'We show up': Pacific leaders apply pressure at oceans summit

Nowhere is humanity's exploitation of the oceans more starkly illustrated than the Pacific Ocean, where small island nations are fighting to outlast a crisis not of their making.
The islands are besieged by rising seas and worsening storms, their coastlines choked in plastic, fishing waters plundered and coral reefs bleached and barren.
But they refuse to be victims, pouring whatever resources they can into protecting the seas that sustain their people -- and calling out those not doing their share.
This week, Pacific leaders have made some of the boldest commitments at the UN Ocean Conference, challenging wealthier nations to up their game.
French Polynesia set the bar high at the outset of the five-day summit in Nice, France, announcing it would create the world's largest marine protected area in the far South Pacific.
Within this enormous expanse of five million square kilometres (1.93 million square miles) will be a fully-protected sanctuary, double the size of Sweden, that totally forbids any human activity.
Samoa announced nine new marine areas protecting 30 percent of its waters, while Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands unveiled plans for a mammoth joint marine park linking neighbouring Pacific nations.
Once completed, they said, this ocean reserve would span six million square kilometres -- an area as vast as the Amazon rainforest.
The Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands joined a global call for a pause on deep-sea mining, while four Pacific nations came forward to ratify a treaty to protect the high seas.
"We show up by doing -- by taking action -- and not just through talkfests," said Sivendra Michael, permanent secretary at Fiji's environment ministry.
- 'Time to act' -
Almost as many Pacific heads of state and government turned up in Nice as European ones, making an impression in colourful traditional dress and through the force of their message.
The elephant in the room is money, said Coral Pasisi, climate director at the Pacific Community, the region's principal scientific and technical development organisation.
Pacific nations receive less than half of one percent of global climate finance, she said, and it can take years for sinking island nations to raise the capital to build a single seawall.
Rich nations pledged last year to commit $300 billion a year to developing countries for climate action by 2035. But small island nations are wary, after similar promises have gone unmet.
"Sometimes we feel alone in the world," Taivini Teai, environment minister of French Polynesia, told AFP.
"But we must pull together and make industrialised countries understand that it is time to act."
On stage and in private meetings in Nice, including with French President Emmanuel Macron, Pacific leaders demanded again and again that rich nations help them with actions, not words.
"We need to adapt to shield our oceans from further harm. And that means -- plain and simple -- money. And money that we can use," said Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr.
"The gap between what we need and what is available is growing dangerously wide. And this is a security issue for the Pacific."
- Listen to us -
The oceans summit did not address a lack of progress on phasing out fossil fuels -- deeply frustrating Pacific countries that have rallied to get the contentious issue back on the global agenda.
"For the smallest of the countries and the most vulnerable, we have been the boldest and the loudest" on fossil fuels, said Michael of Fiji.
Vanuatu's environment minister Ralph Regenvanu said it was "unfortunate" that fossil fuels weren't given sufficient prominence in Nice.
"It's the single greatest cause of the damage to the oceans we're seeing now, and we're not talking about it enough," he said.
Fed up with climate summits and pleading for action, Vanuatu and its Pacific neighbours are testing if international law can compel countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
For low-lying Tuvalu -- which is already making arrangements to shift its citizens permanently elsewhere -- the sense of urgency could not be greater as the tide laps higher.
"I hope they listened to us," said Tuvalu President Feleti Teo, of his appeal in Nice for wealthier governments to come to their aid.
np-aag/klm/phz

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNBC

an hour ago

• CNBC

Dow futures slide 200 points as oil rises following U.S. bombing of Iran: Live updates

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City on June 18, 2025. Timothy A. Clary | Afp | Getty Images Stock futures fell ahead of Monday's session after the United States entered Israel's war against Iran over the weekend by striking three nuclear sites, a move by President Donald Trump that raised oil prices and risked a bigger conflict in the Middle East. Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 159 points, or 0.4%. S&P 500 futures shed 0.4% and Nasdaq 100 futures lost 0.5%. The U.S. launched attacks Saturday at Iranian sites in Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz, surprising investors who were expecting more diplomacy to possibly take place after Trump said on Friday that he would make a decision to attack Iran "within the next two weeks," according to the White House. Oil prices have already spiked in recent weeks following the increased tensions in the Middle East. On Sunday night, U.S. crude oil futures rose another 3.8% to nearly $77 a barrel. "When you have conflict, you have an overreaction — a knee jerk reaction — which tends to be an exaggeration, that can last up to two to three weeks," said Jay Woods, chief global strategist at Freedom Capital Markets. "With Ukraine, the S&P 500 sold off 6% and oil spiked dramatically." Trump said in a Saturday evening speech from the White House after the attacks, that "there will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days." Now traders braced for Iran's retaliation. The country could target U.S. personnel in nearby bases or close the Strait of Hormuz, which would majorly disrupt global oil flows. A prolonged blocking of the strait could boost oil prices above $100 per barrel. In a Sunday interview, with Fox News, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for the Chinese government to step in and prevent Iran from closing the key trade route. China remains Iran's most important oil customer. "Now with the US fully engaged in the conflict, the baseline for oil prices has shifted to the mid $80s range per barrel entering stage two from one-side regional conflict to US managed conflict," said Ahmad Assiri of Pepperstone. "Even if Iran doesn't physically close the strait or attack oil tanks, the mere increase in probability from about 5% to around 15% will itself create a premium in crude prices." The S&P 500 lost 0.15% last week for its second negative week in a row. Despite this soft patch, the benchmark closed Friday about 3% from a record. The spike in oil prices and a greater war in the Middle East adds another threat to the stock market and the economy, already dealing with a rushed remaking of global trade by Trump this year.

Boston Globe

3 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Europe frets about US retreating from region ahead of NATO

With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former president Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after the U.S. struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark about the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Advertisement Up until early June, no official from the United States had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisement It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the United States turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries, long reliant on American hard power, will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. Advertisement If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the U.S., is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. Advertisement 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. Advertisement 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said.

San Francisco Chronicle​

3 hours ago

• San Francisco Chronicle​

Sierra Leone's President Bio to be the next ECOWAS chairman with region in turmoil

ABUJA, Nigeria (AP) — Sierra Leone's President Julius Maada Bio was chosen on Sunday to be the next chairman of the West African economic bloc, ECOWAS. The Economic Community of West African States, known as ECOWAS, was founded in 1975, and is facing challenges due to rising violence, member departures and economic disturbances. In a statement following Sunday's announcement, Bio promised to prioritize democracy, security cooperation, economic integration and institutional credibility. 'We are still confronting insecurity in the Sahel and coastal states, terrorism, political instability, illicit arms flow and transnational organized crimes continue to test the resilience of our nations and the effectiveness of our institutions,' he said. Bio is currently serving his second term as president after a contested election two years ago in the coastal West African country. He was president when ECOWAS imposed severe sanctions on Niger following a coup two years ago. Niger cited the sanctions as one of the reasons for leaving the bloc. Sierra Leone was one of the countries that supported a military intervention in the country in 2023. At home, Bio is facing an ongoing synthetic drug crisis and a stagnating economy. Bio's new position comes as the region faces its most severe crisis in decades with jihadist forces controlling vast swaths of the Sahel, a semi-arid region south of the Sahara. In the past few years, ECOWAS has struggled with the departure of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger which have all faced military coups. All three juntas left the bloc, and created their own security partnership, the Alliance of Sahel States. They have cut ties with the traditional Western allies, ousting French and American military forces, and instead sought new security ties with Russia. The three countries have been the hardest hit by jihadist violence in recent years.