It has been a bugbear for me for some time. However, over the years, I have learned that I was not the only one being stressed by this. Others, many in fact, have been equally perturbed by this tendency for the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) to produce, year in, year out, bland outcomes statements of meetings, whether they be of ministerial or PIF Leaders’ meetings.
Being bland can mean a lot of things. Whatever the meaning is, to me it represents a calculated attempt to under-report and misinterpret situations on the ground. It can mean a lack of strong emotions, features, or characteristics. The reporting is smooth and soothing in manner and quality. It does not irritate, nor does it stimulate or invigorate.
There have been situations in the past when ministers and leaders had gone into their respective meetings with clear issues about which they weren’t happy. The outcomes, however, would whitewash those issues to conceal any possible sign of discord or dissension within the group. Bland language would be used to downplay any strong emotions or utterances that were delivered and were heard, and which were subsequently picked up by the general media.
The Forum is characterised by a diversity of membership. Members’ economic status varies from developed countries to developing and least developed countries. There are small island developing states – some not fully independent and there are the French territories. There are variations due to geography, geopolitics and geostrategy. Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), PIF’s two developed country members, are also significant Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) donors in the region.
With all this diversity, it would be expected that there would be a range of views existing in the group. However, the blandness of PIFS’ reporting reduces all issues to a consensus. Diplomacy and politics in reporting removes any veiled criticism that PICs may have of Australia and NZ’s foreign policies that may jeopardize their respective ODA. This is done to please both sides. The PICs do not wish to be seen harbouring any negativity towards Australia and NZ’s ODA. From the perspective of Australia and NZ, they do not wish to deflect PICs’ patronage to other competing global partners.
The objective of obtaining a consensus is central in the work of the Forum. Garry Wiseman and I joined forces in a consultancy in 2019 and we penned ‘A Review of Guidelines and Format of the Pacific Islands Forum Meetings’. Under ‘Consensus Building’, we wrote: “Ever since its establishment in 1971, the Forum Leaders meeting has always sought to reach decisions and present a consensus view to the rest of the world.”
We were, however, concerned that the Forum seemed to have gone out of its way to seek a consensus at any cost – even ‘with qualification’ tagged on. This essentially means that conditions must be satisfied by sections of the group, for example, before any consensus can be claimed. In other words, some members can go along with the determination of a consensus but would still have some reservations. We thus recommended: “Given the diversity of the Forum Membership and while not undermining the overall solidarity of the Forum membership and the importance of building a consensus on key issues of regionalism, Forum Leaders consider the possibility of providing greater clarity in their Communique for why certain issues are endorsed by Forum Leaders with qualification.”
Being bland has created unnecessary misjudgement on the part of the PIFS as regards its role. Again, it is to do with endeavouring to be diplomatic, suave and urbane to the extent it confuses its role relative to the Forum of Ministers and Leaders that it serves.
Being bland has created unnecessary misjudgement on the part of the PIFS as regards its role. Again, it is to do with endeavouring to be diplomatic, suave and urbane to the extent it confuses its role relative to the Forum of Ministers and Leaders that it serves.
As far as I’m concerned, PIFS is there to service the Ministers and Forum Leaders. The Ministers and Leaders expect PIFS to do the work of administering the Forum, as delegated to it, when and if required. The Ministers and Leaders essentially direct PIFS to carry out its work. They do not ‘request’ PIFS to carry out the work mandated to it.
The 2020 FEMM Outcomes Statements is a good example. The meeting was virtual. However, that is not an excuse for PIFS to be confused about its duty. Paragraph 15 (iii): Forum Economic Ministers ‘requested the Secretariat, in partnership with CROP agencies and development partners to monitor the evolving impact of COVID-19 on the region and provide appropriate policy and technical advice and support to Forum Island governments in their efforts to avert and recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic.’
In trying to get to the bottom of this, I have come to realise that you can certainly achieve consensus by being bland through under-reporting, misrepresentation and other creative ways. This, however, can take you to your objective for only part of the way. Much has been achieved, on the other hand, by purely opting to be silent on issues – as if by choosing to be unvocal, the issues may just disappear and, with much hope and luck, lose their bearing.
The Forum outcomes drafters are the experts on this matter.
The 51st PIF’s Communique, paragraph 9 is a good example. First, it states: “Leaders noted that the region continues to be highly contested sphere of interest, in a wider geopolitical setting with external powers seeking to assert their own interests.” That in itself is an understatement – a misinterpretation.
The paragraph continues: “In the current strategic context, Leaders recognised the importance of remaining unified as a Forum family to address common challenges and to capitalise on key opportunities.” What is unsaid is the status of the existing disunity that has split the Forum family and the prospect of Kiribati walking away from the group permanently. What is also unsaid is what the Forum aims to do to get Kiribati and others into the fold to repair the disunity.
There is more. The same paragraph 9 still has to come to its punchline. It continues: “Furthermore, Leaders also recognised the importance of regional unity and solidarity in dealing with intensifying geostrategic interest, particularly to ensure the achievement of shared and common objectives.”
What the Leaders did not discuss is that regional unity and solidarity are already in tatters due to Australia and NZ’s geostrategic activities. Firstly, Australia followed up its signing onto the Indo-Pacific pact, as a member of the QUAD, by signing onto the AUKUS with the US and the UK. AUKUS has a nuclear component. The pact thus trashes PIF’s own Treaty of Rarotonga of 1985.
Furthermore, what remains unsaid is that both Australia and NZ have undermined the existing regional architecture by signing onto the Partners in the Blue Pacific (PBP). Regional commentators have stated that this ‘initiative rides roughshod over established regional processes’. The Partners have stated that they have a ‘strategic’ way of consulting with PIF and other regional bodies to ensure utility. It remains to be seen, for example, how ANZ will be seated in any consultation with PIF of which they are members, and which hats they would be wearing.
In trying to be bland to arrive at a consensus in its reporting, PIFS omits essential details. And these are what matter. In recent situations, these are details that speak of the absence of PIF’s unity and solidarity. A specific case discussed above is where Australia and NZ have breached PIF’s trust and have gone on to establish another regional grouping that ‘rides roughshod over established regional processes.’ In the final analysis, it is this kind of power play that will continue the unsolicited usurpation of PICs’ agency and their treatment as essentially pawns in the geostrategic games that developed countries love to play.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this publication.
