The Pacific Islands Forum and its secretariat consist of a complex system that requires at least a year for any individual to grasp fully. This political organization strives to balance the needs of its 18 member states in order to enhance regional unity.
Operating under a mix of formal regulations and established practices, the organization also adheres to what is informally known as the “Pacific way,” which influences its overall operations. My experience within the Forum Secretariat has spanned three roles, with my most recent position being Director of Governance and Engagement. Over the past decade, I have witnessed the oscillating dynamics of regionalism.
To me, regionalism is fundamentally about encouraging Pacific nations to collaborate more effectively across all levels. I joined the Forum Secretariat during a period marked by strained relations with Fiji’s government following its suspension from the Forum in 2009. This strained relationship created tension at the leadership level, which naturally affected the workings of the Secretariat. Rumors even suggested that the Secretariat might move to Samoa, while vital regional issues began to be addressed outside its purview, undermining the organization’s authority.
At that time, the Forum Secretariat faced criticism for being disconnected from the very communities it aimed to serve. The 2013 Review of the Pacific Plan pointed out that while regionalism was crucial, the Forum had “lost its politics.” I interpreted this as a call to refocus the Secretariat’s efforts toward unifying Leaders and facilitating crucial conversations on contentious issues that hinder regional cooperation.
However, this challenge is compounded by the fact that Leaders convene only once a year, often experience shifts in political leadership due to elections or votes of no confidence, and are subject to a plethora of regional meetings. During Secretary General Tuiloma Neroni Slade’s term, which coincided with Fiji’s suspension, he worked diligently to protect the Forum Secretariat during challenging times. Dame Meg Taylor is remembered for her openness to including broader stakeholders in the Forum’s discussions, especially civil society, through initiatives like the public submission process under the Framework for Pacific Regionalism.
Within the Secretariat, there was intense debate regarding how to reorganize its operations in response to public scrutiny, leading to divisions among staff. Nevertheless, these challenging discussions paved the way for conceptualizing the Blue Pacific narrative, which shifted the focus of Pacific regionalism from mere cooperation to strategically leveraging the collective strength of its members. This narrative culminated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, which emphasizes the necessity for regionalism to have a clear blueprint rather than relying on chance.
Throughout my tenure at the Forum Secretariat, two persistent political issues have emerged. The first pertains to membership. Fiji’s full reintegration into the Forum after its suspension did not occur until 2019, and ironically, Fiji played a crucial role in resolving a rift that led to the withdrawal of five Micronesian members following Henry Puna’s appointment as Secretary General. While the Suva Agreement addressed this division, the contribution of the individual who stepped aside for regional unity has seldom been acknowledged.
Furthermore, the admission of New Caledonia and French Polynesia as full Forum members in 2016 marked one of the most significant decisions in the Forum’s 53-year history, straying from its original political foundation. This move arguably reinforced the status of other external groups, including the Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which comprises 14 sovereign Pacific states but excludes countries like New Zealand and Australia.
The second enduring issue is Taiwan’s standing within the Forum, which has escalated in relevance, notably in Nauru in 2017 and Tonga in 2024. As geopolitical tensions rise in the region, this subject is likely to incite further discord among members. Currently, only three Forum members maintain ties with Taiwan, and China is expected to capitalize on opportunities to challenge the Forum’s stance on this matter.
Looking ahead, Secretary General Baron Waqa will face the daunting task of addressing potentially divisive challenges that may test the Forum’s unity. Close collaboration with the Forum Chair and the Troika, which have adopted more significant roles in recent years, will be essential. Central to these issues are topics such as deep-sea mining, self-determination movements, lingering nuclear contamination concerns, and the ongoing situations involving Taiwan and broader membership matters.
The extent to which Pacific nations pursue climate-agenda initiatives within the Forum and their positions on sensitive human rights issues will significantly shape the future of regionalism.
In conclusion, regionalism, while integral to achieving the region’s sustainable development goals, remains a complex and ongoing process. This complexity arises from the cyclical nature of regional leadership, where shifts in administrations and personnel can alter the landscape. In the Pacific context, regionalism transcends mere output; it fundamentally revolves around human relationships. For Pacific states, the strength of connections, networks, and individual personalities often drives foreign policy more effectively than formal documentation.
While regionalism is vital for working toward sustainable development, it can become frustrating due to its slow pace and resource demands. Many member states grapple with capacity constraints, hindering their ability to engage effectively in regional matters. Additionally, national priorities often compete with regional agendas, leading to frustrations over collaboration.
Officials frequently perceive that regional institutions prioritize funding over efficient functioning, with feelings that regional civil servants may be overpaid for the amount of work undertaken. Larger member states tend to focus on maintaining the status quo and ensuring a return on investment, highlighting the conflicting desires for regionalism among members.
The issues that propel regionalism can arise from various sources and personalities, with each individual often championing their own priorities. The narrative promoting the Forum as the central body of Pacific regionalism has gained traction amid growing geopolitical competition and a surge of external partnerships with Pacific nations. Although highlighting the region’s strength as a unified political entity is essential, such claims can seem self-serving, misaligning with the communal values that Pacific islanders prioritize.
Ultimately, it is the collective of Pacific peoples that embodies the true essence of regionalism and reminds us of its purpose. My personal journey within the Forum Secretariat has seen both my best and worst moments, reflecting the demanding yet rewarding nature of this work environment. Collaborating with a “Pacific family” necessitates long hours and resilience in the face of criticism from member nations. Despite the chaos, the drive to improve remains strong, alongside the opportunity to foster lasting friendships and celebrate successes.
As I move on, I hope for a successor who can build on these experiences and navigate the complexities of Pacific regionalism effectively. This encapsulates the reality of regionalism as it unfolds on the ground.