New Pacific Forum chair wins islands support on trade, climate change

Samisoni Pareti




Regional consensus rather than stringent national positions won the day at last month’s annual summit in Australia of leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum.
At least that is how several leaders explained away their decision to adopt Australia’s weak targets on climate change and for the immediate commencement of negotiating a new regional free trade agreement called PACER Plus.
“Like everything else, we do take our own positions into meetings like this,” Edward Natapei, Prime Pinister of Vanuatu told journalists on the final day of the Forum summit in the northern Australian city of Cairns. “But there has to be a give and take situation.”
Natapei was specifically responding to this magazine’s question on the strong position the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) had taken going into the Cairns Forum.
As the current MSG chair, Natapei and his two other Melanesian members of the Forum—comprising Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea—had gone to Cairns with strong positions on Fiji and PACER Plus.
It had wanted the Forum to re-engage with Fiji, and that the island nation should be included in the negotiations on PACER.
The MSG had also wanted to delay the commencement of negotiations on the new trade agreement to around 2013.
That position was confirmed to Pacific journalists that covered the Cairns Forum by Natapei’s counterpart in neighbouring Solomon Islands, Dr Derek Sikua.
“For countries like Solomon Islands, we need more time,” said PM Sikua.

Some key decisions of the leaders Climate Change We call for a post-2012 outcome that sets the world on a path to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius or less. We call on states to reduce global emissions by at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. We call on states to ensure that global emissions peak no later than 2020. PACER Plus Leaders agreed to commence PACER Plus negotiations forthwith as recommended by the trade ministers. Fiji Leaders reiterated a commitment to engage Fiji on an early return to democracy so that Fiji could again take its proper place in the community of the Forum. They noted that the MSG and PIF-Fiji Joint Working Group remained important mechanisms for continued dialogue and called on Fiji to re-engage. SOPAC closure Agreed that the remaining functions of SOPAC [Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission] be transferred to SPC as a new geoscience division from January 2010 based on the final implementation plan to be presented to and considered by the governing bodies of SOPAC and SPC in October 2009. Pacific Plan Implementation of work under the Pacific Plan would be guided by the continued direction and targets provided by Leaders to members, regional agencies and development partners. Leaders also agreed on a number of key commitments and priority areas in order to advance the Plan over the next three years from 2010. Fisheries Leaders agreed that in order to overcome the current hiatus in implementing the call to protect fisheries, that Australia hosts a meeting of ministers responsible for both fisheries and law enforcement/justice in early 2010; at which agreement is to be reached both on the form of new legal arrangements to be negotiated and a roadmap for the negotiation process, which should conclude no later than the end of 2012. Bulk Oil Procurement Scheme “Leaders welcomed the signing by the Governments of the Cook Islands, Nauru, Tuvalu and Niue of a government-to-government memorandum of understanding (MOU) which outlined the responsibilities of Forum members who sign up to this initiative under the auspices of the Pacific Petroleum Project. Leaders further noted that the governments of Tonga, Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands have expressed their intention to sign the MOU. RAMSI Leaders highly commended the spirit of cooperation and consultation at all levels between RAMSI and the SIG culminating in the conclusion of the SIG-RAMSI Partnership Framework that was endorsed by the SIG on 14 May 2009 and subsequently by the Forum Ministerial Standing Committee (FMSC) on RAMSI on 15 May 2009. Pacific Regional Assistance to Nauru (PRAN) “Leaders agreed with Nauru that, having achieved its objectives, PRAN is no longer required. Leaders, however, recognised the ongoing economic, social, infrastructure and development challenges facing Nauru and committed themselves to continue to supporting Nauru’s reform agenda.”

Need more time: “We should not be rushed into any negotiations. There is a clear roadmap.
“Firstly, we want to set up the office of the chief trade adviser. Following that, we should have our national consultations with civil societies, NGOs, private sector and as many stakeholders as possible because they are going to be affected by this whole thing.
“Politically, it will not be right for us to rush into these negotiations without consultations taking place.”
Indeed, the leaders did talk of consultations with point 22 of the Cairns communiqué which noted, “the need for Forum Islands Countries to undertake national consultations with all stakeholders and capacity building for the negotiations.”
But when exactly such consultations will take place, the leaders’ outcome statement did not specify.

with expert on regional politics ISLANDS BUSINESS sought the views of a  political commentator, a retired government minister in a Forum Islands Country, on the recent outcome of the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Cairns. For someone who has attended numerous Forum meetings, what’s your reading of the leaders’ decision on commencing PACER Plus negotiations despite rumblings before the retreat by some PICs that they would prefer a delayed start, on adopting Australia’s position on climate change, and continuing Fiji’s suspension from the group? Did any of these decisions surprise you at all? EXPERT: Yes and no. No, because this situation has happened before. Yes, because the situation continues much to our disbelief. What is thus surprising is that the utterances of the PIC Leaders were not consistent with the final decisions, which were collective. But this has happened before! Nothing new! That just goes to show that PIC Leaders are not sticking to their guns in plenary meetings of the Leaders. Had they stuck to their guns, the outcomes would have been different. So what is happening? They either toe the lines of ANZ or they remain silent. I believethe latter applies. Why are they silent? I believe that they are silent for fears of losing ANZ ODA. This is a sad state of affairs! The commencement of the PACER Plus negotiations itself is neither here nor there. Any start does not pre-empt the final text of the agreement, nor does it pre-empt its end-date. Any negotiation that is started does not necessarily have to end. Negotiators can opt to suspend the negotiations. The importance of an immediate start to PACER Plus, however, is that it is linked to the release of funds by ANZ to fund the OCTA. It is simple logic. PICs want their CTA to be in place soonest. ANZ will allow this to happen by providing the funds. The funds, however, will be released when ANZ can meet their accountability requirements to their taxpayers. These requirements will be satisfied when taxpayers see the direct linkage of the funds to the start of the negotiations. Starting the negotiations does not mean that we start looking at the legal text right away. That is years down the road. The negotiators will need to agree firstly with a framework of negotiations. PICs can use this opportunity to build in their national consultations and capacity building etc into the framework even before they start on the fundamentals of negotiations proper. Just few days ago, foreign ministers of the MSG came out in support of Fiji’s inclusion in PACER Plus negotiations. Some Fiji journalists put this very question to MSG leaders in Cairns, as to why they didn’t push for Fiji at the retreat. The response was that they have to go along with the views of the other leaders. It doesn’t make sense to journalists like me, but what is happening here, in your view? EXPERT: The above scenario applies here too. They did not push for fears of losing something—their bilateral ODA. Bilateralism (bilateral benefits) buys immediate votes rather than regionalism. The Forum leaders’ position on climate change was particularly surprising, given that PIC negotiators as members of AOSIS are advocating urgent and deeper cuts in carbon emission. They are talking of cuts from at least 45% by 2020. The Forum is now advocating 50% cuts by 2050. Again, Tuvalu said they want to be seen as encouraging Australia, which is now agreeing to 50% cuts although by 2050, and not 2020 as pushed by others. Again, in your understanding of how Forum leaders make their decisions, how would you explain this? EXPERT: Australia is the biggest donor in the Pacific apart from the EU. Leaders do not want to disappoint the hand that feeds them. This is short-termism and not in the long-term interest of the region. Some people say the decisions show that our islands leaders just lack the guts to say and push for what they want. Some aides did tell us leaders were not speaking up during the retreat, the discussions were all one way, from Mr Rudd and Mr Key. Your view? EXPERT:  When PIC leaders don’t speak, or don’t speak directly on the issues at hand, all discussions can be seen to be driven by ANZ. The outcomes come out to reflect just the ANZ views, and some have concluded that this is the result of bullying by ANZ. It is simply a logical progression. What is said is recorded and reported upon. What about the other view that Australia and New Zealand bullied islands leaders into submission? EXPERT:  There is no bullying in the region. There may be an element of political strategisation on the part of ANZ. But this has only come about because the situation is created for them to take advantage of. If PIC leaders stick to their guns and have the regional interests at heart, then proper and robust debates will take place. ANZ will be wary of politicising the debates. What is your opinion about the assertion that this Pacific Way of consensus is really a two-edged sword, that if not handled well, it can turn around to bite us again where it hurts? EXPERT:  What is happening is not the Pacific Way. The Pacific Way is that one submits to quiet and dignified acquiescence when in agreement with the thrust of the debates. What is happening is that one is acquiescing when not in agreement with the thrust of the debates out of fear of losing something. There is no fear in the Pacific Way. The Pacific Way will stand on principles and collective interests and will be robust in defending those principles but with decorum, dignity and wit. Is there a better way of arriving at decisions for Islands Leaders you think? EXPERT:  Open and robust debates. If Leaders stand on principles and collective interests for enhanced regionalism, then they will command respect and will not be subject to political shenanigans.

It did make the point, however, that PACER Plus negotiations should commence “forthwith” as was the recommendation of the Pacific Islands Forum trade ministers following their meeting in Samoa last June.
“Leaders welcomed the decision by the trade ministers to establish the Office of Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA) along the lines outlined in the Apia FTMM (Forum Trade Ministers Meeting) decision,” according to point 21 of the leaders’ communiqué.
“They affirmed their wish for Forum trade ministers to meet as soon as practicable after the Forum Leaders meeting and no later than November, and welcomed the offer from the Federated States of Micronesia to host this meeting.
“Leaders directed that the trade ministers should discuss a framework for PACER Plus negotiations including timelines; identification of issues; and issues in respect of which the CTA could negotiate.
“Leaders affirmed the need for an annual review of the progress of the PACER Plus negotiations and the arrangements for the OCTA.”
Conciliatory gesture: Despite noises made by Sikua and the Natapei-led MSG prior to the Forum meeting in Cairns, Pacific leaders resolved that Fiji’s suspension  should remain, and as such, the island nation would continue to be excluded from PACER Plus negotiations.
But their communiqué did offer a conciliatory gesture, a “mechanism” leaders hoped would keep Fiji trade officials informed of the negotiations.
ISLANDS BUSINESS was informed that such a concession was a result of strong representations made at the leaders’ retreat by Sikua.
“With this mechanism, Fiji officials will be briefed in Suva following each negotiating meeting by a representative from the meeting, with the representative also able to convey back to the next meeting any views from Fiji,” said point 23 of the communiqué.
Fiji, however, has rejected such a mechanism, saying it would settle for nothing short than a seat at the negotiating table.
In a statement released soon after the Forum meeting in Cairns, Fiji’s new foreign minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola (who until his ministerial appointment was Fiji’s ambassador to Japan) said the Pacific leaders’ decision was unacceptable and also unlawful.
“With these conditions, the Pacific Islands Forum has made it impossible for Fiji to effectively defend the interests of its people under the trade agreements it is a party to, in particular, under PACER and PICTA (Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement). These decisions have left Fiji little choice but to seriously consider its future status under these treaties.
“The deliberate disregard for Fiji’s rights as State Parties to both PICTA and PACER has regrettably forced us to consider withdrawing completely from these arrangements.”
Kubuabola stepped up his government’s rejection of the Forum leaders’ decision by organising an urgent meeting in Suva on August 25 of MSG foreign ministers at which the ministers reiterated the need for Fiji to be included in PACER Plus negotiations.
There was no reaction to the latest MSG call from the Forum by press time.
Interestingly, a statement from the MSG foreign ministers revealed a possible way out of the impasse concerning Fiji’s participation in trade negotiations.
The ministers referred to a proposal that would ensure Suva’s continued involvement in the negotiations for an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU) and wondered whether a similar arrangement could be made for PACER Plus.
ISLANDS BUSINESS got wind of this proposal at the Pacific Leaders’ Forum in Cairns where a senior official had recommended that the EU appoint a deputy regional authorising officer (RAO) in the Pacific.
Until now, the only RAO is the Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.
But because of the difficulties now being brought about by the suspension of Fiji from the Forum, the senior official proposed that the Director-General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) be made the EU’s deputy RAO.
Since Fiji is still a member of the SPC, the island nation can therefore still participate in the negotiations for an EPA with the EU, as well as access EU funds through its regional EDF (economic development fund) 10.
Of great disappointment to many was the Forum leaders’ decision on climate change.
Despite calls by environmental groups like Greenpeace for urgent and deeper carbon emission reduction targets by 2020, a position which had been eloquently advocated by countries like Kiribati and Tuvalu in international foras, leaders settled for far less in Cairns.
Climate change: “We call for a post-2012 outcome that sets the world on a path to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius or less,” leaders said in their position on climate change.
“We call on states to reduce global emissions by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.We call on states to ensure that global emissions peak no later than 2020.”
In opting for long-term reduction targets, it was clear the Pacific Islands leaders including those from the smaller islands states had adopted the hardened positions of their bigger members of Australia and New Zealand.
Forum chair and prime minister of Australia Kevin Rudd had alluded to this in a press conference he held after the opening of the Cairns meeting in which he made repeated references to the decision of G8 leaders in Italy about limiting carbon emission to a level where a rise in average global temperature should be kept at no more than 2 degrees Celcius.
Tuvalu’s PM Apisai Ielemia who had advocated urgent and deep cuts of 45% by 2020 at recent climate change meetings, did not respond to repeated requests for interviews at the Cairns Forum.
But a senior member of his delegation told ISLANDS BUSINESS that his own officials were also confounded by the sudden change of heart in their Prime Minister.
“We did ask him why he agreed to Australia’s position on climate change, and he told us that he wanted to be seen as thanking Australia for conceding to cut emissions,” this official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity said.
“Agreeing to cut emission by 50% is a big move, and our prime minister said Tuvalu should encourage such moves.”
When further asked by ISLANDS BUSINESS as to why Tuvalu went along with the decision when Australia was advocating a 50% cut by 2050 and not 2020 as it has been the official position of small islands states in international negotiations all along, the official said only Prime Minister Ielemia would be able to answer the change in stance.
Leaders bullied? Were Pacific islands leaders bullied into submission by Rudd and Key on the issue of climate, change as well as PACER Plus?
The question in fact was put to both prime ministers in Cairns by veteran Pacific correspondent of the ABC’s Australian Network television Sean Dorney.
Both Rudd and Key were adamant that no leader spoke out against the targets on carbon emission reduction nor on the need to commence PACER Plus negotiations immediately.
Officials of other Pacific Islands delegations we spoke to in Cairns confirmed the two prime ministers’ assertion.
“Even Samoa’s Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Maliegalelaoi was strangely very quiet at this year’s retreat,” this magazine was told.
“Grand Chief Somare, on the other hand, was busy trying to mediate between his MSG colleagues and their Pacific islands colleagues, but no one leader raised any serious questions about climate change targets nor on PACER.”
But another islands official seemed to think the communiqué in particular was the sole work of Rudd’s drafting team.
“A group of us from the islands were on stand-by to help with drafting the final draft of the communiqué, but the call never came. The final draft was put together by Canberra’s own drafting team led by one of their own diplomats based in the Pacific.”
This delegate was particularly disappointed about the dramatic about-turn in the islands’ position on climate change.
The only delegate that was willing to be quoted on this matter was Natapei of Vanuatu.
Asked by this magazine as to why leaders like him agreed to side with Australia on climate change when his own negotiators are pushing for a 45% cuts by 2020 in international negotiations, Natapei said: “We also have to consider the points made by 14 or 15 other islands who are members of the Forum.
“We cannot push our own position and at the end of the day, Vanuatu has to go along with the others.”