A COLUMN WRITTEN BY KALIOPATE TAVOLA, PUBLISHED IN ISLANDS BUSINESS, APR 2023

Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders “renewed their collective support for the ‘Leaders’ Commitments to 2050’ as articulated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent and committed to progress and nurture collective political will to deepen regionalism and solidarity in the Pacific region.” The Leaders’ collective support for their previously-agreed-to ‘Leaders’ Commitments to 2050’ is unarguably consequential and consistent. Furthermore, their commitment ‘to progress and nurture collective political will to deepen regionalism and solidarity in the Pacific region’, prima facie, is consistent with the premise of my previous article, published in this magazine: ‘2050 Strategy is Essentially Political.’ As I will show below, such a political orientation is a critical investment to reinforcing Pacific regionalism to effectively manage and control the issues confronting it; almost all of which have global reach.

The ‘Leaders’ Commitments to 2050’ can be discussed under four issues. The first is an essential building block to Pacific regionalism.  PIF members are essentially ‘large oceanic countries and territories… custodians of nearly 20% of the earth’s surface and we place great cultural and spiritual value on our ocean and land, as our common heritage.’

The permutation of ocean, land, cultural and spiritual value, in the context of a plan with long-term expectations, conjures up for me, not only the critical and foundational issues to be taken into account, but also the essence of indigeneity that they represent, and which is the essential bond that runs through the plan’s expectations and aspirations.

In Pacific Island Countries (PICs), given their relative incipient development, such essence is still palpable and esteemed. In Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), developed PIF members, such essence is undergoing revitalization. In Australia, for example, indigenous insights are slowly being integrated into the country’s foreign policies. In return, promotion of Pacific literacy is the country’s attempt to improve understanding of PICs, their values and attributes. In NZ, on the other hand, Maoritanga is well-anchored and it projects itself into foreign policies through the country’s Pacific Reset/Partnering for Resilience.

More can still be done regionally. Promotion of art, culture and tradition, regular visits of cultural groups can be regionalized and to be well-resourced. This, clearly, is investment to strengthen Pacific regionalism that needs to be competent in order to confront its global challenges head on. This is a means to mobilizing peoples’ power behind regional leaders who have to front up globally on issues that matter to all.

The second issue is managing the geopolitical competition impacting the region. This is not an easy matter. The prominent geopolitical issue here is represented by bipolar competition currently existing between the United States (US) and China.

Many or all PICs do not wish to make a choice between the US and China. Their respective stance based on national sovereignty is founded on ‘friends to all and enemy to none’. Even though the recently signed ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States (February 2022) provides that the US would respect any geopolitical alignment determined at the national level, this was put into question when the US vehemently baulked at a bilateral defence agreement that Solomon Islands had signed with China.

The matter is complicated by the fact that Australia, a PIF member, is aligned with the US. A PIF position, therefore, on this sensitive issue may not be possible. There is already division in PIF, as regards AUKUS and Partners for the Blue Pacific (PBP), both off-shoots of the Indo-Pacific Strategy. And notwithstanding the claim by Australia to the contrary, the PIF’s own Treaty of Rarotonga (1985) has been effectively trashed by AUKUS.

Given therefore the prevailing bipolar competition between the US and China, PICs in particular are powerless to negotiate a reconciliation between the two. Their agency may not have the mana and the force to bring about any armistice. That is tragic. PICs may have to turn to other agencies like the United Nations Security Council, G20 and G7. Moreover, they may usefully apply their respective agency to negotiate corresponding contingency in the event of PICs being the victims of collateral damage in bipolar skirmishes.

The third issue is management of global demands – commercial and state-sponsored, on our ecological and natural resources. Prominent here is the region’s fisheries resources and their respective management agencies. Regional fisheries agencies operate sufficiently effectively but on global issues like fisheries subsidies, they have to resort to global directives as per the World Trade Organization. On the matter of fisheries subsidies, for example, there has not been much satisfaction by developing and least developed countries to counter the huge subsidies paid for by developed countries to their own fishing fleets. The task for Forum leaders – political and diplomatic, is never-ending.

As regards deep sea mining (DSM), PICs are their own enemies. One or two of them have diverted from the regional stance to observe a moratorium on DSM until the science and research are adequately completed. Fortunately, while the states concerned may have opted to consider DSM, or some restricted form of DSM soonest, their respective Non-Governmental Organizations and some parliamentarians are pressing for the moratorium via the Pacific Parliamentarian Alliance on Deep Sea Mining. The peoples’ power is an asset worth investing in.

As regards Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), PICs continue to negotiate the best solutions for the region at the UN level. The art of negotiations by PICs diplomats can pay dividends here.

The fourth issue under the Leaders’ Commitments to 2050 is on climate change – essentially ensuring the global temperature does not exceed 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. The current forecast, however, is higher than 1.5. Therefore, we collectively, particularly the biggest polluters, have to target rapid, deep and sustained reductions in global greenhouse emissions.

PICs and PIF members as a whole -states and all the people, have to take the battle on climate change globally. It is generally accepted that PICs are at the forefront of the global war on climate change. PICs leadership, energy and innovation are critical here. It is our joint responsibility.

PICs do not have the resources needed to arrest climate change. Developed countries do. What it comes down to is that PICs and PIF members. as a whole, have to step up their leadership role, powers of persuasion and novelty of approaches to win the support of those with the resources in order to win the battle on climate change. Previous COPs have tested our grit. There is still much work to be done in future.

In the first place, however, PICs have to persuade Australia to up its commitments on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and improve its stance on reducing fossil fuels and related policies if it wants PICs to co-sponsor a future Conference of the Parties.

PIF Leaders, in their relaxed atmosphere during their last Special Retreat, identified the tasks ahead for the region. Much of the tasks will be discharged at the global level by our diplomats and political leaders. These tasks are not easy. However, with the strengthening of Pacific regionalism through mobilization of the people, their energy and mana, PIF’s political and diplomatic tasks at the global level can pay handsome dividends.

---

© 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.