455003439795660007056755JAMES POMBOLI ID# 201800361 360000JAMES POMBOLI ID# 201800361 centercenter950009500044000332613025002667004000070000455003439795690007377430370000 35623501552575Emergence of New Institutional Developments in Pacific Islands Regionalism – Challenges and Opportunities FIN811 – Information

455003439795660007056755JAMES POMBOLI ID# 201800361
360000JAMES POMBOLI ID# 201800361
centercenter950009500044000332613025002667004000070000455003439795690007377430370000
35623501552575Emergence of New Institutional Developments in Pacific Islands Regionalism – Challenges and Opportunities
FIN811 – Information & Communication Systems. EMBA, Fiji National University
360000Emergence of New Institutional Developments in Pacific Islands Regionalism – Challenges and Opportunities
FIN811 – Information & Communication Systems. EMBA, Fiji National University

Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Executive Summary PAGEREF _Toc520899774 h 21.0Introduction PAGEREF _Toc520899775 h 22.0Historical Background of Pacific Regionalism PAGEREF _Toc520899776 h 32.1Secretariat of the Pacific Community PAGEREF _Toc520899777 h 42.2Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat PAGEREF _Toc520899778 h 52.3Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific Agencies PAGEREF _Toc520899779 h 52.4Pacific Plan PAGEREF _Toc520899780 h 62.5Framework for Pacific Regionalism PAGEREF _Toc520899781 h 73.0Recent Events PAGEREF _Toc520899782 h 73.1New Diplomatic System PAGEREF _Toc520899783 h 73.2Melanesian Spearhead Group PAGEREF _Toc520899784 h 83.3Parties to Nauru Agreement PAGEREF _Toc520899785 h 93.4Pacific Islands Development Forum PAGEREF _Toc520899786 h 104.0Challenges and Opportunities of Pacific Islands Regionalism PAGEREF _Toc520899787 h 114.1Challenges PAGEREF _Toc520899788 h 114.2Opportunities PAGEREF _Toc520899789 h 125.0Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc520899790 h 12References PAGEREF _Toc520899791 h 13

Executive Summary
The Pacific Island countries which spread across the world’s largest ocean have faced many challenges, including small economies, geographical disadvantages and vulnerability to climate change. However, these were seen now as the dilemma of the past since the establishment of the Pacific Island Regionalism (PIR) with key regional organisations such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) which emanates from PIR posing to meet the challenges. Although, there has been criticism of the work of these organisations and questions on whether regionalism in the Pacific is an anachronism of the past, the Pacific Island countries have the privileged to benefit from the opportunities regionalism has brought including chances to influence world policy, build capacity in the region, promote good governance, maintain peaceful neighbourly relations, and create positive development outcome. The addition of new organizations such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), Parties to Nauru Agreement (PNA), and Pacific Island Forum Development (PIFD) has brought alone with them new challenges and opportunities. This paper will focus on the MSG, PNA and PIFD establishment as key organisation and their impacts and influence on the PIR.
Introduction
Since 2009 there has been a fundamental shift in the way that Pacific Island states engaged with regional and world politics. The region has experienced what President Anote Tong of Kiribati has aptly called a ‘paradigm shift’ in ideas about how Pacific diplomacy should be organized, and on what principles it should operate. Many leaders have called for a heightened Pacific voice in global affairs and a new commitment to establishing Pacific Island control of this diplomatic process. This change in thinking has been expressed in the establishment of new channels and arenas for Pacific diplomacy at the regional and global levels, and new ways of connecting the two levels through active use of intermediate diplomatic associations. This shift to a ‘new Pacific diplomacy’ was as fundamental as the move by the independent Pacific Island states; four decades ago, to create a postcolonial diplomatic system, through the establishment of the South Pacific Forum (renamed Pacific Islands Forum in 2000) ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”VyExntW2″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fry, 1994)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fry, 1994)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:370,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B34DT65C”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B34DT65C”,”itemData”:{“id”:370,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Climbing back onto the map? The South Pacific Forum and the new development orthodoxy”,”container-title”:”The Journal of Pacific History”,”page”:”64–72″,”volume”:”29″,”issue”:”3″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Climbing back onto the map?”,”author”:{“family”:”Fry”,”given”:”Greg”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1994″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fry, 1994). Indeed, in many ways, the current activity was reminiscent of that time — in its assertive attitude, the emphasis on Pacific Island control of the diplomatic agenda, the creation of new institutions, its appeal to regional identity, and its concern with negotiating global agendas that were impacting Pacific societies. It is not, in our view, too dramatic to saw this as a time of transformation of the regional diplomatic culture equivalent to the move from the colonial to the postcolonial era, a time that represents a transformation of regional order.
This paper focuses on the significance of new organizations in negotiating global issues of key importance to the Pacific, and the implications it has for the future of the regional diplomatic architecture. In Section 2.0 a brief historical background of the regionalism in the Pacific Island countries which included existing key organisations and developments were discussed. The emergence of new organisations and developments and their implications on the Pacific diplomacy were discussed in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 briefly discussed the challenges and opportunities PIR faced since its inception with respect to historical events and new developments and concluded in Section 5.0.
Historical Background of Pacific Regionalism
The concept of regionalism is not new ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”1lZnKYsK”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fawcett & Gandois, 2010; Hurrell, 1995)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fawcett & Gandois, 2010; Hurrell, 1995)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:374,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/IBQ8TMU3″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/IBQ8TMU3″,”itemData”:{“id”:374,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism in Africa and the Middle East: Implications for EU studies”,”container-title”:”European Integration”,”page”:”617–636″,”volume”:”32″,”issue”:”6″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Regionalism in Africa and the Middle East”,”author”:{“family”:”Fawcett”,”given”:”Louise”},{“family”:”Gandois”,”given”:”Helene”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2010″}}},{“id”:372,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/2N6KN4CE”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/2N6KN4CE”,”itemData”:{“id”:372,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Explaining the resurgence of regionalism in world politics”,”container-title”:”Review of international Studies”,”page”:”331–358″,”volume”:”21″,”issue”:”4″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Hurrell”,”given”:”Andrew”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1995″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fawcett ; Gandois, 2010; Hurrell, 1995). For hundreds of years, populations have found commonalities and grouped together. The key difference in more recent times was that regionalism has become increasingly formalised ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”DRrMnk9E”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fawcett & Gandois, 2010; Hurrell, 1995)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fawcett & Gandois, 2010; Hurrell, 1995)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:374,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/IBQ8TMU3″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/IBQ8TMU3″,”itemData”:{“id”:374,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism in Africa and the Middle East: Implications for EU studies”,”container-title”:”European Integration”,”page”:”617–636″,”volume”:”32″,”issue”:”6″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Regionalism in Africa and the Middle East”,”author”:{“family”:”Fawcett”,”given”:”Louise”},{“family”:”Gandois”,”given”:”Helene”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2010″}}},{“id”:372,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/2N6KN4CE”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/2N6KN4CE”,”itemData”:{“id”:372,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Explaining the resurgence of regionalism in world politics”,”container-title”:”Review of international Studies”,”page”:”331–358″,”volume”:”21″,”issue”:”4″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Hurrell”,”given”:”Andrew”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1995″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fawcett ; Gandois, 2010; Hurrell, 1995). Regionalism appears in varying forms, but typically refers to large formalized institutions that work together to improve specific goals for neighbouring nation states ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”dpvG9hBC”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:377,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”itemData”:{“id”:377,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism and changing regional order in the Pacific Islands”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”312–324″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”2″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Tarte”,”given”:”Sandra”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Tarte, 2014). These institutions and mechanisms were targeted to collectively combat new kinds of challenges and non-traditional threats. The Pacific Islands Regionalism (PIR) provided a unique experience for the small island archipelagos that spread across a huge stretch of ocean. Each state varies in terms of limited resources, population size, ethnicity, vulnerability to climate change and other issues, as well as fragile governance. Although the history of regional interaction in the Pacific has existed for hundreds of years, it was implemented after world war II with the formation of technical services organisation, the South Pacific Commission (now known as the Sectary of the Pacific Community – SPC), and later the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (now known as the Pacific Islands Forum with its accompanying Secretariat) ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”q1xNaAbA”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Chand & Patel, 2011)”,”plainCitation”:”(Chand & Patel, 2011)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:380,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/GLE4GXBD”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/GLE4GXBD”,”itemData”:{“id”:380,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Achieving global convergence of financial reporting standards: implications from the South Pacific region”,”publisher”:”Emerald Group Publishing Limited”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Achieving global convergence of financial reporting standards”,”author”:{“family”:”Chand”,”given”:”Parmod”},{“family”:”Patel”,”given”:”Chris”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2011″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Chand ; Patel, 2011). Over the past 60 years, Pacific Islands Regionalism has extended to nine major intergovernmental organisations, known as the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP), as well as over 100 non-governmental organisations targeting development issues from a regional perspective ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”Qc1ApLH2″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”plainCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:385,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”itemData”:{“id”:385,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future”,”publisher”:”Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Redefining the Pacific?”,”author”:{“family”:”Bryant-Tokalau”,”given”:”Jenny”},{“family”:”Frazer”,”given”:”Ian”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2006″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Bryant-Tokalau ; Frazer, 2006). As stated in The Framework for Pacific Regionalism, Pacific Forum Leaders understand regionalism as: ‘The expression of a common sense of identity, leading progressively to the sharing of institutions, resources, and markets, with the purpose of complementing national efforts, overcoming common constraints, and enhancing sustainable and inclusive development within Pacific countries and territories and for the Pacific region as a whole’ ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”dzCGLTbr”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:377,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”itemData”:{“id”:377,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism and changing regional order in the Pacific Islands”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”312–324″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”2″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Tarte”,”given”:”Sandra”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Tarte, 2014).
Pacific Island countries were concerned to create a post-war regional order that would suited their interest rather than leaving it to the United Nation ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”2fBzSO0d”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fry, 1994)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fry, 1994)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:370,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B34DT65C”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B34DT65C”,”itemData”:{“id”:370,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Climbing back onto the map? The South Pacific Forum and the new development orthodoxy”,”container-title”:”The Journal of Pacific History”,”page”:”64–72″,”volume”:”29″,”issue”:”3″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Climbing back onto the map?”,”author”:{“family”:”Fry”,”given”:”Greg”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1994″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fry, 1994). After the end of World War II Pacific Islands Regionalism was formalised and the South Pacific Commission (SPC) was set up where the administrative territories could continue the ‘Pacific Alliance’ through an institutional platform ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”Vdb7JyGf”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:394,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”itemData”:{“id”:394,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries: an assessment”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”541–560″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”3″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries”,”author”:{“family”:”Dornan”,”given”:”Matthew”},{“family”:”Newton Cain”,”given”:”Tess”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Dornan ; Newton Cain, 2014). This formalised regionalism gave colonisers a platform to negotiate their power over the Pacific and allowed Pacific Island Governments assistance to rebuild after the war ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”4J8cyWEb”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”plainCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:385,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”itemData”:{“id”:385,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future”,”publisher”:”Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Redefining the Pacific?”,”author”:{“family”:”Bryant-Tokalau”,”given”:”Jenny”},{“family”:”Frazer”,”given”:”Ian”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2006″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Bryant-Tokalau ; Frazer, 2006). The SPC later underwent structural reform and a Pacific-only Institution, the South Pacific Bureau was established (now PIF). The new organization was built on egalitarianism and included only independent states and Australia and New Zealand, excluding dependent territories and metropolitan states ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”G9yx628M”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fry, 2015)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fry, 2015)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:397,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/DWY66J2M”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/DWY66J2M”,”itemData”:{“id”:397,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Recapturing the Spirit of 1971: Towards aNew Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Recapturing the Spirit of 1971″,”author”:{“family”:”Fry”,”given”:”Greg”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2015″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fry, 2015). The PIF became a platform where Pacific Islanders control the agenda and spoke of cooperation among the region. It helped promote economic development and the political issues of the newly independent states and maximised international diplomatic influence on issues that related to all members. The Forum also helped campaign for decolonisation in other Pacific states, such as the New Hebrides (now Vanuatu), New Caledonia and West Papua. This wave of regionalism demonstrated the importance of the sovereign states and was a chance for Pacific leader to assert their self-determination and independence.
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
The Secretariat of the Pacific Community was renamed from the original official regional institution the South Pacific Commission. The Commission was formalised through Canberra Agreement in 1947 with the participating members’ desire to encourage and strengthen international cooperation in promoting economic and social welfare. The fundamental purpose of the Commission was to provide a consultative and advisory body for Pacific Island states in order to promote positive development. The Commission provided a technical services platform which addressed issues affecting agriculture, fisheries, communications, transport, forestry, industry, labour, marketing, production, trade and finance, public works, education, health, housing, and social welfare. The original participating governments of the Commission changed over time and now included many Pacific countries from the North and South of the region. The name of the Commission was officially changed to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) in 1997 at the 50th South Pacific Conference and held conferences every second year, where ministers of the member states joined to discuss regional issues. The institution brought together the Anglophone and Francophone sides of the Pacific, with both French and English used for meetings and documents (Secretariat of the Pacific Community a, 2011).
Pacific Islands Forum SecretariatThe South Pacific Commission was a platform designed to target technical assistance and did not have a focus on political issues. In 1971 Prime Minister of Fiji Ratu Sir Kamasese Mara formed a new plat form, the South Pacific Forum ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”bT9vKCBV”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”plainCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:385,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”itemData”:{“id”:385,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future”,”publisher”:”Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Redefining the Pacific?”,”author”:{“family”:”Bryant-Tokalau”,”given”:”Jenny”},{“family”:”Frazer”,”given”:”Ian”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2006″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006). This new political body only include independent sovereign Pacific states (including Australia and New Zealand) and concentrated on matters directly affecting the daily lives of the Pacific Islanders. The new organisation operated alongside SPC and not to override and set out priorities in trade, shipping, civil aviation, foreign investment and tourism, law of the sea, developments of oceanic resources, education, telecommunication, national parks, a regional disaster fund, and join diplomatic representation. Soon after the establishment of the South Pacific Forum and an accompanying secretariat was created, the South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation. In 1989, the South Pacific Forum was officially renamed to the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat (PIFS). The two main priorities of the Forum were to respect national sovereignty and promote economic development. During that time the Forum entered into many trade agreements including the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement with the region and the Lome Agreement between Europe and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Countries. Other regional bodies were established over this period, with the goal of ‘functional cooperation’, the key bodies eventually joined and formed the Council for Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP). This new body gave Pacific nations the opportunity to be involved in international affairs, particularly in regard to fisheries policy and nuclear testing ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”DL6NnZ7X”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”plainCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:385,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”itemData”:{“id”:385,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future”,”publisher”:”Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Redefining the Pacific?”,”author”:{“family”:”Bryant-Tokalau”,”given”:”Jenny”},{“family”:”Frazer”,”given”:”Ian”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2006″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006).
Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific AgenciesThe Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) was made up of a high-level advisory body and comprised of ten inter-governmental organisations focussed on varying Pacific regional challenges and sectors. The main outcome of the CROP was to ensure that there was harmonization and mutual respect through all regional initiatives. The CROP met regularly in working groups to cooperate on different issues. The Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat are members of the CROP.
Pacific PlanIn 2003 at the Pacific Islands Forum Special Leaders’ Retreat in Auckland, Pacific Leaders came together to create a new vision for Pacific regionalism. This re-evaluation of the role of the Pacific Islands Forum and Pacific regionalism was a reaction to new challenges impacting the region and the Forum’s capability to meet them. The leaders adopted the Auckland Declaration in 2004 which set out a modern vision explaining the approach of the Forum and its role in the region. Most importantly, it outlined the development of ‘Pacific Plan’. The Plan involved a review of the Forum and its Secretariat and a coordinated effort to make regionalism more effective and coordinated. The Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was set up and they spent six months at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and carried out the review. The Group presented a report, the ‘Pacific Cooperation Voices of the Region’ at the 2004 Leaders meeting. In the coming months the Forum set up four pillars: security, good governance, economic growth and sustainable development. The next step involved the Pacific Plan that put forward a framework to improve regionalism architecture and processes ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”Tdhfdkmo”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”plainCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:385,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”itemData”:{“id”:385,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future”,”publisher”:”Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Redefining the Pacific?”,”author”:{“family”:”Bryant-Tokalau”,”given”:”Jenny”},{“family”:”Frazer”,”given”:”Ian”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2006″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006).
The Pacific Plan was drafted based on the four pillars. It outlined how the goals were interpreted by the leaders, as well as defined the concept of regionalism and its different types. This new Pacific regionalism was inclusive and brought together member states, civil society, private sector and development partners. It outlined immediate implementation plans for each goal and provided a thorough plan for the next three years. Most importantly, the Pacific Plan was designed to strengthen regional cooperation and improve Pacific lives. The Pacific Plan was reviewed in 2013 with the Review Team headed by the former Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea Sir Mekere Morauta. The Review looked at creating a new public policy process to determine the most relevant agenda items for Leaders’ consideration. The new process aims to strengthen the mandate of the other component of the regional architecture by requesting CROP agency governing bodies to make decision appropriate to their mandate, rather than continually pushing all decisions to Leaders.
Framework for Pacific Regionalism
The Framework for Pacific Regionalism was created as a result of the Pacific Plan Review in 2013. The Framework replaced the Pacific Plan focussed on reducing the number of items on the agenda of the Forum Leaders’ Meetings. Matters arose from trade negotiations and ministerial meetings that made way into the agenda were screened and a selected number of priority issues no more than five were identified through an inclusive process comprised by both private sector and civil society. The Framework aimed to provide a more inclusive approach to regionalism and broaden the conversation to CROP agencies, the public, civil society, private sector, partners and academia and strongly focussed on emphasising the political nature of regionalism in the Pacific Island countries. The Framework sets out a timeline of operation for the Framework and made calls for public proposals on regional initiatives assessed by the Specialist Sub-Committee on Regionalism.
Recent Events
The Forum Leaders appointed a new Secretary General (SG), Dame Meg Taylor of Papua New Guinea in 2014. During her tenure the Framework for Pacific Regionalism has been guiding the vision of her leadership. The appointment of a new SG at the time was considered an important juncture in the Forum’s history ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”ZPcw1ynX”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:394,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”itemData”:{“id”:394,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries: an assessment”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”541–560″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”3″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries”,”author”:{“family”:”Dornan”,”given”:”Matthew”},{“family”:”Newton Cain”,”given”:”Tess”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Dornan ; Newton Cain, 2014). The first test for the implementation of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism was in September 2015 during the 46th Pacific Islands Leader’s Meeting in Port Moresby. The Meeting brought forward many complex issues of the region such as the climate change and concern for human rights violations in West Papua. The Hiri Declaration was endorsed P “Strengthening Connections to Enhance Pacific Regionalism” which replaced the Auckland Declaration. The Hiri Declaration became the guiding statement for the Forum that complemented the Framework and highlighted the key challenges ahead particularly the Pacific politics.
New Diplomatic SystemThe most dramatic event was the so-called ‘new’ Pacific diplomacy which has been associated with Fiji’s activist foreign policy since its suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in 2009. The Bainimarama Government enunciated several new foreign policy principles aimed at circumventing its isolation in regional and global diplomacy: that Fiji should garner and represent a Pacific voice that could be heard in global forums; that Fiji should promote itself as the hub of the Pacific and as a leader of Pacific Island states; that it should engage in south–south cooperation in the Pacific and the wider world; that regional diplomacy and regional institutions should be firmly controlled by Pacific Island states and not constrained by metropolitan powers (especially Australia and New Zealand); and that the Pacific should be better organised to engage in global diplomacy. The Fiji government also introduced the idea of including civil society, the private sector, and dependent territories, alongside independent governments, as equal partners in a new kind of ‘network diplomacy’. Fiji expressed these ideas in a series of major initiatives: in giving leadership to a renaissance of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG); in creating the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF); and by invigorating the existing Pacific Small Island Developing States at the UN as a Pacific Island-only bloc to a point where it replaced the PIF as the main representative of the Pacific voice at the UN. These developments in Fiji’s new Pacific diplomacy were described and examined in the chapters by Ambassador Mawi and Makereta Komai. It was, however, a central premise underlying the approach of regionalism that it would be a mistake to saw the new Pacific diplomacy as solely a Fiji phenomenon. Fiji policy and leadership has obviously been the key catalyst, but it was important to note the wider support for these new institutions and ideas across the region as evidenced in the support for a new array of Pacific-controlled institutions. Significantly, the new Pacific diplomacy has been expressed in the actions of the Pacific Island states since 2009 in developing a new diplomatic architecture outside the PIF system, both to conduct important aspects of regional affairs, and to represent the Pacific Islands region to the world on the key issues of concern such as climate change and fisheries management. For Pacific leaders, these moves do not represent a wholesale rejection of the PIF; rather they suggest recognition of a need for complementary forums to undertake diplomatic functions and pursue needs which could no longer be met in the PIF system. The new Pacific diplomatic system now handles the core global diplomatic needs of the Pacific Island states in relation to key issues such as trade, climate change, decolonization, fisheries management, and sustainable development. This new system has worked well to meet those needs and was widely supported by Pacific Island states.

Melanesian Spearhead GroupIn 1986, in order to bring light to the sub-region’s interest, the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) was formed. The five-member countries which formed MSG included Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Vanuatu and Fiji – account for 98% of the Pacific Islands’ land area, 90% of its natural resources and biodiversity and 87% of the region’s population ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”gqNSSScu”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:377,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”itemData”:{“id”:377,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism and changing regional order in the Pacific Islands”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”312–324″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”2″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Tarte”,”given”:”Sandra”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Tarte, 2014). They have been described as the ‘dominant forces in the Pacific politics and economies’ and as ‘largely responsible over recent years for the growing Chinese and European interest in the Pacific’. Three of the five-member countries, PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu shared the use of Pidgi language and has been referred to as the ‘wantok spirit’ ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”8o3KqTuj”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Nanau, 2011)”,”plainCitation”:”(Nanau, 2011)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:400,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/6HIFYNIZ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/6HIFYNIZ”,”itemData”:{“id”:400,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”The wantok system as a socio-economic and political network in Melanesia”,”container-title”:”OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society”,”page”:”31–55″,”volume”:”2″,”issue”:”1″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Nanau”,”given”:”Gordon Leua”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2011″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Nanau, 2011). The term Melanesia was embraced as a focus of identity and became a source of political empowerment (Lawson 2013). The MSG was conceived in 1983 with a primary focus to support the Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), a coalition representing the pro-independence Kanak (Melanesian) population of New Caledonia. In 1988, PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu formalised the MSG partnership with the signing of the Agreed Principles of Cooperation among Independent States of Melanesia. In 1996, a new set of agreed principles was signed, which put greater emphasis on economic cooperation, in addition to the ongoing support for the Kanak self-determination and promotion of Melanesian cultural values and identity. Fiji joined the group at this time, primarily to capitalise on the anticipated benefits of the proposed preferential trade agreement within the MSG ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”SdqBnWI0″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:377,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”itemData”:{“id”:377,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism and changing regional order in the Pacific Islands”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”312–324″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”2″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Tarte”,”given”:”Sandra”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Tarte, 2014). As a way to strengthen cultural ties, the Melanesian Arts Festival was inaugurated in 1998. Following a review of MSG goals and objectives, a formal constitutional structure was adopted with the signing in 2007 of the Agreement establishing the Melanesian Spearhead Group. This gave MSG legal standing in the international law for the first time and provided for permanent secretariat to be established in Port Vila in 2008 led by a director general appointed by the MSG leaders. Indonesia and Timor East were given observer status in MSG, on the basis of its Melanesian connection through West Papua. However, relationship with Indonesia has proved a difficult and divisive one for MSG as popular support for West Papua independence within MSG member states remained strong.
Parties to Nauru Agreement
The eight-member Pacific Island countries that formed the Parties to Nauru Agreement (PNA) collectively account for one third of global tuna canning supplies, valued at about US$3, 000 million annually. These tuna rich states first joined forces in 1982, signing the Nauru Agreement concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of common interest and were described as a ‘natural alliance’ due to the fact that they had the largest concentration of tuna fishing activity in the region. The group came together out of frustration with the broader regional fisheries body, established by the South Pacific Forum in 1979 – the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). There was speculation that PNA would fragment the wider group and ‘dilute’ the impact of FFA, PNA was not conceived as a breakaway bloc, instead, it operated as an integral part of FFA with the later providing administrative and technical support to PNA. Overtime, the PNA group emerged as a ‘trendsetter’ among FFA countries, with many of the PNA policies and initiatives being extended to, and adopted by, FFA membership as a whole. The establishment of PNA office was made necessary in part by the move taken by PNA in 2007 to adopt a radically new approach to managing access to their EEZs, what is known as the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) effectively created a limited number of fishing days within the entire PNA region and a standardised minimum fee per day. Days were distributed among PNA members and fishing fleets were compelled to compete against each other for a share of this pool of vessel days. This new system has dramatically increased the value of excess and income earned by the coastal states, as well as the value of the fishery. The PNA states also leveraged access to their combined EEZS to impose measures aimed at curtailing stock depletion. In 2008, the group resolved that vessels wanting to fish in their EEZs would be banned from fishing in adjacent high sea ‘pockets’. In 2009, this was amended to prohibit vessels licensed to operate in PNA waters from fishing in a 3.2 million square kilometres area of international waters called the Eastern High Seas. In 2011, PNA agreed to establish an Observer Agency to coordinate their on-board observers and to set up an online fisheries information management system, with a data centre based on PNG and within the same year PNA successfully attained Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Certification for skipjack tuna caught in free-swimming schools.
Pacific Islands Development ForumThe Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) was established in 2013 from an international conference which was held in Fiji. Its membership was confined to Pacific Island countries and territories but attracted observers from many other countries. The driving force behind the PIDF was Fiji’s Bainimarama-led government due to suspension from the PIF and the Commonwealth in 2009, Fiji embarked on a campaign to broaden its international partnership as well as build closer ties with Pacific Island neighbours. The MSG was one element of this regional diplomacy; a second was an annual summit dibbed the Engaging with the Pacific Meeting (EWTP), begun in 2010 and subsequently became the PIDF in the following year. Despite, being a Fiji-led process, not embraced by all Pacific Island countries, the EWTP attracted a steady following. There was a widespread interest in, and high expectations of, this new body during the inauguration of PIDF. Part of the attraction for many countries attending the Forum was the engagement of the alternative discourses of development and regionalism. The PIDF was seen as ‘stepping outside the box’ and moving away from business as usual and for the leaders and representatives of the Pacific Island countries attending the inauguration sort the initiative as an opportunity to influence the development agenda post-2015 and found new approaches to the environment and economic challenges they faced. It was agreed in the conference to establish a Secretariat in Suva, funded initially by the Government of Fiji ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”9XfOEW2u”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Tarte, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:377,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/MC38SDY2″,”itemData”:{“id”:377,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regionalism and changing regional order in the Pacific Islands”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”312–324″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”2″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”author”:{“family”:”Tarte”,”given”:”Sandra”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Tarte, 2014). While perhaps not amenable to becoming a regional negotiating bloc (in the way MSG, PNA or PIFS operate), the PDIF does provide a venue for ‘inter-island dialogue without Australia and New Zealand in the room’. This reflected developments at the United Nations, where Pacific Island diplomacy, now excluded the two developed members of the PIF. The PIDF also provided new opportunities for building new international partnership for the region, prominent among the observers to the inaugural PIDF were special envoys from the governments of China and Russian Federation, who both conveyed their governments’ support for the PIDF initiatives as well as readiness to commit funds towards its Green Growth agenda.
Challenges and Opportunities of Pacific Islands Regionalism
A common argument of the Pacific Regionalism was that it has not changed since the establishment of SPC and PIFS with debates surrounding symbolism, sovereignty, economies of scale, and economic integration ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”yD3e2mNV”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fry, 2015)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fry, 2015)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:397,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/DWY66J2M”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/DWY66J2M”,”itemData”:{“id”:397,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Recapturing the Spirit of 1971: Towards aNew Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Recapturing the Spirit of 1971″,”author”:{“family”:”Fry”,”given”:”Greg”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2015″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fry, 2015). Other authors have asserted that ‘regionalism was going through one of the most testing points in history’ ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”dsYb99gv”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”plainCitation”:”(Bryant-Tokalau & Frazer, 2006)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:385,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/CII93NLJ”,”itemData”:{“id”:385,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future”,”publisher”:”Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Redefining the Pacific?”,”author”:{“family”:”Bryant-Tokalau”,”given”:”Jenny”},{“family”:”Frazer”,”given”:”Ian”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2006″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Bryant-Tokalau ; Frazer, 2006). A common critique of ‘new regionalism’, particularly the Pacific Plan, was that it has a strong neo-liberal focus, with encouragement of free trade, the private sector, good governance and a reduction in government burden and spending ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”ZUwMR1dJ”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:394,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”itemData”:{“id”:394,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries: an assessment”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”541–560″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”3″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries”,”author”:{“family”:”Dornan”,”given”:”Matthew”},{“family”:”Newton Cain”,”given”:”Tess”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Dornan ; Newton Cain, 2014).
ChallengesThere were four main challenges identified and there were, the bureaucratic and management of the institutions; state sovereignty vs. regional power; economies of scale; and the dominance of Australia and New Zealand. In regard to the bureaucratic nature and management styles of the regional institutions, a reoccurring argument was that there was a lot of duplication among the institutions. This has been a common argument throughout the history of regionalism in the Pacific and one of the reasons for the establishment of the CROP. Another common argument was that by committing to the membership of supranational organisations like PIFS or SPC, states lose their sovereign power, as they are pressured to agree and participate in policies and treaties. The third challenge was the economies of scale. Each member state has different sized economies and therefore the work of regionalism affects them in different ways. For example, based on its central location and transport options for the region, Fiji was often used as the hub. The fourth challenge to escape the colonial years and focused on Pacific matters. Meaning Pacific members have to monitor the organisations and their performance to avoid issues of legitimacy.
Opportunities
The Pacific Ocean contains thousands of small isolated islands, many of these were resource poor and have capacity restraints throughout the public and private sector as well as weak governance. Regionalism is used as a way to mitigate these constraints and use the similarities among the Pacific Islands to create positive pathways in development ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”c4C7PxoW”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”plainCitation”:”(Dornan & Newton Cain, 2014)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:394,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/B9I6HE8S”,”itemData”:{“id”:394,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries: an assessment”,”container-title”:”Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies”,”page”:”541–560″,”volume”:”1″,”issue”:”3″,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries”,”author”:{“family”:”Dornan”,”given”:”Matthew”},{“family”:”Newton Cain”,”given”:”Tess”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2014″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Dornan ; Newton Cain, 2014). Ideally, regionalism in the Pacific could be used to create more choice, cheaper goods, more productive and healthier societies and more opportunities for the citizens; this has often been canvassed in the literature (Asian Development Bank – Commonwealth Secretariat, 2005). One of the key arguments for Pacific Regionalism relates to Ratu Mara’s concept of the ‘Pacific Way’ ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”vlX4cTL4″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Mara, 1997)”,”plainCitation”:”(Mara, 1997)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:403,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/87QUUH75″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/4779914/items/87QUUH75″,”itemData”:{“id”:403,”type”:”book”,”title”:”The Pacific way: A memoir”,”publisher”:”University of Hawaii Press”,”source”:”Google Scholar”,”shortTitle”:”The Pacific way”,”author”:{“family”:”Mara”,”given”:”Kamisese”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1997″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Mara, 1997). Opportunity from cooperation among states could allow the Pacific Islands to have access to technical assistance that would otherwise not be possible. Collective diplomacy has also been a major benefit to help Pacific issues, a common example of this was the regional effort on ocean policy. Regionalism has the potential to strengthen individual states by providing them a louder voice, a platform for dialogue and the technical services to improve Pacific lives.
ConclusionMuch of the new regional dynamism was driven by the discontent of a growing number of island states with the established regional order and by a desire to assert greater control over their own futures. Against the backdrop of an increasingly dynamic geopolitical and geo-economic landscape, Pacific Island countries were using alternative regional frameworks to develop new approaches to the challenges facing them. This recalls an earlier quest for self-determination through regionalism, which coincided with the decolonisation of the Pacific Island region four decades ago. The rise to prominence of new and alternative regional institutions and mechanisms were more than a short-term development in regional politics. Rather, it reflects a longer term and more fundamental transition occurring in Pacific regionalism and Pacific regional order. References ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {“uncited”:,”omitted”:,”custom”:} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Bryant-Tokalau, J., & Frazer, I. (2006). Redefining the Pacific?: regionalism past, present and future. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

Chand, P., & Patel, C. (2011). Achieving global convergence of financial reporting standards: implications from the South Pacific region. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Dornan, M., & Newton Cain, T. (2014). Regional service delivery among Pacific Island countries: an assessment. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(3), 541–560.

Fawcett, L., & Gandois, H. (2010). Regionalism in Africa and the Middle East: Implications for EU studies. European Integration, 32(6), 617–636.

Fry, G. (1994). Climbing back onto the map? The South Pacific Forum and the new development orthodoxy. The Journal of Pacific History, 29(3), 64–72.

Fry, G. (2015). Recapturing the Spirit of 1971: Towards aNew Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific.

Hurrell, A. (1995). Explaining the resurgence of regionalism in world politics. Review of International Studies, 21(4), 331–358.

Mara, K. (1997). The Pacific way: A memoir. University of Hawaii Press.

Nanau, G. L. (2011). The wantok system as a socio-economic and political network in Melanesia. OMNES: The Journal of Multicultural Society, 2(1), 31–55.

Tarte, S. (2014). Regionalism and changing regional order in the Pacific Islands. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(2), 312–324.