Role in international and regional politics

Pacific Islands Forum was firstly created as a platform where some Pacific and small states could bring up their concerns (with the aid of middle powers Australia and New Zealand) in the international arena.

Under this premise and following what has been stated as ‘the Pacific Way’ many challenges have been address such as the management of ocean and fisheries resources, trade and development, national security and the mitigation of the effects of climate change. In the latter topic, and surprisingly under the leadership of small states, where the organization has stand out in international and global negotiations and conferences because of the highly damaging effects that a rise of the sea level would have on the region due its geography.

Certainly, the Forum has done much in its thirty years of existence. Nonetheless, despite these accomplishments, the Forum has been weakened by lack of capacity, national interests overriding regional benefits, and the ability of single nations to exercise a de facto veto, thereby blocking Forum statements for the sake of ‘Pacific Way’ consensus. While the Forum has proven effective for small island states to amplify their voices, there are some issues and regional rivalries that prevent the Forum from an efficient.

The unequal distribution of benefits found in the Air Pacific and USP experiences are an example of a nation placing national advantage over regional benefits. While the Pacific Way is supposed to bring about flexibility and compromise, the strong desire for consensus (gives each Forum member a de facto veto during the Forum meetings, thus weakening the collective unity and power of the Forum. For example, in the mid-1980s, although the countries of the region were united in their opposition to French nuclear testing, the stance of each country regarding the larger question of nuclear deterrence varied rather significantly.
Furthermore, some scholars (and even some national governments) have accused Australia and New Zealand of using the organization to establish themselves as overbearing, condescending, or even hegemonic; and have had some image problems in the region. New Zealand has always been more sensitive to this issue and as a result has been seen more as part of Oceania than Australia. That said, New Zealand has also had tensions with the islands states concerning issues of democracy and indigenous rights.

Another determinant actor within the Pacific is Fiji, country that was expelled from the organization due to its military coups d’état and that created the Pacific Island Development Forum to counter the imposed isolation. When Fiji finally managed democratic elections, it was reinvented into the Pacific Islands Forum, but it conditioned its entrance to the relegation of Australia and New Zealand to the status of development partners.

New Zealand was quick to send ministers and officials to remind their island counterparts of Australia and New Zealand’s contributions to their economies. Prime Minister Key was even less diplomatic in his public pronouncements than his Australian counterpart. What, he asked, would the forum do without Australian and New Zealand funding? ‘Where would they get the money to do anything? And the answer is nowhere. None of them have that’

In this situation of a divided Forum, some scholars have pointed out the increasing predominance of China in the region and the tensions this interference raise with United States, which has been also been a major actor in the region. The question now is whether the Pacific Islands Forum will be able to solve its internal and bureaucratic problems and have a common response to both Chinese and American influences in the region. The organization has been already successful in stating and addressing some regional concerns, but it has to evolve in a way that further integration and consensus could position it in a global player.