by: Michael O'Keefe
From:The Australian December 04, 201212:00AM
LAST month a new regional organisation was born. It arrived with little
fanfare, but it may very well reshape the architecture of co-operation
in the South Pacific.
In
early November a Fijian government press release quietly announced the
creation of the Pacific Islands Development Forum. It replaces the
Engaging with the Pacific process that was set up following Fiji's
suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum to maintain close co-operation
between island states.
What's
in a name? The one word difference between the PIDF and PIF is
extremely significant. It signals that the agenda of the new
organisation will be firmly on Pacific island development issues,
including the impact of climate change. This sharply distinguishes it
from the PIF, which many regional states argue has increasingly taken on
a security-dominated agenda focussed on the interests of the
metropolitan powers, Australia and New Zealand.
The Pacific is deeply concerned with security, but the lens through
which they look at these issues is more likely a human security than
national security perspective. This is how an issue such as climate
change is viewed, and the fact that the PIF has been singularly
incapable of living up to regional expectations in this regard is
telling. Furthermore, the most significant challenges are economic. They
relate to sustainable growth and development in areas such as
fisheries, agriculture, forestry and mining.
The
proposed membership of the PIDF highlights the shifting Pacific
seascape. The island states of the Pacific and the dependent territories
of external powers are invited to attend.
The
notable absentees are Australia and New Zealand, which again points to
the attempt to develop and lead a new regional agenda that is distinctly
Pacific. More remarkably, the PIDF will include representatives from
government, business, and civil society in national delegations to
encourage partnerships.
The
PIDF has larger significance in relation to the architecture of
regional co-operation and Australia's foreign policy toward Fiji.
Turning the PIDF concept into reality will face some major hurdles. The
plan is that the PIDF will be institutionalised before elections are
held in Fiji in 2014. As such it will represent the final piece in
Fiji's diplomatic puzzle circumventing the sanctions imposed by the ANZ
partners as a result of the coup in 2006.
Sanctions
are a form of punishment to try to influence the behaviour of the
target country. However, in this case democracy was not swiftly restored
and elections are scheduled for 2014. After an initial deferment in
2009 the election timetable has been set by the Fijian government and at
this stage it is hard to imagine the possibility of holding elections
sooner. The sanctions concentrated on diplomatic isolation. Fijian
government officials (in particular the military) were targeted in a
smart sanctions package that focused on travel bans, limits on military
training and regional and international isolation, but their impact has
been diluted.
In
the six years since 2006 Fiji has negotiated direct flights to various
regional capitals so travel through Auckland or Brisbane is no longer a
necessity. Military training arrangements have been negotiated with
regional states including Malaysia and China. New and enhanced bilateral
relationships have been developed with countries such as Indonesia,
South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil and China. Fiji has gained
membership of existing groups, such as the Non-Aligned Movement, and
has actively encouraged the growth of the Pacific Small Islands
Developing States side grouping at the UN, the Melanesian Spearhead
Group, the Engaging with the Pacific process and now the PIDF. Fiji was
elected chair of the G77 for 2013 and was vice president of the general
assembly in 2012. Fiji is no longer diplomatically isolated.
Now
that the PIDF has been developed it may be time to look beyond 2014 and
decide how Canberra's relations with Suva will be recalibrated. It may
be that Fiji should be slowly and deliberately brought back in from the
cold.
Constructive
engagement can already be seen with the budgetary support for the
elections process. The exchange of high commissioners would be another
good signal that diplomacy will be undertaken at the highest levels.
Allowing government officials involved in the election process to
transit through Australia and NZ might be another possible thaw in
relations.
The
recent floods in Fiji prompted an increase in Australian aid. This
could be enhanced to support sustainable development projects that fit
the PIDF agenda. Furthermore, the flood damage highlighted Fiji's
incapacity to deal with large-scale disaster management. The Australian
Defence Force has a well-earned reputation in this regard. Niche
training could be provided to the Fijian military in non-combat related
skills to build local capacity to deal with environmental crises. It is
also likely that the bans on Fijian participation in new peacekeeping
operations will be lifted in 2014. The ADF and Australian Federal Police
also have well-earned reputations in peacekeeping and peacemaking so
there are many avenues for co-operation.
Another
initiative that would speak to the new PIDF agenda would be to resume
RAAF maritime patrol overflights of Fiji's EEZ to protect against
illegal fishing.
Diplomatically there is much to be done. Is now the time? Why wait for 2014?
Michael O'Keefe is a senior lecturer in the politics and international relations program at La Trobe University
[My copy via FijiToday for whicb my thanks. Ed.]
No comments:
Post a Comment