Page 40 - Islands Business May-June 2022

Opinion Opinion
MAKING SENSE OF MULTI-LAYERED

SECURITY FRAMEWORKS

By Kaliopate Tavola aspirations.
The Solomon Islands Government’s bilateral security
Security is a priority in the region. It has been so since agreements have been in the news lately and proffering much
1971, when the earlier version of the Pacific Islands Forum food for thought and speculation by regional politicians,
(PIF) – the South Pacific Forum (SPF) first met in Wellington security gurus and the like. The furore that it has created has
on 5-7 August that year. At that first meeting, ‘attention given rise to the opportunity for passionate debate across the
was drawn to the forthcoming series of nuclear tests to be region. Hopefully, from all these discussions, a way forward
conducted by France in the South Pacific’. will emerge to render common sense and balance in the
Forum Leaders obviously chose to be proactive in this critical narratives relating to regional security.
matter as best as they could. They ‘expressed deep regret As far as Solomon Islands and other PICs are concerned,
that atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons continued to be they determine their own foreign relations with partners
held in the islands of French Polynesia despite the partial Test of their own choice. They may opt to be guided by ‘friends
Ban Treaty and the protests repeatedly made by a number of to all and enemy to none’. They are exercising their own
countries attending as well as other Pacific countries….They sovereignty in any case. Solomon Islands’ choice to switch
addressed an urgent appeal to the Government of France from relations with Taiwan to China was an exercise of such
that the current test series should be the last in the Pacific sovereignty.
area. The Forum requested the New Zealand Government to The fact that this free and independent choice infracted
transmit this.’ imposed geopolitical sensibilities as per the Indo-Pacific
It can be appreciated that security concerns at the time geopolitical remapping of a good part of the globe, was not of
were essentially related to threats that could be militaristic their making. It was ill-fated. When all the furore started up
in nature, or military-related like nuclear tests. The SPF and PM Sogavare was backed into a corner, he was castigated.
Leaders did raise their concern about health, safety and He needed help and direction. However, none came from PIF.
marine life as a result of the testing and the potential hazards Both the PIF Chair and PIF Secretary General were silent. Any
that atmospheric tests posed. At the time, climate change, hope of how to proceed forward guided by PIF’s Blue Pacific,
as a non-military threat, had not evolved as existential for for instance, remained a desolate hope. Note that the Blue
Pacific Island Countries (PICs) and for Pacific regionalism as a Pacific, as a homegrown political platform critical for PICs,
whole. That came later in 2018. was PIF’s direct response to the Indo-Pacific geostrategy.
However, since those early days, the Forum had been All this is instructive. The political upheaval in the Solomon
concerned about security. So much so that it passed a number Islands was what received a lot of political flak and airtime.
of security agreements and frameworks to guide its work, Previous breaches of security guidelines hardly made the
namely: Treaty of Rarotonga or South Pacific Nuclear-Free headlines.
Zone Treaty (1985), Aitutaki Declaration on Regional Security Australia is playing its South Pacific sheriff’s role in trying to
Cooperation (1997), Biketawa Declaration (2000), Nasonini broker a resolution for the Solomon Islands political situation.
Declaration on Regional Security (2002), Forum Declaration on However, Australia is hardly the independent umpire that the
Solomon Islands (2003), and Boe Declaration (2018). situation requires.
These regional agreements have worked at the regional The Boe Declaration encapsulates security as a broad-based
level as they were intended to do. Like many resolutions concept that includes all forms of security presenting threats
of the Forum, they have worked since Forum members to PIF members. It includes therefore non-military security
see ‘political significance’ in their conduct and effect. threats. But climate change ‘remains the single greatest
Members are not legally obliged to implement these regional threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the
resolutions as is the nature of Pacific regionalism. peoples of the Pacific’. This is at the regional level.
Given the voluntary nature of Pacific regionalism, members At the national level, however, Australia has found it
are not legally obliged to reflect aspects of these regional problematic to honour this commitment because of its
edifices in national policies or policy instruments. At the national policies on the use and promotion of fossil fuel. The
national level, politicians make policies on security on the gulf between PICs leaders and the Australian PM, for instance,
basis of their own sovereignty and on their own assessments has been unbridgeable. If the PIF were to be effective in
of security threats – whatever these threats may be. Some its global drive to solve climate change, then Australia has
members, like Fiji and Solomon Islands for instance, have to make extra efforts to honour and comply with the Boe
pursued bilateral security-related agreements with Australia. Declaration. Australia failed to do so at COP26. Prospects for
These may be carried out on the basis of connectivity compliance in COP27 do not currently appear to be promising.
to regional agreements – either as in pursuance for the Australia is a member of the QUAD that together with the
fulfillment of aspects in the regional agreement or as a U.S., created ‘Indo-Pacific’ in 2018, without any consultation
means to extending certain aspects of some related regional whatsoever with Pacific Island nations. PICs were essentially

40 Islands Business, May-June 2022