But, because Kiribati and Nauru did not send their leaders due to domestic elections, and Vanuatu – though a party to the Declaration – did not either, the PIF will likely have to determine how best to proceed, leaving the fate of the Declaration open-ended. Within the Pacific, decisions are traditionally made through unanimous multilateral consensus. For example, although a majority of Pacific Island Forum (PIF) members attended the event, not all were present, leaving one to wonder whether the Declaration has any legitimacy in the region. Unfortunately, there were several negative outcomes from the summit as well. Climate change presents an existential threat to Oceania, and thus, such language hits the mark. The American strategy also clearly prioritized climate change, which is also one of the Biden administration’s top priorities. It was equally impressive that the Biden administration’s Pacific Partnership Strategy, released at the conclusion of the summit, very consciously and specifically tracked with the region’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent – even to the extent of explicitly connecting the strategies on a point-by-point basis. Moreover, the Biden administration successfully lobbied the Solomon Islands – which in April inked a security pact with China – to go along with the rest of the summit participants and sign the Declaration after China language was omitted from the final text.Įnjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. By comparison, just a few months earlier, in May, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi embarked on an unprecedented ten-day, eight-nation tour in which he attempted to convince Pacific Island counterparts to sign Beijing’s “China-Pacific Island Countries Common Development Vision” – a sweeping multilateral deal encompassing political, economic, and security issues. Washington’s latest summit was also a remarkable accomplishment because the Pacific Island participants agreed to the Declaration on U.S.-Pacific Partnership. Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific. The more recent September summit was far more ambitious than that previous effort, and it succeeded in elevating the profile of the region in U.S. The closest Washington came to a multilateral summit of significance was when President Donald Trump, in May 2019, hosted the leaders of the three Freely Associated States (FAS) – Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau – at the White House. policymakers primarily handled relations with Pacific Island countries (excluding Australia and New Zealand) bilaterally, and on an ad hoc basis. Starting with the positives, the Summit put a necessary spotlight on Oceania – a region Washington has largely and lamentably ignored since the end of World War II. ![]() Indeed, there were good, bad, and even ugly takeaways that hold significant implications for American strategy in the region going forward. This historic summit was hardly an absolute success, however, and should be put within its proper context. Pacific Island leaders and observers, hailing from over a dozen states, participated in the event and signed an eleven-point “Declaration on U.S.-Pacific Partnership” in which they pledged to jointly tackle various challenges such as climate change, economic growth and sustainable development, maritime security, and the pandemic. On September 28-29, the United States hosted its first-ever Pacific Islands Summit at the White House.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |