has been legally framed to render its decision-making legally obligatory.
Whilst Pacific integration represents a fork in the road, the idea is as old as the Forum itself. Way back in 1971 to that inaugural meeting in Wellington, the Forum foundation Leaders resolved, under ‘Trade’, “….to study and report on statistical, economic and agricultural implications with a view to making recommendations about the possibility of establishing an economic union for the area…….It was agreed that New Zealand should, in liaison with other members, coordinate the necessary preparations for the meeting” planned to advance the idea.
With an ‘economic union’, the Leaders had obviously envisaged a regional agreement to allow goods, services, money and workers to move over borders freely. There would also be the possibility of coordination amongst members of social and financial policies to support the common market so established.
However, the conceptualization and initiation of the idea took a long time to materialize and when it did, it was somewhat skewed. It took ten years to get off the ground. Forum leaders established the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA) in 1981. Instead of negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to kick-start the regional economic integration intended, leaders conceived instead a preferential, non-reciprocal trade agreement. Under SPARTECA, Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) provided duty-free market access for goods from Pacific Island Countries (PICs). There were no provisions under the agreement for direct assistance to the production of goods qualified under the agreement. This became a constant bane for PIC exporters qualified under the agreement.
The disquiet from the 1980s came to a head in 2000. The FTA, Pacific Regional Trade Agreement (PARTA) negotiated and to be signed by ANZ and the PICs did not happen. PICs rebelled instead. They did not see much gain for them in the FTA. PARTA was thus discarded. In its place came Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA), an FTA for PICs only and Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER), an economic framework agreement between ANZ and the PICs. PACER provides for an FTA to be negotiated and this became the PACER Plus.
PICTA is still struggling. Only eight of its 14 members are trading under the agreement. PACER Plus has left out the two biggest PIC traders in the region – Fiji and Papua New Guinea.
There are valuable lessons to be learned from our history in going forward, especially in conducting regional economic integration intended for deeper social and economic integration towards an economic union and beyond (Pacific integration). The lesson is not lost with some of our regional commentators.
In April 2020, for example, former academic of the University of the South Pacific (USP), turned politician, Dr. Biman Prasad, published his paper: ‘Time for a Pacific Community’ with DevPolicyBlog. This represented ‘an opportunity for a rethink on questions regarding regionalism, regional cooperation, and integration. Some bold moves are needed to enhance the economic wellbeing of the region, and to strengthen geopolitical and strategic alliances and interests.’ Prasad also envisaged including a Pacific Parliament in his opinion piece.
Prasad’s bold proposal is really a proposition for Pacific integration in the same way as the European integration. Such integration is realizable after proper and functioning regional economic and advanced integration to the point of having to create relevant supranational bodies to manage and conduct the affairs of the integration project.
Just last May, another former USP academic, Dr. Wadan Narsey, published ‘Australia, NZ and the PICs: a new era for PACER?’ This, too, was a proposition for a likely Pacific integration in the same way as the European integration project.
Narsey, for instance, noted with regret that the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) PACER Plus was not leveraged as ‘a stepping-stone to a Pacific Economic Union.’ In all intents and purposes, this can still be done, even though coming 49 years after the Forum leaders opted to pursue an economic union way back in 1971. It is logical too that should PIF leaders pursue a Pacific integration project, the management and conduct of the PACER Plus will be re-sited to a supranational body, rather than be managed at the periphery by member states.
To date, there are valuable lessons to learn going forward towards Pacific integration. Logic and good sense must prevail. A feasibility study needs to be carried out. Such can be easily built into the evolving context of the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.
Pacific integration will necessitate delegating to an independent supranational body. Any fear emanating from this can be obviated if the institutional arrangements are designed carefully to limit the independent authority of the independent body, ensure a high level of consensus, and provide equitable representation between the states involved. Any supranational executive can be tightly controlled by member governments if, inter alia: (i) unanimity is required for any decision to delegate in a particular policy area; (ii) the governments are equally represented in the executive body; and (iii) there are high decision-making thresholds and checks and balances for the adoption of policy proposals by the supranational body.
The Forum has taken over half a century to come this far. Our celebrations were somewhat muted. To complement the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent by incorporating the prospect of Pacific integration into its structural ambience, may hold the key for inspired Pacific regionalism that can result in more reasons to celebrate next time around.
© 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 