Forum finds new strength

Pim Opinion

When the South Pacific Forum assembles in Apia this month, it will review developments in two issues which say a great deal about its development and, perhaps, its future. In the case of the regional fishing agreement, the Forum has every reason to congratulate itself upon having promoted a new start in a crucial area of regional relationships. With the second issue, the future of New Caledonia and the resulting regional relationships with France, it is far less easy to say that a new start has been made. That says much about the differences between the US and France, but also something about the nature and evolution of the South Pacific Forum.

It would be wrong - and self-deluding - to see the agreement as a “victory” over the United States. Relations with the world’s foremost political and economic power do not operate that way.

Rather, the agreement has provided the focal point for a reassessment on the part of the US. In particular, that reassessment must prompt the US to think more clearly about the Pacific as a region comprising individual states rather than merely a single, small component of its global strategic thinking, which focuses so overwhelmingly on its contest for power with the Soviet Union.

The future of New Caledonia and the concomitant set of regional relationships with France is not looking so positive on the world view; France seems determined to fight every step of the way against the principles espoused by the Forum principles that surely command overwhelming support in the community of nations these days. The fact of French power, pressure and obduracy, however, is not likely to erode the new solidarity of the Forum. The United States has changed its attitude to the region - and, therefore, most members of the region - because it recognises a change in political realities.

France has not done so, and will start to judge the consequences more acutely when New Caledonia comes under the scrutiny of the United Nations this month - or whenever.

The new reality can be stated quite simply. In a post-colonial era, the South Pacific Forum was created because the only other forum available was still dominated by the metropolitan powers who were adjusting to their growing irrelevance. Now, the Forum has come of age, setting the political agenda for its own region and asking the world to respect its right to do so.

Other regional groupings clearly established such claims long before this. Clearly, the change has surprised some, but it should not have done. The impact of the Melanesian group upon the Forum did more than anything else to bring it about but the role of others should not be under-rated.

In the case of New Caledonia, which had been on the Forum agenda for eight years without decisive action, the Melanesian group created an emphasis that commanded attention. It was a new, though rather abstruse experience for most of the smaller Forum members. What gave it political substance was the support of larger regional members such as Australia which had so much more, politically, to lose. Australia assessed its potential losses in terms of its priorities as between France and the region; the consequences, in terms of French reactions, have been decidedly uncomfortable.

For the political future of the Forum, this type of support has helped to create a confidence and unity within the Forum that had not existed hitherto. At the special meeting of foreign ministers in Auckland in March, it was notable - though not emphasised publicly -that the gap between the "assertive”

Melanesian spearhead group and the ’’conservative” Forum members had narrowed sufficiently for a unified position to be taken. They maintained the strong line of genuine self determination for New Caledonia and, by inference, accepted the consequences. What they may be is not clear, but the spirit of the decision demonstrates a political capacity new to all but the most recent Forum thinking. It can only be to the good, given the scale of the regional problems that lie ahead.