The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) operates as a complex political organization that seeks to unify the interests of its 18 member states, promoting regional solidarity. Understanding its bureaucracy can take individuals a year or more due to its mix of formal rules, procedures, and established practices that reflect a unique “Pacific way of doing things.”
Having worked at the PIF Secretariat in various roles over nearly a decade, most recently as Director of Governance and Engagement, I have witnessed the evolution of regionalism in the Pacific—characterized by both challenges and successes. To me, regionalism is about enhancing collaboration among Pacific nations at all levels.
When I joined the Forum Secretariat, tensions were high, particularly with Fiji following its suspension from the Forum in 2009. This prompted discussions about the Secretariat possibly relocating to Samoa, reflecting a broader sentiment that regional business was increasingly being conducted outside the Secretariat, thereby diminishing its influence.
Criticism of the PIF was prevalent, with perceptions of it being disconnected from the very communities it aimed to serve. A 2013 review highlighted the region’s need for regionalism while noting that the Forum had “lost its politics.” This presented a clear opportunity to refocus the work of the Secretariat on political dialogue to address the issues hindering regional cooperation.
The challenge was significant, given that leaders only meet annually, political leadership changes frequently, and there are numerous regional meetings competing for their attention. During the tenure of Secretary General Tuiloma Neroni Slade, who faced the ramifications of Fiji’s suspension, efforts were made to safeguard the Forum’s integrity. His successor, Dame Meg Taylor, is noted for her outreach to a wider array of stakeholders, particularly civil society, which shaped the Forum’s approach to regionalism.
Internal debates within the Secretariat were intense as staff grappled with how to adapt to public criticisms. However, these discussions contributed to the foundational concepts of the Blue Pacific narrative, which shifted the focus of regionalism from mere cooperation to a strategic framework leveraging collective strength. This culminated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, spotlighting the necessity for a clear approach to regionalism.
Two persistent political themes have emerged during my tenure. First, the issue of membership. Fiji’s re-engagement in 2019 marked a significant milestone, and its role became central in addressing tensions following the withdrawal announcement of five Micronesian members. The Suva Agreement helped resolve these internal issues but underscored the complexities of membership dynamics. The inclusion of New Caledonia and French Polynesia as full members in 2016 also represented a pivotal shift, altering the Forum’s foundational composition.
Second, the recognition of Taiwan has periodically strained relations, with heightened geopolitical competition likely to exacerbate this. Currently, only three Forum members recognize Taiwan, increased tensions could arise as China actively encourages reconsideration of membership policies.
Looking forward, Secretary General Baron Waqa will face challenges that may test the Forum’s unity, necessitating collaboration with the Forum Chair and Troika on sensitive issues like deep-sea mining, self-determination, nuclear contamination, and Taiwan-related dynamics. The extent to which Pacific states prioritize climate agendas and how they navigate human rights concerns will influence the future of regionalism.
Evaluating the nature of regionalism in the Pacific reveals a multifaceted landscape driven by human relationships. Strong networks and individuals’ relationships often shape foreign policy more significantly than strategic documents. Despite regionalism’s potential to achieve sustainable development, its inherently fragile nature is influenced by varying member priorities and resource limitations.
The slow and resource-intensive nature of engaging in regionalism can be frustrating, compounded by capacity constraints within member states. Common frustrations include the perception that regional institutions often compete rather than collaborate effectively, leading to skepticism among officials regarding the efficacy of these organizations.
As the narrative around the Forum as the central hub of Pacific regionalism gains traction amid geopolitical pressures, it risks being perceived as self-serving, neglecting the underlying communal values that Pacific Islanders hold. Ultimately, it is the people of the Pacific who form the foundation of regionalism, reminding us of the fundamental purpose behind these efforts.
Reflecting on my personal journey with the PIF Secretariat, I have experienced both the challenges and rewards. It is demanding work that requires dedication, often resulting in long hours alongside colleagues who feel like family. Despite the frustrations faced, the goal remains to improve collaboration and foster enduring relationships across various stakeholders. This emotional journey is steeped in both challenges and joys, leaving a lasting impact as one hopes for a capable successor to continue the mission of Pacific regionalism.