Last year, you said that Fiji had clearly failed to win over its neighbors in the face of an aggressive campaign against the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) by Australia. As evidence, you cited the fact that only three heads of states attended the event. However, nine leaders from Pacific Island countries attended this year’s event. And, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono delivered the keynote address. In response, you changed your assessment on the PIDF, now calling it “a rapid success.” In retrospect, were you surprised by how quickly the PIDF was able to establish itself as a viable regional institution? And, what do you think were the key factors that enabled Suva to overcome the diplomatic challenges posed by Canberra?
Original Title
Assessing the Strategic Implications of the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF)
Last year, you said that Fiji had clearly failed to win over its neighbors in the face of an aggressive campaign against the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) by Australia. As evidence, you cited the fact that only three heads of states attended the event. However, nine leaders from Pacific Island countries attended this year’s event. And, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono delivered the keynote address. In response, you changed your assessment on the PIDF, now calling it “a rapid success.” In retrospect, were you surprised by how quickly the PIDF was able to establish itself as a viable regional institution? And, what do you think were the key factors that enabled Suva to overcome the diplomatic challenges posed by Canberra?
Last year, you said that Fiji had clearly failed to win over its neighbors in the face of an aggressive campaign against the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) by Australia. As evidence, you cited the fact that only three heads of states attended the event. However, nine leaders from Pacific Island countries attended this year’s event. And, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono delivered the keynote address. In response, you changed your assessment on the PIDF, now calling it “a rapid success.” In retrospect, were you surprised by how quickly the PIDF was able to establish itself as a viable regional institution? And, what do you think were the key factors that enabled Suva to overcome the diplomatic challenges posed by Canberra?
Development Forum (PIDF) Guest: Gregory Poling Affiliation: Pacific Partners Initiative, CSIS Published: September 9, 2014
Last year, you said that Fiji had clearly failed to win over its neighbors in the face of an aggressive campaign against the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) by Australia. As evidence, you cited the fact that only three heads of states attended the event. However, nine leaders from Pacific Island countries attended this years event. And, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono delivered the keynote address. In response, you changed your assessment on the PIDF, now calling it a rapid success. In retrospect, were you surprised by how quickly the PIDF was able to establish itself as a viable regional institution? And, what do you think were the key factors that enabled Suva to overcome the diplomatic challenges posed by Canberra?
I was certainly surprised by the speed with which the PIDF came into its own - though I expected that it would find increasing success over time. The PIDF clearly fills a need in the Pacific by responding to calls for greater inclusivity that the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) has so far ignored. By prominently inviting-in civil society, academic, development, and business voices, the PIDF offers the potential for a broader, more innovative discussion on the development needs in the region. The PIDFs success also sends a strong message to big donors - primarily Australia and the United States - that showing up to the PIF with a preset list of announced initiatives - determined without much input from developing island states - is no longer good enough. The PIF still is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the preeminent leaders meeting in the Pacific. But, the PIDFs success should serve as a wake-up call that (the PIF) must adapt.
To that point, there are concerns that the PIF might not be able to adapt. What are your thoughts? Do you think that the PIF is worth saving? Or, should it be abandoned in favor of a new alternative?
I think the PIF is worth saving. There is a certain amount of hysteria in some quarters that the PIF is on its last leg. But, I see no evidence of that fact. While more Pacific leaders are attending the PIDF, they are not skipping the PIF. They are clearly still investing significant amount of political capital in the PIF. They recognize that it's their best opportunity to get face-to-face discussions with Australian leaders, New Zealand leaders, and high-ranking State Department officials. They also see it as a place where marquis development and aid programs typically are promoted and announced by the West. However, the PIF still needs to adapt to a changing regional environment. It must become more responsive to the Pacific Islands nations and be less of a talk shop.
Gregory Poling is a Fellow at the Pacific Partners Initiative of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington DC.
Interviews
Pacific Islands Society | Interviews | September 9, 2014 In opening this years PIDF, Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama (Fiji) made a veiled reference to one of the perceived shortcomings of the PIF when he said that the Pacific Island Countries needed to come up with solutions through genuine consultation with development partners. Of course, Bainimarama is not the first leader to characterize Australia and its partners as bullies when it comes to development aid. But, he is the first Pacific Island leader to go so far as to establish a rival institution to challenge their influence. So, do you think charge Bainimaramas is warranted? And, if so, do you think that the PIF needs to be reformed in order to ensure that the recipient countries have more of a voice in consultations?
I think there is some truth to Bainimarama's claim that the Pacific Island nations have not been involved in the decisions regarding aid from Australia and also from observer nations like the United States. The fact that the PIDF has so much resonance in the Pacific Islands and the fact that so many Pacific leaders have agreed to attend this year shows that these countries have been thinking it as well. And, as you pointed out, Bainimarama is not the first to bring-up this charge.
It is a bit overblown, I think, because of Fijis domestic politics. It serves Bainimarama purpose to set-up Australia as a punching bag. But, that doesnt mean that the United States or Australia should be complacent. It's no longer enough for delegations from Washington to show up with a plan already in place for a handful of new aid programs when they havent actually consulted the needs of the Pacific Islands nations. This highlights the fact that the PIF needs to be more than just regional leaders and State Department officials in the room.
Aside from the issue of consultation, another factor that appears to be driving support for the PIDF is the fact that Australia and its partners do not appear committed to addressing climate change. As you pointed out in your recent analysis, some of the key donor states behind the PIF happen to be the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. And, it doesnt help that Australias decision to repeal its carbon tax is already contributing to a significant rise in domestic carbon emissions. With some Pacific Island countries facing climate relocation, what does this mean for the long-term influence of PIF donor states in the Pacific Islands Region? And, are there ways for Australia and its partners to appease the Pacific Island countries without imposing stricter regulations on their own domestic carbon emissions?
In the last two years in particular, I think climate change and related issues like ocean health have become such a centerpiece of the PIF that it is now the number one issue. It is the only existential threat to low lying Pacific Island nations. So, for Australia to think that it can completely dismantle its climate change legislation and then not have that backlash from the region, that is just laughable.
Clearly, the Obama administration is in a bit of a better position due to the recent announcement of EPA caps on power plant emissions. But, it's only the first step. Pacific Island nations will demand more. I dont think it is possible moving forward to assuage Pacific anger with other kinds of aid while making no effort to really tackle climate change.
We have spoken a lot about Australia and its partners. But, its important to also consider the United States as its own actor. From your perspective, has the success of the PIDF measurably impacted the American policy approach to Fiji? And, what is your current outlook for Fiji-US relations?
Pacific Islands Society | Interviews | September 9, 2014 Pacific Islands Society PO Box 632 | Ebensburg, PA 15931 | USA 843.271.6891 ph pacificislandssociety.org web Domestic Non-Profit Organization The American approach towards Fiji remains very cautious. And, there's been little evidence from senior officials that Washington has really made a decision about which direction it is going to go moving forward. Even when it comes to the issue of election observers being sent to Fiji at Suva's invitation, Washington has been far more cautious than Canberra. In a sense, this reflects the fact that the Pacific Islands is still not nearly as important for Washington as it is for Canberra or Wellington even though the United States has become more engaged with the Pacific Islands over the last few years than it has been in recent memory.
The biggest thing that is going to affect the American policy towards Fiji is not going to be the PIDF. Nor is it going to be Fiji's growing clout in the region. It will be the elections this month. If they are deemed free and fair, the United States will seek to re-engage fairly rapidly. If they're not, then I think the Obama Administration will remain at arm's length. This is because it doesnt feel like it will pay much of a cost - unlike Australia - by its isolation of Fiji.
Mohammad Tahboub and Michael Edward Walsh. Gregory Poling: Assessing the Strategic Implications of the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF). Interviews. Honolulu: Pacific Islands Society, 9/9/2014.