Page 30 - IB December 2022

Opinion Opinion

REPUBLIC OF KOREA-PACIFIC

ISLANDS RELATIONS STEP-UP

By Kaliopate Tavola 2011 to undertake triennial assessments of partners and their
contributions to regional development. The first triennial
The Republic of Korea (ROK) and 12 Pacific Island Countries assessment took place the following year. Subsequent ones
(PICs) opted to step-up their relations after the fifth meeting followed in 2015 and 2019.
of their respective Ministers of Foreign Affairs that was held The 2019 assessment was undertaken with the purpose of
in Busan, ROK, last October. This was the first face-to-face reviewing Forum Dialogue Partners’ ongoing alignment to
meeting since 2021. The decision to step-up ties came 11 Forum Dialogue Partners’ criteria and to the Forum’s regional
years after the first ministerial meeting was held in 2011 and priorities – particularly in the context of the 2014 Framework
27 years after ROK became a Dialogue Partner for the Pacific for Pacific Regionalism and the 2018 Strategy for Forum Inter-
Islands Forum (PIF) in 1995. national Engagement Advocacy. Of the 18 PFDPs, 13 provided
The step-up raises the level of the ministerial meeting to reports.
that of a summit. A summit, in diplomatic circles, is attended It is interesting to note here the Pacific Islands Forum Lead-
by Heads of States or Governments. The Busan Communique ers’ own evaluation of the results of the assessment. They
states: “The Ministers agreed to expand the scope of future “recognised the importance of effective partnership and
dialogue to reflect the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) membership engagements, while noting with concerns that not all PFDPs
and affirmed their will to work closely together to ensure the were effectively engaging with the PIF.”
success of the 1st Korea-Pacific Islands Summit in 2023.” As if they were responding directly to this concern, ROK
Of the PICs, Kiribati, Samoa and the two French territo- officials cooperated with their counterparts in the Pacific
ries, New Caledonia and French Polynesia, did not attend the Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) to raise the status and
meeting. Given the general acceptance of delegated decision- aspirations of the Busan meeting. Its theme was aspirational:
making that is central to the Pacific Way of resolving issues in ‘Vision of the Resilient Blue Pacific. Freedom, Peace and
PICs, it is expected that the four PICs absent from the Busan Prosperity.’ It further adds: ‘and in support of the 2050 Strat-
meeting will honour such a decision. Moreover, Australia and egy.’ This last point is politically strategic in that it responds
New Zealand (ANZ), developed country members of PIF, will directly to the requirements of the PIFL’s resolutions at their
similarly do so by virtue of their foundational membership of 2019 meeting in Funafuti when they conceptualised the 2050
the Forum. Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.
The proposed first Summit of 2023 is currently styled as the It seems that the 5th ministerial meeting in Busan ticked
‘1st Korea-Pacific Islands Summit’. Such nomenclature may all the boxes. PIFS’ Release after the meeting was titled:
appear restrictive from Australia and NZ’s perspective. Time ‘Expansion for Blue Pacific – Korea relations as 5th Foreign
will tell, therefore, whether it will change in due course to Ministerial ends.’ The release acknowledged that the meeting
‘Korea-PIF Summit’ or even ‘ROK-PIF Summit’ – to be geostra- ‘ended…on a high note.’
tegically-correct. The step-up to a summit-level dialogue is a reaffirmation
“Expand(ing) the scope of future dialogue” is reminiscent of the intended status and level of the Post-Forum Dialogues.
of the Post-Forum Dialogues (PFDs) during which ROK became It remains to be seen whether future attendances will be
a Partner in 1995. However, the annual dialogues during the consistent with such a resurgence. Furthermore, the step-up
time of the annual PIF Leaders (PIFL) meetings will not be to comprise the whole PIF membership is a natural exten-
replaced by the newly constituted Summit. sion, given ROK’s foci and engagements in a range of PIF’s
From the beginning, Post-Forum Dialogues were part and programmes and projects under the prevailing Framework for
parcel of the annual PIF Leaders meetings. Attendance by PFD Pacific Regionalism. The ROK-PIF Cooperation Fund (RPCF),
Leaders therefore was the norm. It was expected. Over the for example, is fully operational in the region. PIF’s website
years, however, attendance slackened and the dialogues were discusses six projects that are funded by the RPCF.
increasingly being attended by ministers on behalf of their ROK is also strong on climate change, Disaster Risk Reduc-
respective governments. tion and the environment. This augurs well in the context
I recall that this was a matter of some concern at the PIF of PIF’s Boe Declaration. Moreover, ROK’s stance on nuclear
level. Moreover, the PIF was also concerned about Post-Forum contamination is in harmony with that of PIF, given the on-
Dialogue Partners’ commitment to the region, especially to going altercation with Japan as regards the latter’s decision
PICs’ general development. So much so, that PIF decided in to release more than one million tonnes of treated nuclear-

30 Islands Business, December 2022