Through history and in the 21st century, the Pacific (Oceania) remains a region which the great powers of the world have largely neglected.
Unlike Africa which possesses natural resources under the earth; the Americas which hold vast swathes of land more than suitable for agriculture, and animals that proved useful for European societies; and Asia which contained untapped markets and labour for European economies; Oceania has a land area of just over 8.5 million square kilometres (7.6 million of which is Australia alone), with the rest of the region defined just by the southern Pacific Ocean. For the smaller island states of Oceania, their modern economies are fuelled by tourism as tourists from around the world flock to their tropical beaches and are pulled in by the appeal of the ‘exotic’ Pacific cultures.
As the Cold War progressed, the Pacific became a testing zone for nuclear weapons from the United States, United Kingdom, and France—with much opposition from Pacific nations. In recent years, the Pacific and the greater Ring of Fire region has been used as a stage by world powers to push their influence and counter the power of other states.
This is increasingly evident in China’s pursuit of their ‘One Belt, One Road’ project, and to bring the Pacific closer towards their political and economic spheres of influence. Recently in past months, rumours have risen about China’s scouting of the Pacific Ocean for the establishment of military bases, particularly in Vanuatu. During the Obama Administration, the United States had used their ‘pivot to Asia’ approach to bring their political and economic weight to the region and attempt to establish themselves as the leading regional power. The Pacific Ocean was used as a platform to project power into Asia by the US—essentially bypassing the region itself.
This has been problematic for Australia as it has often assumed itself as the regional leader—the leading voice of the Pacific collective, with New Zealand as their minor partner. The UN Security Council (UNSC) seat won by Australia in 2013 was won off the backs of the votes from the Pacific bloc in the UN General Assembly with the promise that Australia would be the voice representing all Pacific member-states in the UNSC. Furthermore, Australia promised that during their tenure on the Security Council chamber, issues important to the people of the Pacific would be raised. Foreign Minister Tony deBrum of the Marshall Islands hoped that ‘Australia will take more of a leadership role’ and that Pacific nations have ‘always looked at them for leadership’. They anticipated that with the presidency of the UNSC, dialogue on how to reduce carbon emissions would be more prevalent within the chamber.
At the conclusion of Australia’s term on the UNSC at the end of 2014, many of our Pacific neighbours felt that crucial issues weren’t raised. Of particular importance was climate change and its potential repercussions, especially rising seas which threaten the very existence of many low-lying island states such as Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, and Micronesia. Australia’s neighbours felt sidelined.
Climate change and the future of Oceania are intrinsically linked. As a group of island nations, their destiny is determined by their ability to adapt to environmental crises: rising seas, erosion of beaches, over-fishing, and ocean acidification. The core maritime and tourism industries of the Pacific, essential to the prosperity of these island economies, could face collapse when the consequences of climate change fully materialise. Therefore, Pacific island nations are right to be concerned when their self-assumed regional leader fails to act on their promise, fails to echo their concerns to the global community, and fails to take the lead when discussing solutions for an existential threat to the region.
However, this was not the first time, nor the last, that Australian interests would conflict with the interests of the region-at-large.
In the lead-up to UNFCCC conferences, especially before Copenhagen 2009 and Paris 2015, Australia has been accused of weakening their statements released during meetings of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)—in which Pacific leaders make known their goals and interests. For the continued existence of vulnerable Pacific states, global warming needs to be limited to 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. In the statement released before the Paris conference of 2015, Australia negotiated with other Pacific states to instead demand a limit of 2 degrees celsius, a limit which poses an existential threat our Pacific neighbours. This is a manifestation of the vastly different interests of Australia and Oceania as a whole. These moves by Australia have angered many leaders to the extent that the former President of Kiribati suggested that Australia should exit the PIF altogether if it was not prepared to support the region’s climate negotiation positions.
As international climate negotiations and regional leaders forums take place, Australia continues to be the largest coal exporter in the world. The government continues to commit to increasing exports by considering the approval of the largest open-pit coal mine in Australia and one of the largest in the world. Moreover, leading up to Paris 2015, Australia was ranked the highest in terms of countries with the highest coal consumption per capita—it is not a title worth patting our backs over as the Pacific, excluding Australia and New Zealand, contributes only 0.02% of global carbon emission.
This division is counterproductive to Australia’s national security concerns. The 2016 Defence White Paper and the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper both placed emphasis on the Pacific as a region of significant importance—in terms of defence strategy, trade and economics, and international diplomacy.
Ergo, Australia is at a crossroads.
The country can either continue its current policy of pursuing unsustainable prosperity off of an unappealing commodity and risk losing the respect and loyalty of key regional neighbours; or the country can decide to assume the leadership it often perceives it already has and lead the region in pushing its interest on the global stage, and to lead in the critical climate negotiations to truly become a diplomatic pioneer in the Asia Pacific.
In order to be a leader in the Pacific, Australia will need to be a leader on climate change.
