pacific islands
What's at Stake Is Our Survival
We are signing a death sentence if we continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Pacific nations have a reputation for being climate champions.
The resilience and commitment of Pacific negotiators and communities are to thank for the many landmark outcomes from previous UN climate talks, known as the Convention of the Parties or COP, including the Paris Agreement commitment to stay below 1.5 degrees of global heating, as well as the Loss and Damage fund.
COP28 in Dubai was no different: the Pacific showed up, as always, fighting for solutions. Now, a few hours until the close of the summit, the big questions still remain, but not on our shoulders: are we going back home to our communities feeling supported by world leaders and with hope that our heritage and land will survive the climate crisis?
Once again, the rich in the Global North have callously undermined the momentum in the Global South.
This was the largest COP in history, with record numbers of delegates and the largest presence of fossil fuel lobbyists on record: 2,456 industry lobbyists in all which is more than the total delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable countries combined. It's not a surprise that private interests have influenced decision-makers. Conference negotiators have allowed the perpetrators of the crisis to rewrite the rules by allowing them to sit at the negotiating table. How could this not have a catastrophic outcome?
Yesterday, a disappointing draft of this year's Global Stocktake review and agreement for the years to come failed to mention the phase-out of fossil energy sources. The science is clear, no matter how much the fossil fuel industry pushes for unproven technologies, like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), they are still very far from real scalability and economic feasibility. We are signing a death sentence if we continue to rely on fossil fuels.
Actually, let me rephrase it: countries like mine will be signing a death sentence, as we are often the ones at the forefront of climate chaos, while those that have the biggest responsibilities in polluting the world hide behind their profits. And when I say hide behind their profits, I mean it. It is not news that the global energy and financial systems carry a heritage of colonialism, extractivism, and bias against the world's poorest communities. Not only did the draft text fail to demand a fossil fuel phaseout, it also made virtually no commitments on mitigation, adaptation, and financial support for renewable energy in the Global South.
Facing the catastrophic effects of extreme weather at home and watching the slow progress of the negotiations, it was hard not to be pessimistic before we even arrived at COP28.
Once again, the rich in the Global North have callously undermined the momentum in the Global South.
Every year, we travel across oceans to come to these negotiations and we continue to get only drops of ambition. Facing the catastrophic effects of extreme weather at home and watching the slow progress of the negotiations, it was hard not to be pessimistic before we even arrived at COP28. But the point is that we can't afford not to be here, we can't afford to stop fighting because what's at stake is our very survival.
So we will return home, and continue to build up resilience in our communities, adapt and transition our energy systems, and rely on the strength of the people at the forefront of climate change. But it is now evident that we will do so without the support of global political leaders.
What's the US Empire Doing Way Out in the Pacific Ocean Anyway?
There is no legal basis for the United States to control the large oceanic area that includes the compact states.
In defiance of international norms and rules, U.S. officials are laying claim to the large oceanic area in the central Pacific Ocean that is home to the compact states.
Now that they are renewing the economic provisions of the compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, U.S. officials are insisting that the compacts provide the United States with exclusive control over an area of the central Pacific Ocean that is comparable in size to the United States.
“We control essentially the northern half of the Pacific between Hawaii and Philippines,” U.S. special envoy Joseph Yun told Congress in July.
For decades, the United States has overseen compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the compacts, the United States provides the three countries with economic assistance while it maintains powerful military controls over the islands and their waters.
One of these military controls, “the defense veto,” enables the United States to prevent the compact states from forging international agreements that could impede U.S. military priorities. Consequently, the compact states have never joined the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a nuclear-free zone in the region.
Another U.S. military control is “the right of strategic denial” by which U.S. officials assert that they can prevent other countries from accessing the compact states’ lands, waters, and airspace.
“The compacts do give us full defense authority and responsibility in those countries and provide our ability to strategically deny third country military access,” U.S. diplomat Jane Bocklage told Congress earlier this year.
By claiming to have a right of strategic denial over the compact states’ exclusive economic zones... U.S. officials are taking a position that is inconsistent with international law and their own practices in many parts of the world, including the Indo-Pacific.
Although the compacts include language that permits the United States to foreclose access to the islands by third-party military forces, U.S. officials have broadly interpreted this language to mean that they can exclude third parties from the compact states’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs), which extend up to 200 miles around each island’s coastlines.
At a congressional hearing in July, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) asserted that strategic denial authority “allows us to deny access to any potential adversary in an area of the Pacific comparable in size to the continental United States.” An associate presented a map that portrayed the EEZs as one contiguous area under U.S. control. “It’s nearly as large as the continental United States,” Barrasso remarked.
Defense Department official Siddharth Mohandas agreed with the senator’s interpretation. He claimed that the United States maintains unfettered and exclusive access to the area. “We have the ability to deny foreign militaries access and the ability to operate in the exclusive economic zones of the Freely Associated States,” Mohandas said, referring to the compact states.
This interpretation of strategic denial is inconsistent with international law. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, all countries have the rights of navigation and overflight in the exclusive economic zones of other countries, as stipulated by Articles 58 and 87.
Most countries, including the compact states, are parties to the convention. The United States has never ratified the convention, but high-level U.S. officials have expressed their support for it.
“Although not yet a party to the treaty, the U.S. nevertheless observes the UN LOSC as reflective of customary international law and practice,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explains, referring to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
When U.S. officials say that they have a right to exclude third-party actors from the compact states’ exclusive economic zones, they are making claims that are inconsistent with the UN Convention. There is no legal basis for the United States to prevent ships from other countries from peacefully traversing the compact states’ exclusive economic zones.
More than two decades ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) acknowledged in a major report that strategic denial does not extend to the compact states’ exclusive economic zones. According to the GAO report, strategic denial is limited to the 12-mile territorial waters that surround each island. Even within these smaller zones, the GAO noted, military vessels from other countries maintain the right of “innocent passage.”
“Statements by policymakers that indicate the United States has a right to deny military access to the islands and a vast area of the Pacific Ocean—a widely cited U.S. interest—overstate the breadth of this right, which only covers the individual islands and their 12-mile territorial waters,” the GAO explained.
A map included in the GAO report shows that strategic denial applies to small isolated areas rather than the much larger expanse of the Pacific Ocean that is often claimed by U.S. officials. A key implication of the GAO’s map is that the United States cannot legally exclude third parties from the vast oceanic area that surrounds the compact states.
In fact, U.S. officials have long taken the position that exclusive economic zones must remain open to navigation. Across the world, they have promoted “freedom of navigation,” which they have presented as the freedom of ships to sail the world’s oceans and waterways wherever the law allows, including in the exclusive economic zones of other countries.
When U.S. officials have sent warships through some of the world’s most contested waterways, such as the South and East China Seas, they have said that they are defending “freedom of navigation.” The presence of U.S. military forces has often created tensions, possibly even violating Article 88 of the U.N. Convention, which requires ships to have peaceful purposes, but U.S. officials have always insisted that these operations are consistent with international law.
“We’re committed to ensuring that every country can fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a speech in June. “Every country, large and small, must remain free to conduct lawful maritime activities.”
The U.S. mass media has often sided with the U.S. government’s position on freedom of navigation, especially as it concerns U.S. military operations in the exclusive economic zones of rival countries. In a July 2023 report about North Korean criticisms of U.S. military activities in North Korea’s exclusive economic zone, The New York Times indicated that North Korea has no legal basis for excluding U.S. military forces from the area.
“A country can claim the right to exploit marine resources in its so-called exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its 12 nautical-mile territorial waters,” The New York Times reported. “But it does not hold sovereignty over the zone’s surface and the airspace above it.”
When countries such as China and North Korea claim that they have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their exclusive economic zones, U.S. officials always disagree, insisting that these areas must remain open to freedom of navigation, particularly for U.S. warships.
Regarding coastal states such as China and North Korea, the U.S. position is that they “do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs,” according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. “The United States will continue to operate its military ships in the EEZs of other countries.”
By claiming to have a right of strategic denial over the compact states’ exclusive economic zones, however, U.S. officials are taking a position that is inconsistent with international law and their own practices in many parts of the world, including the Indo-Pacific. If they were to use force to prevent a third party from accessing the vast expanse of waters around the compact states, then they would be violating the law and the very principles that they apply to other countries.
In short, U.S. officials have no legal basis for their claims to control the vast oceanic area that is home to the compact states, just as the GAO confirmed in its landmark report more than two decades ago.
Fiji Joins Call for Global Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty at UN Climate Talks
"The time for bold, ambitious, and transformative measures is now," said a representative of the Fijian government.
Fiji on Monday became the latest country to speak out on the world's stage for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The country had already joined with five other Pacific island nations in backing the treaty at a summit in Port Vila, Vanuatu, in March. Now, it raised its voice to call for a global treaty to phase out fossil fuels at a side event at the ongoing U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany.
"We cannot afford to delay action any longer. Our climate is radically changing, and with it, our ecosystems, our livelihoods, and our cultures all come under increasing threat," Genevieve Jiva, the principal international relations officer for the government of Fiji, said at the conference. "The time for bold, ambitious, and transformative measures is now."
\u201cFiji \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddef has joined Tuvalu \ud83c\uddf9\ud83c\uddfb , Vanuatu \ud83c\uddfb\ud83c\uddfa and Tonga \ud83c\uddf9\ud83c\uddf4 to support the call for a #FossilFuelTreaty \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddef\n\nIn March, was one of the 6 Pacific nations that championed a #FossilFuelFreePacific. \n\nToday, they carry this legacy of climate leadership to #SB58. \n\nhttps://t.co/veRIPMMYec\u201d— Lavetanalagi Seru (@Lavetanalagi Seru) 1686602441
The 14 Pacific Island Developing States are responsible for only 0.23% of global greenhouse gas emissions that cause the climate crisis, compared to the 14 most fossil-fuel burning nations, which contribute more than 70%. Despite this, Pacific nations are disproportionately vulnerable to climate impacts.
Fiji, for example, is already suffering economic damage and population displacement because of more extreme tropical cyclones. Warmer ocean waters are bleaching its coral reefs, which help protect its coasts, provide habitat for fish, and attract tourists, while changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures threaten its agriculture and freshwater supplies.
"Even as one of the nations least responsible for the climate crisis, we shoulder some of the most devastating loss and damage," Alisi Rabukawaqa, a 350.org Pacific Council Elder from Fiji, said in a statement. "The fight against the climate crisis is fought on multiple fronts—through community and storytelling, through activism and diplomacy."
"Tuvalu calls on all countries to follow the example set by Fiji today and commit to addressing the root cause of the climate crisis: Fossil Fuels."
Pacific island nations have emerged as diplomatic leaders in the struggle for a just response to the climate emergency. Fiji was the first nation to formally ratify the Paris agreement. Then Vanuatu became the first nation to call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in September 2022, followed by Tuvalu at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, two months later.
"Vanuatu warmly welcomes Fiji's resolute call for a Fossil Fuel Treaty," Vanuatu's Climate Minister Hon. Ralph Regenvanu said in a statement. "As fellow Pacific island nations, we share the same vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and recognize the urgent need for decisive action. Our commitment to a sustainable and renewable future sets a powerful example to the world."
Tuvalu's Minister of Finance & Economic Development, Hon. Seve Paeniu, also welcomed Fiji's statement.
"A Fossil Fuel Treaty will ensure that we do not cross the 1.5 warming threshold, which is a red line for Tuvalu, Fiji, and all Pacific Small Island Developing States who are constantly having to deal with extreme weather events and the degradation of our lands and livelihoods," Paneiu said. "Tuvalu calls on all countries to follow the example set by Fiji today and commit to addressing the root cause of the climate crisis: Fossil Fuels."
\u201c@UN @RRegenvanu #Tuvalu became the second country to call for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty when Prime Minister @TuvaluPM took to the main plenary stage during his world leader\u2019s address at COP27 last year.\u201d— 350 dot org (@350 dot org) 1686650845
The proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty has three pillars: an end to fossil fuel expansion; a fair phase out of fossil fuels, with nations that have historically contributed more to the current emergency moving faster; and a just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy that ensures no workers, communities, or nations are abandoned.
Treaty supporters note that fossil fuels were responsible for 86% of carbon dioxide emissions this decade, yet the Paris agreement doesn't mention fossil fuels by name and the agreements coming out of COP27 did not mention oil and gas.
Six Pacific island nations–with Tonga, the Solomon Islands, and Niue joining Fiji, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu–signed the Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific in March, which included support for the treaty.
"With oil CEO, Al Jabar, at the helm of COP28 this year, we are going to need all of the Pacific strength we can get to fight the propaganda of fossil fuel expansion."
"The Pacific continues to show the world what real leadership during a crisis looks like and that without greater ambition and vision, we cannot overcome the greatest threat to our planet," Auimatagi Joe Moeono-Kolio, Pacific director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said in a statement.
Outside the Pacific, the treaty has also been backed by the World Health Organization, the European Parliament, 84 municipal and regional governments including the California Senate, 101 Nobel laureates, 2,150 civil society organizations, 3,000 scientists and academics, and more than 600,000 individuals.
"Without a managed phaseout of fossil fuels, there is no hope of meeting the aims of the Paris agreement," Moeono-Kolio said. "A Fossil Fuel Treaty would play a key role in reducing the risks of extreme weather events and other physical impacts we experience almost daily now in the Pacific. We stand ready to support the Pacific's vision of a world free from fossil fuels."
Joseph Sikulu, 350.org's Pacific managing director, also hoped that Pacific leadership would yield results during the upcoming COP28 negotiations in the UAE.
"With oil CEO, Al Jabar, at the helm of COP28 this year, we are going to need all of the Pacific strength we can get to fight the propaganda of fossil fuel expansion," Sikulu said. "Another world is possible, one built on justice, equity and safe renewable energy, and I firmly believe the Pacific is going to lead us in getting there."