Comparing Biketawa and Boe Declarations: Continuity and Change in Pacific Security

The Biketawa Declaration, signed by member states of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in 2000, was a regional security agreement aimed at addressing security issues collectively in the Pacific region. Its predecessor, the Boe Declaration, was signed in 2018 and similarly emphasized the importance of regional security. Both agreements marked a shift in thinking about security.

In this review, we will compare the Biketawa Declaration and the Boe Declaration, examining elements of continuity and change. We will discuss the use of the principle of non-intervention, the protection of human rights, and regional cooperation as key elements of continuity. Both agreements stress the respect for the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of member states. However, there have been instances, such as the regional assistance mission to the Solomon Islands, where member states intervened in the domestic affairs of another member state, raising questions about the practical application of this principle.

The protection of human rights is another area of continuity in both agreements. The Biketawa Declaration emphasizes the importance of individual liberty under the law, while the Boe Declaration addresses the issue of human rights in the context of non-traditional security. However, more concrete cooperation is needed among member states to effectively address human rights abuses, such as the sorcery accusation-related violence in Papua New Guinea.

While continuity is observed in certain aspects, there are elements of change as well. One significant change is the shift in focus from traditional security issues to non-traditional security issues. The Boe Declaration, particularly in its first declaration, highlights concerns about climate change and rising sea levels. This shift reflects the growing recognition of the impact of non-traditional security issues on the region. The Boe Declaration's strategic focus areas are all categorized as non-traditional security issues.

Another notable change is the reduced emphasis on good governance and the rule of law in the Boe Declaration. Unlike the Biketawa Declaration, which includes a course of action on this topic, the Boe Declaration prioritizes non-traditional security issues and does not explicitly address democratic processes and institutions. This change may be influenced by the experiences with Fiji, where the suspension from the PIF was based on issues related to good governance.

Transnational crime is highlighted as a significant non-traditional security issue in the Boe Declaration. Member states recognize the challenges posed by drug smuggling and cybercrime, acknowledging the limited capacity of small island states to effectively combat these crimes. The discovery of a major cocaine bust in Papua New Guinea and the existence of a clandestine meth lab highlight the need for collective efforts to address transnational crime in the region.

In conclusion, the elements of continuity in the Biketawa Declaration and the Boe Declaration include the principle of non-interference, the protection of human rights, and regional cooperation. However, there are also elements of change, such as the shift in focus towards non-traditional security issues and the reduced emphasis on good governance and the rule of law. The Boe Declaration provides a framework for addressing contemporary security challenges if effectively implemented, but member states must align their national security policies accordingly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FPA: Organizational Process Model

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

Rise and fall realism