It is an honour for me to be invited to speak at this Global Focus Summit to present the perspective of a small country’s response to the enhanced global geopolitical power shifts, so evident in the region now more than ever.
Let me begin by reiterating the Pacific leaders long term vision for the region as articulated in the 2014 Framework for Pacific Regionalism, as ‘a region of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion and prosperity so that all Pacific people can lead free, healthy and productive lives’. At the 2019 Tuvalu Leaders Forum, a more long term 2050 Blue Pacific Vision was born which in our view will serve to augment the 2014 articulation, through placing a timeline of 2050 for achieving the vision, framing the vision within the context of the Blue Pacific narrative and developing strategies to achieve the vision.
The realization of this vision would be the result of continued commitment to collective political agreements, institutions and systems that would create the Blue Pacific continent. We all agreed that Pacific regionalism would be best advanced through the realization of the Blue Pacific continent.
The foresight of the Forum leaders is premised on the long term potential in this context for establishing a powerful political bloc and a viable Blue Pacific continent. As a Pacific country, we are constantly distracted with meetings that are perused to drive the agenda of a middle or lesser powers in the Asia Pacific region and on other continents. We ask why we respond? Seeking new alliances; hoping to benefit from these alliances or spreading our wings aimlessly…through all this….. holding our collective together must be imperative.
The Blue Pacific continent should be recognized as the world’s only ocean continent. The priority of Pacific countries is to secure maritime baselines and outer limits of the continent in perpetuity, the Blue Pacific Continent would be characterised by more than simply an expression of a geographical space. It would be defined by agreements, institutions and systems that promote, govern and deepen collective responsibility and accountability for the shared sovereign stewardship of the Pacific ocean and its traditional and spiritual wellbeing.
As you are all aware, in late 2010 before the turn of the decade, the world was in a period of transition. The post world war global order led by the United States of America was over and a rising China with its plans for rebooting global trade links coupled with shifts to technology, data and knowledge flows, were creating an emerging globalization and globalization in transition at that. These shifts brought with them great geostrategic and geopolitical competition.
We can only surmise that increased geopolitical activity in the region is due to global power competition, access to foreign resources and the foreign policy approaches of the Pacific rim countries. Heightened interest has come with a presentation of the Indo Pacific Strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Step Up, Pacific Reset and Pacific uplift strategies, a proposed security role for the European Union in the region and unprecedented levels of bilateral engagement with a number of countries driven by a range of interests including access to ocean and resources.
As well, during heightened geopolitical interest there is a drive to leverage within the digitized, data driven global economy, the strategic value for investments in infrastructure and technology. These shifts bring about a situation of contrasts for Pacific countries.
On the positive side the Blue Pacific was and is a beneficiary of this competition receiving greater interest and financial support from major actors. On the flip side, it can serve to destabilize and fragment Forum solidarity impacting on the region’s collective ability to address the impacts of climate change and protect shared ocean resources. The fact remains that the region is vulnerable and will continue to be significantly dependent on the goodwill of others. Strategic leadership for the Pacific therefore really matters.
Our partners have fallen short of acknowledging the integrity of Pacific leadership and the responsibility they carry for every decision made in order to garner support for the sustainable development of our nations. Some might say that there is a ‘patronising’ nuance in believing that Pacific nations do not know what they are doing or were incapable of reaping the benefits of close relations with countries that are and will be in the region for some time to come. In cases where emerging partners have engaged with Pacific countries without overt conditionality, the relationships are perceived to be associated with corruption or unprecedented environmental degradation. One has the tendency to be bemused by the fact that the reaction is an attempt to hide what we see as strategic neglect and a belated comeback to former jurisdictions.
The nature of the region’s reaction and response to these vulnerabilities and dependencies in the form of climate change, geopolitics, global economic transition and accelerated technology will be central to the Blue Pacific narrative.
The reactions and responses to these challenges and associated opportunities will be defined to a large extent by the way Pacific intent is organized. Pacific countries will either address these challenges as a collective, in subregional groups, as individuals or embrace specific partnerships. The variable in each case is the degree of collective action or regionalism that exists. In my view it is the state of regionalism and interpretation that will shape national outcomes experiences and wellbeing.
Several scenarios are possible for the Pacific countries and how they wish to be organized:
1. The Pacific as a region of regions where multiple circles of influence collide in a politically divided and spatially demarcated Pacific zones
2. Autonomy without solidarity. Pacific Island Countries will use an unstructured approach to foreign policy prioritizing resource opportunities over collective interest
3. Pacific Island Countries pursue a single relationship with a preferred partner. Foreign policy is simplified and standardized but at the expense of regional autonomy and sovereignty-hence the continuation of parallel China-Pacific and Taiwan-Pacific engagement
4. A Blue Pacific continent. The Blue Pacific identity gains strength in a time of major environmental and political regime shifts.
The Pacific region face major challenges that are evident through two interconnected dimensions of risk, namely the impacts of climate change and heightened geopolitical activity and competition in the region. Two key climate change related outcomes which are highly likely in the future must be recognized by pacific countries regardless of the preferred scenarios by each country. These include (i) major changes to fishery resources due to ocean warming and forecasted reductions in marine catches and (ii) declining multilateral climate finance flows and investments. These factors will pressure the Pacific countries to pre-empt the risks, reorganize economic and ecological systems thus increasing their control and ability to benefit from shared resources.
Concerns about the balance of global power becomes all the more sharp in an environment where there is less commitment to multilateral problem solving. This is one reason, why there remains a lot of importance attached to the presence of the United Nations in our region despite the fact that financially, they cannot match the support from the global powers. As Pacific countries, we are aware that the UN country teams are in competition with our countries for financial resources from the same sources in the region and we have had to look at strategic partnerships that would encourage meaningful engagement to cater for shared resources. As a Small Island State, Samoa recognises that global problems, which demand cooperative responses and institutions that can generate stable commitments, lack the sense of urgency that would bring stakeholders together and facilitate cooperation. The multilateral processes we feel, are held to ransom by larger countries and super powers. Two clear examples so close to small islands states in the Pacific being the UNFCCC process and the WTO multilateral trading system.
Multilateralism is necessary for the Blue Pacific narrative hence the need for genuine engagement by global partners in these processes
Samoa as part of its response to these global challenges place a lot of emphasis on the fact that the credibility of a country is also important in its response to heightened geopolitical interest, in other words, the level in the quality of member state commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. In Samoa’s case we have ratified six out of nine core Human Rights conventions with a 2021 timeline for the achievement of all when we present our third Universal Periodic Review report. In 2019 we ratified the Convention against Corruption and recently participated and supported the Blue Pacific Anticorruption conference in Tarawa. I am proud to say that Samoa remains a politically stable country with much emphasis on good governance and adopting a human rights approach that is so important for progressing with the implementation of international agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals.
Our Blue Pacific continent is becoming an increasingly contested space, that much we are conscious of. The question for us is how prepared are we to tackle the emerging associated challenges? Regional and national stability has never been more critical in order to maintain peace and security, prosperity and wellbeing of all Pacific peoples and of peace. Samoa has often been asked the question of how it has managed to attain political stability over the years. There is no straightforward answer. What we are sure of is that, the foundation of our culture namely the matai (chiefly) system has significant bearing on stability evident in Samoa through its collective decision making and responsibilities that extend from family to village, district and national (parliament) levels. In essence we have been able to integrate well the best of our customs and traditions and the values we have adopted from our world without borders.
Perhaps we ought to remind ourselves of the potential available to us under the Blue Pacific identity. As the Blue Pacific, we have a powerful voice that we can take beyond our immediate region – to voice the concerns and interests of the Pacific around the world. That is why we have learnt to engage proactively in every opportunity that comes our way. Just as the world was able to see climate change through the lens of vulnerable small islands resulting in the adoption of the Paris Agreement, so will we learn to project a voice that will resonate in all corners of the world.
Having a regional framework through the Regional Sustainable Development Roadmap in support of the Blue Pacific narrative also complements and supports national efforts.
The Framework for Pacific Regionalism identifies security as one of the four objectives of Pacific regionalism – “Security that ensures stable and safe human, environmental and political conditions for all”.
While the Pacific region currently enjoys a period of relative stability, drivers of instability exist in the region and beyond. The 2017 State of Pacific Regionalism Report indicated that shifting global and regional geopolitics is creating an increasingly complex and crowded region that places the Pacific at the centre of contemporary global geopolitics. This trend, coupled with broader challenges that we face such as climate change and disaster risk, rising inequality, resource depletion, maritime boundary disputes and advances in technology, will continue to shape the Pacific regional security environment.
Pacific Island Forum Members have a proud history of working collectively in response to events and issues that have challenged regional security, peace and stability, from the 1985 Rarotonga Treaty that created a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, to a collective approach to addressing the existential threat of climate change.
The Pacific region’s current geopolitical and geostrategic context underlines the need for an integrated and comprehensive security architecture, incorporating an expanded concept of security. A stable and resilient security environment provides the platform for achieving the region’s sustainable development aspirations.
In recognition of this, Forum Leaders built on former security declarations as a foundation for strategic future regional responses, recognising the importance of an expanded concept of security inclusive of human security, humanitarian assistance, prioritising environmental security, and regional cooperation in building resilience to disasters and climate change to what is now the Boe Declaration. Prioritised action is on climate change and disaster risk management, fisheries, and oceans management and conservation – all of which have significant security elements. At country level and consistent with the regional security framework and outreach, Samoa had launched its national security policy in 2019 and hosts a number of regional security institutions.
In my view, the Blue Pacific platform offers all Pacific countries the adaptive capabilities to address a changing geostrategic landscape. The opportunity to realize the full benefits of the Blue Pacific rests in our ability to work and stand together as a political bloc. And the challenge for us is maintaining solidarity in the face of intense engagement of an ever-growing number of partners in our region. We should not let that divide us!
Thank you
