STRICTLY 4 THE ISLANDS: DON’T MINE THE MOANA?
Weekly Pacific Politics with Otis Whinney
DON’T MINE THE MOANA?
A FINAL WORD ON OUR CLIMATE CONUNDRUM
On September 26, Greenpeace activists occupied an Earth Sciences New Zealand-owned ship named Tangaroa. One was dressed as President of the USA Donald Trump, while the rest waved various signs carrying messages opposing seabed mining in the Pacific. By early afternoon, Police had removed them without much hassle. Spokesperson Juressa Lee stated that the ship had been used to survey deep sea minerals in the Pacific, and that their protest was aimed at those using state-owned vessels for these purposes. Our Minister for Resources, Shane Jones, dismissed the protest as he usually does. He was quoted in RNZ as saying that Greenpeace are “trying to scare and catastrophise and intimidate Kiwis,” arguing that Greenpeace was interfering with the livelihoods of those aboard. Shane Jones has made no bones about his love of resource extraction for economic gain, bringing the “drill, baby, drill” mentality to the environmental portfolios he holds as a part of our current government. Unlike his opposition in the left bloc, Shane and New Zealand First see our untapped sources of oil and gas and our untouched seabed as the perfect vehicles for kick-starting the New Zealand economy, and through our Foreign Minister Winston Peters, they’re bringing this mindset to the Pacific at large. But it’s not just NZF who have an agenda when it comes to how the Pacific leverages its resource wealth in the modern day—every political party in Aotearoa, and every state with an interest in our region has something to add to the conversation. But is anyone even worth listening to these days?
One of the protesters aboard the Tangaroa held a sign reading “don’t mine the moana,” and while Shane Jones was quick to dismiss this whole affair, these words have been echoed by several leaders and organisations based in that very Moana. For example, the mayors of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) have joined forces to issue a statement in opposition to the proposed mining of their seabed by their higherups in the USA (the CNMI remains an unincorporated territory of the USA). In a letter to Jennifer Miller (of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management-Pacific Region), the group voiced their opposition to the progression of the proposed mining, arguing that there was a “serious lack of clear and reliable information” available to them regarding the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts. Another large concern was the actual material benefit for the CNMI, considering that is another piece of information the islands have yet to receive. Another one of the US territories, American Sāmoa, has also come out against these plans. Governor Pulaali’i Nikolao Pula has formally opposed a proposed US lease sale that would open up over 31 million acres of their seabed, which could lead to the setting up of further mining operations. The reasoning he gave to the US Department of the Interior and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) echoes the leadership of the CNMI fairly closely: “There remain too many unanswered questions about the potential effects of large-scale mineral extraction on deep-ocean ecosystems, fisheries, and the broader marine environment. Until those questions are better understood, moving into commercial mining would be premature.”
At the United Nations General Assembly, several Pacific leaders made known their views on how the UN is responding to the climate crisis. Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea James Marape and Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands made it clear that definitive action is long overdue, with Marape stating that “if we destroy this planet, we pass a ruined world to our children. Sea-level rise is here amidst us, and we must act now.” Naoero also took to the stage in part to announce the change of the country’s name, and to emphasise the vulnerability of small island nations in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape.
On the topic of seabed mining, however, Naoero has a markedly different view from those in the CNMI and other areas. President of Naoero, David Adeang, has been trying to open up Naoero’s seabed for business for quite a while, with appeals to the International Seabed Authority to grant Naoero the consents needed to begin the scheme having led nowhere in the past five years. Naoero is small, even for a Pacific nation, so using the resources available to the nation isn’t outlandish. Adeang has also argued in the past that seabed mining can be used to power the transition away from fossil fuels, but the barriers in place have yet to be lifted.
Naoero also took a moment to declare its withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC), after Donald Trump declared his hatred for the institution in his own speech. Adeang described the ICC as “of increasing irrelevance” to Naoero, perhaps as their relationship with Israel (whose president is currently wanted for arrest by the ICC) becomes more and more relevant with the planned opening of an embassy for Naoero in Jerusalem. This may paint Naoero as a state simply following the wants and needs of the US, but just recently Naoero also joined Kiribati in blocking the Pacific Islands Forum from releasing a joint statement condemning the nuclear missile test China conducted in Pacific waters a few months ago. Adeang wrapped up his speech by emphasising that Naoero remains “a friend to all and an enemy to none,” a sentiment that may be contradicted by his nation's stance on these polarising issues I’ve just described. But in a geopolitical environment such as this, where your relationships determine who supports you and how, it’s hard to argue that Naoero is acting irrationally. A more apt description, perhaps, would be that Naoero is looking out for Naoero first and foremost.
The climate remains the largest existential threat for the Pacific region, so the trepidation felt by those who oppose these mining proposals is more than understandable. And the fact that they believe they have no concrete evidence for how this mining will actually benefit the people of the Pacific is a cause for concern. The fact that this move is being pushed largely by the Trump administration—who have shown through their violent belligerence in South America and the Middle East that they have little respect for the sovereignty of countries they don’t respect—should also be of concern. The fact that politicians in our government are following in lock step with this administration is also not irrelevant. And, of course, this back and forth fuels the intensification of competition with China, who have also shown they like to swing their size around to get themselves what they want. The Pacific remains disunited on the climate front, and while those in opposition have made their voices heard, whether they’ll be able to stop what’s coming is for us to find out.
One thing the Pacific will remain united on, however, is that whatever happens to the climate, it will be us who feels it first. While that may be a terrifying thought, it does mean that this region remains the most aware of what’s to come, and thus remains the most able to do something about it.
