The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat: Challenges and unity

WRITTEN BY DANIEL JULIAN SAVUA

25 April 2022

The South Pacific Forum, later renamed Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), was established in 1971 in response to the colonial powers France, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Australia, and New Zealand. The powers tended to take on issues that were important to them, paying only lip service to the Islands’ concerns. The Forum was seen as a way to move away from the patronisation of the major powers, and for the Islands to speak and take action on issues that were important to them.

The PIF includes 14 independent Island nations, as well as Australia and New Zealand. The latter two were included as it was felt that their greater experience in matters of politics and governance would be a benefit to the fledgling organisation — a decision that was met with some opposition then and continues to this day. The Forum was created when the colonised islands were vying for self-determination from their colonial masters. The physical size of the individual nations, distance from any major trading routes, and lack of natural resources (apart from marine) resulted in the islands not having much power — political, economic, and otherwise. Faced with apathy and outright opposition from the wider world, a level of cooperation was needed amongst the Pacific nations.

A “gentleman’s agreement”?

A defining part of the Forum and the region as a whole has been labelled “the Pacific Way”. Broadly, this involves seeking consensus through dialogue between nations and emphasises mutual respect, moderation and inclusiveness, and a willingness to compromise. It encourages discussion, and while everyone has to compromise, it makes the groups involved feel that at least their views are heard. An aspect of this is the “gentleman’s agreement” — a mutual understanding between members on how certain things are to be done without any need for formal policy.

While the PIF started in the era of regionalism and cooperation between nations, it has now turned to individualism with some nations taking steps that are best for them rather than the region.

Over the years, the Forum has tackled issues like trade agreements and established shipping services, a tertiary institution, and even an airline. Issues of decolonisation, nuclear testing, and the establishment of sea borders were among the first to be addressed by the Forum. Now it is tackling matters of transnational crime, political instability, and climate change. While the PIF started well and various regional organisations grew from it, the accusation of patronisation that was labelled against their former colonial powers is also now being levelled against the Forum. The issue that is dividing the organisation involves the leadership of the PIF: the post of the Secretary-General. The split within the Forum, interestingly enough, does not come from the major powers or the big brothers of the region, but from within the Island nations themselves.

A remnant of the colonial era that continues to this day in the organisation of the PIF is the ‘Pacific’ classification. The regional organisation was divided into three subcategories: Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia. According to the so-called “gentleman’s agreement” it was tacitly understood that each sub-region would have its nominee as the next head; since the last two heads were Polynesian and Melanesian (2008-2021), it was now Micronesia’s turn. Only once before in the history of the PIF has a Micronesian been Secretary-General and that was back in the 1980s. According to the “gentleman’s agreement”, the decision to choose the next head of the Forum would involve consensus and compromise between the Island nations.

Micronesia leaving?

In October 2020, the Micronesian bloc of five countries declared that they would leave the Forum if their nominee was not selected. The reason for the ultimatum is unclear. Perhaps they felt that their turn was more than due, that their voice was not quite as loud as the other members, and just generally marginalised. Their relatively small geographic and economic size, and distance from the main hub(s) of the Pacific, have meant that their voice and influence are limited compared to their larger neighbours. As their interests are allegedly less heard, combined with the lack of a major regional PIF office in the sub-region, and the fact that only one Micronesian has been Secretary-General in the 50-year history of the Forum could have all contributed to the ultimatum and exit.

The Micronesians put forth their candidate, Gerald Zackios, and it was expected that he would be accepted as the next Secretary-General. However, in a breach of the “gentleman’s agreement”, four other countries submitted their own names. In a closely contested vote, the Polynesian (Cook Islands) candidate, Henry Puna, won. The reasons for the breakdown in the “gentleman’s agreement” are as varied as they are unconfirmed. There were accusations of Australia’s interference in the voting process. Australia occupies a unique space in the PIF; while it is the Forum’s largest donor, it does its best not to involve itself in its operations — in the matter of the ultimatum, perhaps it would have been better for the country to abstain. However, due to the country’s “regard” for Puna, it voted for him.

It may also be that Forum members did not believe the Micronesian ultimatum or were angered by it, or it could be that they believed that their candidates were more suited for the Secretary-General position than Zackios. Combined with some members denying that there was a “gentleman’s agreement” at all, the Micronesian candidate did not get the required votes. No one is sure and no one is talking. The five Micronesian countries have made good on their word and formally started proceedings to leave the Forum. The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) started the ball rolling by formally declaring their intention to leave the PIF on 4 February 2021. The remaining four countries soon followed suit and released a combined press statement announcing that they would no longer be part of an organisation that did not abide by the “gentlemen’s agreement” in regards to the sub-regional rotation. The formal process meant that it took one year from the announcement for the nations to officially leave the Forum.

Ending the “Pacific Way”?

While negotiations have been going on behind the scenes to keep the sub-region in the Forum, there has been no public statement as to how it was going. A year later in February 2022, the Micronesians made another surprise announcement. Just before their official departure, the FSM President, David Panuelo, stated that they would “temporarily” delay their exit from the Forum due to certain promises of reform. While nothing specific has been announced as to the nature of those reforms, a condition for the Micronesians not to leave was for Puna to step down from his position in June this year. While there was no word from Fiji in its capacity as the current Chair of the Forum, there was a somewhat diplomatic response from the Fiji government. The Cook Islands prime minister, for his part, stated that “no such arrangement” has been made. What was most interesting is that there has been no response from the Secretary-General himself. Perhaps Puna is discussing the situation with the various stakeholders before making a statement in a politically fraught matter.

The fact that the Micronesians went to the media with their announcement when nothing concrete had been decided is revealing. They can no longer depend on the days of the “gentleman’s agreement” and tacit understanding. Whereas in the past, a nod and a handshake were considered binding, present-day politics needs something more substantial or at the very least, written down. The Micronesian bloc has decided to present this as a fait accompli and now the ball is firmly in Puna’s court. To go through the media instead of directly to the Forum or Puna himself is an indication that the Micronesians’ trust in their neighbours is very low — negotiations behind closed doors are not going to get things done. Now it is up to the Secretary-General to decide whether to resign for the sake of Forum unity or stay on and risk fracturing the institution.

While the PIF started in the era of regionalism and cooperation between nations, it has now turned to individualism with some nations taking steps that are best for them rather than the region. A perfect example is the fact that four other countries put forth their own candidates, showing just how little the concept of regional solidarity means anymore. This unfortunate situation has brought to the limelight the notions of cooperation and the “Pacific Way”, in which the Forum has been rooted since its early days, in now becoming outdated. The organisation needs to change.

However this is resolved, one thing has been made clear: although the PIF started with good intentions, it needs to now adjust itself to the changing times or get left behind. A divided Forum not only hurts the organisation’s legitimacy before the wider world but also its ability to speak and negotiate on matters important to the Pacific. The Forum celebrated its 50th year of existence last year. It remains to be seen whether it will be around for another half-century.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Daniel Julian Savua is a graduate of the University of the South Pacific with a Masters in Diplomacy and International Affairs. Image credit: Flickr/US Embassy.