Speaker 1: I'm Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven AM. In
Speaker 1: late twenty twenty three, Australia signed a landmark treaty with Tuvarlu,
Speaker 1: a low line Pacific nation threatened by climate change, promising
Speaker 1: a special visa pathway, disaster support and closer security ties.
Speaker 1: The deal is now in force and the first climate
Speaker 1: refugees have begun arriving in Australia, and this year Tavarlu
Speaker 1: will help host key Pacific climate talks ahead of KOPP.
Speaker 1: But the questions at the heart of this agreement have
Speaker 1: not gone away, as rising seas threaten the future of
Speaker 1: one of our smallest neighbors. Is Australia offering a genuine
Speaker 1: lifeline or using the climate crisis to deepen its own
Speaker 1: influence in the Pacific. Today we're bringing you an episode
Speaker 1: where Ange McCormack speaks to national correspondent for the Saturday Paper,
Speaker 1: Mike Sekham on the agreement between Australia and Tuvarlu and
Speaker 1: whether Australia is helping them or themselves. It's Sunday, March
Speaker 1: twenty nine. The episode first ed in November twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: Mike. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanesi was in
Speaker 2: the Cook Islands for the Pacific Islands Forum and he's
Speaker 2: a prised some by announcing this new agreement with a
Speaker 2: small Pacific island nation to Varlu. Can you tell me
Speaker 2: about what happened.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, it was announced at the conclusion of the
Speaker 3: Pacific Islands Forum, where Albanizi had a joint press conference
Speaker 3: alongside the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Prime Minister Natano.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you so much, Prime Minister Natano, and thank
Speaker 4: you for your leadership in approaching Australia with this request.
Speaker 3: Wearing matching blue shirts as they tend to do at
Speaker 3: these international summits, and they announced a quote groundbreaking unquote
Speaker 3: agreement between the two nations.
Speaker 4: And the Australia to Varalu Fellipili union will be regarded
Speaker 4: as a significant day in which Australia acknowledged that we
Speaker 4: are part of the Pacific family that with that comes responsibility.
Speaker 3: And this I must say came as a surprise to
Speaker 3: almost everyone, including a lot of the two voluons. It
Speaker 3: seems to have been an Australian initiative and was not
Speaker 3: flagged in advance. And I might say there seems to
Speaker 3: be a growing amount of criticism within the nation itself
Speaker 3: about the lack of consultation. But anyway, that aside, it's
Speaker 3: called the Australian two volue Phallippeely Union, that being from
Speaker 3: the two voluon word for traditional values of good and neighborlinness,
Speaker 3: care and mutual respect.
Speaker 4: The treaty covers three main areas of cooperation, climate change,
Speaker 4: human mobility and security.
Speaker 3: What we promised. What Australia promised was more assistance to
Speaker 3: cope with climate change, so that involves reclaiming some land
Speaker 3: on the island. They're planning to increase the land area
Speaker 3: for the capital by about six percent. It recommitted Australia
Speaker 3: to providing aid and assistance in response to natural disasters
Speaker 3: like cyclones, as well as public health emergencies and an
Speaker 3: interesting one, military aggression against Tuvalu. Most notably though, it
Speaker 3: also provided for what it called a special Human Mobility
Speaker 3: Pathway which would allow two valuins access to Australia. So
Speaker 3: this would allow up to two hundred and eighty, the
Speaker 3: Prime Minister said, to migrate to Australia per year, not
Speaker 3: only to live or study or work, but it would
Speaker 3: also give the maxis to education, health, income and family
Speaker 3: support on arrival. So it's a pretty generous sort of
Speaker 3: a deal in that regard. And Albanize he called it
Speaker 3: the most significant agreement between Australia and the Pacific island
Speaker 3: nation ever and he's probably right.
Speaker 2: And how important is this agreement to two Valu? Why
Speaker 2: did they sign up for it?
Speaker 3: You know, we often talk about the existential threat of
Speaker 3: climate change in the kind of abstract term, but you know,
Speaker 3: in this case, Tuvalu is literally experiencing it. Rising sea
Speaker 3: levels are happening before their eyes. The Foreign Minister of
Speaker 3: Tuvalu famously recorded a speech to a climate change conference
Speaker 3: summit in twenty twenty one standing knee deep in water
Speaker 3: in Tuvaluk.
Speaker 5: We are living the realities of climate change sea level
Speaker 5: rise as you stand watching me today at CLOP twenty six.
Speaker 5: We cannot wait for speeches when the sea is rising
Speaker 5: around us all the time.
Speaker 3: To some of these low lying nations like tu Valu,
Speaker 3: it's a very very big threat. I mean, can we
Speaker 3: shift from a minute a long way from you know,
Speaker 3: little tropical two Volu to big frigid Greenland To underline
Speaker 3: this point, Greenland's ice cap is melting at an ever
Speaker 3: increasing rate, and there are some scientific estimates that suggest
Speaker 3: it could melt away entirely if the globe warms by
Speaker 3: just one point six degrees above pre industrial levels, which
Speaker 3: isn't much when you consider we're already warmed to a
Speaker 3: by about one point two degrees, and if the Greenland
Speaker 3: ice cap melts, that would raise global sea levels by
Speaker 3: seven meters. Now at its highest point, two volu is
Speaker 3: just four point six meters above the current sea level,
Speaker 3: So you know, you can see why the fate of
Speaker 3: the Greenland ice sheet is of considerable interest to people
Speaker 3: a long way away and two valu so it could,
Speaker 3: and given the current trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions,
Speaker 3: it likely will, I'm afraid to say, vanish beneath the
Speaker 3: waves within a few generations. So the country is in
Speaker 3: the process of essentially replicating itself in the metaverse as
Speaker 3: a way of safeguarding its culture and its sovereignty in
Speaker 3: the event of the loss of the land and the
Speaker 3: displacement of its people.
Speaker 5: As our land disappears, we have no choice but to
Speaker 5: become the world's first digital nation. Our land, our ocean,
Speaker 5: our culture are the most precious assets of our people
Speaker 5: and to keep them safe from harm. No matter what
Speaker 5: happens in the physical world will move them to the island.
Speaker 3: They need to figure out where their citizens might go
Speaker 3: if and when this happens, and signing this agreement with
Speaker 3: Australia is perhaps one part of the solution. But this
Speaker 3: wasn't purely a deal about climate change threats and good
Speaker 3: neighborliness in inverted commerce and mutual respect. It actually contained
Speaker 3: quite a bit of detail about security and defense related matters.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Right, So there's a bit more to this union than
Speaker 2: just Australia helping out one of its neighbors. What's Australia
Speaker 2: getting out of this?
Speaker 3: Well, you're right, there's a lot more to it. Interestingly,
Speaker 3: I think the word sovereignty appeared in the statement a lot.
Speaker 3: The agreement committed us to mutual respect and support for
Speaker 3: each other's sovereignty, and that is at the heart of
Speaker 3: the Falloppeely Union. But some of the detail in the
Speaker 3: treaty itself suggests that it would significantly impact on two
Speaker 3: Valu's sovereignty, which typically is defined as a nation's ability
Speaker 3: to determine its own affairs. So let me quote some
Speaker 3: of the wording of the actual agreement, Tuvalu shall mutually
Speaker 3: agree with Australia any partnership, arrangement or engagement with any
Speaker 3: other state or entity on security and defense related matters.
Speaker 3: Such matters include, but are not limited to, defense policing,
Speaker 3: border protection, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure including ports, telecommunications, and energy infrastructure.
Speaker 3: In other words, two Volu would need Australia's agreement before
Speaker 3: it could deal with other countries in any of these
Speaker 3: listed areas. Australia has effectively a veto and it's pretty
Speaker 3: clear that this relates to one nation in particular, that
Speaker 3: nation being China.
Speaker 2: Coming up after the break, how Australia is using tuvalue
Speaker 2: to its strategic advantage, Mike, This treaty that Australia has
Speaker 2: agreed to with Suvalu would give Australia a veto power
Speaker 2: over any deals to Volume might consider with China and
Speaker 2: other countries in the region. What's Australia concerned about exactly, Well.
Speaker 3: What we're concerned about is Chinese efforts to grow China's
Speaker 3: influence in the Pacific, which have been underway for some years,
Speaker 3: most recently, I guess they were heightened last year after
Speaker 3: the Solomon Islands signed a security packed with China, which
Speaker 3: underline a shift in the Solomon's foreign policy towards Beijing,
Speaker 3: and it was the first known bilateral security agreement between
Speaker 3: China and a country in the Pacific. It was shrouded
Speaker 3: in some secrecy, but it seemed to revolve mostly about
Speaker 3: China being able to provide police and security support to
Speaker 3: the nation. But the bigger concern for Australia was that
Speaker 3: the deal might allow China to one day build a
Speaker 3: military base in the Solomon Islands. Tuvalu at the moment
Speaker 3: is one of the few nations that still officially recognizes Taiwan,
Speaker 3: so they're not yet in Beijing's orbit, and Australia doesn't
Speaker 3: want them to go there. All the Pacific nations, I
Speaker 3: guess you would say, have essentially become to a greater
Speaker 3: and lesser extent pawns in this big geostrategic game being
Speaker 3: played out between much bigger neighbors China, the US and Australia.
Speaker 2: So if this, from Australia's point of view, is about
Speaker 2: limiting China's influence in the region, is this the start
Speaker 2: of something bigger? Potentially will Australia approach other Pacific countries
Speaker 2: in the same way.
Speaker 3: Well, Albinizi indicated as much. The government, it seems would
Speaker 3: be willing to enter similar agreements on a sort of
Speaker 3: bespoke case by case basis was the way it was put.
Speaker 4: And are you hoping other Pacific nations like Caravas or
Speaker 4: Nauru might take up a similar deal with Australia.
Speaker 7: Well, that's a matter for those nations. I think what
Speaker 7: this does signal is how we are prepared to approach
Speaker 7: our membership of the Pacific family.
Speaker 3: So the offer is there from Australia.
Speaker 7: I think what it says is we're prepared to be
Speaker 7: a real partner of choice, an engage partner.
Speaker 3: Of course, this one is relatively small beer, inasmuch as
Speaker 3: two volu only has about eleven two hundred citizens. Other
Speaker 3: countries are much more populous. But the idea for allowing
Speaker 3: two Voluons to come to Australia as climate refugees has
Speaker 3: actually been kicking around for some time. Back in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 3: former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered a suggestion that kind
Speaker 3: of fell somewhere between what you might call latter day
Speaker 3: imperialism and corporate buyout. And what he proposed was that
Speaker 3: Australia accept the entire population of two Valu and possibly
Speaker 3: other Pacific countries if and when those countries became uninhabitable
Speaker 3: in exchange for their and I'm quoting here their territorial seas,
Speaker 3: their vast exclusive economic zones, including the preservation of their
Speaker 3: fisheries reserves. So in other words, we would get the
Speaker 3: people and we would also get access to essentially their
Speaker 3: territorial waters and all that lay beneath. Anyway, that proposal
Speaker 3: didn't fly, but it does raise a lot of interesting
Speaker 3: questions about the rights of climate refugees. If a country
Speaker 3: is submerged, well does statehood survive if the former residents
Speaker 3: move to another country, Can they maintain the citizenship rights
Speaker 3: of their former home that is no longer their or
Speaker 3: is no longer habitable, and can they pass those on
Speaker 3: to their children? What happens to the territorial waters around
Speaker 3: a sunken nation in the case of Tuvalu, would two
Speaker 3: valuins located somewhere else still control the fishing and other rights.
Speaker 3: It's all very legally fraught and it's something that experts
Speaker 3: in international refugee law are looking at very closely. Along
Speaker 3: the way. In doing this story, I spoke to one
Speaker 3: of the foremost experts. Actually, I spoke to Professor Jane McCadam,
Speaker 3: who's the director of the Kaldor Center for International Refugee
Speaker 3: Law at the University of New South Wales, and she
Speaker 3: confirmed this two Valu deal is the world's first bilateral
Speaker 3: agreement specifically on climate mobility, and she suggests more agreements
Speaker 3: could follow. But she also said that the specific two
Speaker 3: volu agreement was perhaps not the biggest thing to come
Speaker 3: out of the Pacific Island's Forum. Another big development at
Speaker 3: the forum meeting that was downplayed was the endorsement of
Speaker 3: something called the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility. But
Speaker 3: it addressed something even bigger, I think than the relocation
Speaker 3: of Pacific Island people. It addressed the controversial subject of
Speaker 3: the extent to which the countries that emit large amounts
Speaker 3: of greenhouse gases should have to compensate those who have
Speaker 3: suffered loss and damage as a result. So, as McAdam said,
Speaker 3: in the Pacific, your identity is absolutely bound up with
Speaker 3: the land and the sea, and so being dislocated from
Speaker 3: that can have quite traumatic intergenerational consequences. I'll quote her.
Speaker 3: We say very clearly that displacement and loss of home
Speaker 3: is arguably the greatest form of loss and damage, and
Speaker 3: that's in the Pacific Mobility framework. These are big questions
Speaker 3: for the world at large. To what extent should the
Speaker 3: countries that have primarily caused climate change have to compensate
Speaker 3: those who will be most severely impacted. And that's going
Speaker 3: to be a major agenda item for the next big
Speaker 3: climate conference in Dubai, which starts at the end of
Speaker 3: this month.
Speaker 2: So, Mike, this union has a lot more to it,
Speaker 2: I think than how it was framed, you know, as
Speaker 2: this friendly agreement between two neighbors. It's been done with
Speaker 2: security considerations in mind, and it also kind of gives
Speaker 2: the impression that Australia is taking some kind of action
Speaker 2: on climate change. But is there a more cynical or
Speaker 2: critical reading of this agreement that's kind of being glossed
Speaker 2: over here.
Speaker 3: I don't think cynical at all. Definitely critical, I would say,
Speaker 3: because this agreement looks like it's doing something about climate change.
Speaker 3: I mean it addresses I guess you would say, the
Speaker 3: effects of climate change. What it doesn't do is address
Speaker 3: the causes two valuins are essentially on a sinking ship,
Speaker 3: and having Australia rescue them isn't stopping climate change. It's
Speaker 3: just responding to the arms of our own Doing more
Speaker 3: effective climate policy would be something that stops climate change
Speaker 3: in the first place, you know, like reducing our alliance
Speaker 3: on fossil fuels. So I spoke with a noted physicist,
Speaker 3: doctor Bill Hare, a veteran of the climate sphere, and
Speaker 3: he's the chief executive and senior scientist at Climate Analytics.
Speaker 3: Quoting him, the political class seems to be doubling down
Speaker 3: on more gas and to some extent, more coal. He,
Speaker 3: like others, see the two volue deal as essentially checkbook diplomacy,
Speaker 3: you know. He said, they've kind of bought off two
Speaker 3: valu They're buying support in the Pacific for their geostrategic interests.
Speaker 3: And while this treaty and possibly others to follow will
Speaker 3: be a lifeline, every decade we go on with emissions
Speaker 3: at present levels means another ten or fifteen sentiment is
Speaker 3: of long term sea level rise. And that's the bottom line.
Speaker 3: So you know the word phallippeally that means good neighbor.
Speaker 3: You know, it poses the question would a good neighbor
Speaker 3: let its actions destroy the land and the homes of others.
Speaker 3: It's about time we started addressing not just the symptoms,
Speaker 3: but the cause of this existential threat to our neighboring countries.
Speaker 2: Mike, thanks so much for your time today.
Speaker 3: Thanks Edge.
Speaker 1: We'll be back tomorrow with an episode on the Manosphere
Speaker 1: where we speak to misogyny and extremism researcher doctor Stephanie
Speaker 1: Westcott about why she thinks Louis Thrux's latest documentary missed
Speaker 1: the mark.
Speaker 6: I understand Louis Theroux's style and it works really well
Speaker 6: a lot of the time, but what it did in
Speaker 6: this instance, I think was actually just replicate the same
Speaker 6: position that lots of people are taking when they hear
Speaker 6: Manisphere type ideas or suggestions, which is just to sort
Speaker 6: of step back and observe and not necessarily step in
Speaker 6: to clarify or rebuke.
Speaker 1: I'm Nicole Johnston. This is seven AM. Thanks for listening.