Gregoire Nimbtik, former head of Vanuatu's Prime Minister's Department and former Deputy Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat, reflects on the formidable development challenges facing Vanuatu and the broader Melanesian region. Speaking in the margins of the 2025 Pacific Update conference in Suva, Nimbtik discusses how Vanuatu is grappling with the compounding crises of Air Vanuatu's bankruptcy in May 2024, the devastating December 2024 earthquake that struck Port Vila, and long-standing issues of political instability and corruption. He explores the tension between custom governance and Westminster systems of governance, the controversial citizenship-by-investment scheme that recently made headlines with the Andrew Tate case, and the impacts of labour mobility programs on Vanuatu's development trajectory. Nimbtik also reflects on his experience leading the MSG delegation to the International Court of Justice on climate change obligations and discusses the MSG complements the broader Pacific architecture. His insights offer a rare perspective on the intersection of traditional governance, modern development challenges and geopolitical pressures in the Pacific.
The conversation begins with Nimbtik's background as head of Vanuatu's Prime Minister's Department and Deputy Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat. He provides context for understanding Vanuatu's current challenges by tracing the country's history from its unique condominium colonial system — where British and French administrations operated in parallel — through independence in 1980, when the country inherited a fundamentally divided administrative structure.
Nimbtik identifies political instability, which began in earnest in 1991, as the root cause of many of Vanuatu's contemporary challenges. He discusses the bankruptcy of Air Vanuatu in May 2024, explaining how government ownership and political control of the airline's board — with changes occurring after each government transition — ultimately led to its liquidation. This crisis occurred against a backdrop of repeated natural disasters, including Cyclone Pam in 2015, Tropical Cyclone Harold, Twin Cyclones Judy and Kevin, and volcanic eruptions, culminating in the December 2024 earthquake that struck Port Vila. These compounding crises have left Vanuatu struggling to recover from one disaster before the next hits.
The conversation explores Vanuatu's linguistic and cultural diversity — 110 languages representing 110 different value systems — which Nimbtik sees as contributing to the proliferation of political parties and the difficulty of creating inclusive societies. Recent constitutional amendments, including provisions 17A and 17B, aim to reduce political instability by making it harder for politicians to switch parties. Amendment 17B specifically requires independent members to affiliate with a larger political body within three months of election. Whilst these amendments are being implemented, their validity is still being challenged in court, with the decision yet to be released.
Drawing on his PhD research at RMIT on corruption in politics, Nimbtik discusses the fundamental tension between custom governance and Westminster systems in Vanuatu. He explains how traditional leadership expectations — where a legitimate leader is someone who distributes resources, regardless of how those resources are obtained — clash with modern governance standards. This creates situations where behaviour viewed as corrupt through a Western lens may be seen as moral leadership within custom governance. Nimbtik points to the December earthquake as evidence of corruption's impact, noting that buildings collapsed because building codes were not enforced, yet there has been little public accountability or civil society reaction.
The interview addresses growing geopolitical competition in the Pacific, with Nimbtik arguing that China's approach to development cooperation differs fundamentally from that of OECD countries. While Western partners focus on schools and dispensaries, China has invested in major government infrastructure like the President's Palace, National Convention Centre, and ministry buildings — investments that no Western partner has been willing to make. He emphasises that all countries, including small island states, are engaging with China primarily for economic reasons, and that larger countries like Australia and the United States expect smaller nations to adopt their geopolitical positions, treating China as an enemy if they do.
On labour mobility, Nimbtik notes that programs like the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, and the Seasonal Worker Programme were originally designed as capacity-building exercises. The intention was for farmers to go to Australia or New Zealand, learn skills, earn money, and return to start businesses, potentially accessing loans from the Agriculture Rural Development Bank at lower interest rates to complement their savings. However, this objective has been diverted, with labour mobility becoming one-way migration that depletes rural areas of young, energetic workers. Nimbtik notes the irony that while individuals may improve their wellbeing through remittances, the national economic impact is questionable, and the skills shortage is hurting both the private and public sectors. He indicates that the program has become a source of political propaganda, with politicians using it to secure votes by sending more people from their areas overseas.
The conversation turns to Vanuatu's controversial citizenship-by-investment scheme, which can contribute 20 to 30% of government revenues in some years. Nimbtik explains that the scheme was introduced in desperation following Cyclone Pam in 2015 to fill budget shortfalls, but without realising it would become a source of corruption. He contrasts Vanuatu's approach — selling citizenship for cash contributions of US$130,000 — with more developed countries that tie citizenship to substantial investment in projects that generate employment and tax revenue. The recent Andrew Tate case, where the controversial influencer obtained Vanuatu citizenship around the time of his arrest in Romania, has embarrassed the government. Nimbtik notes that changing the system is difficult because many political leaders have been involved in and benefited from the scheme. He also discusses how international anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism rules, as well as tightening correspondent banking relationships, have reduced revenues from the program.
Nimbtik's experience with the Melanesian Spearhead Group provides insights into sub-regional cooperation. The MSG, comprising Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (representing New Caledonia), with Indonesia as an associate member since 2015, was originally established to promote political independence for Melanesian territories. However, its approach has evolved to focus more on economic and trade cooperation rather than taking hard political positions. Nimbtik led the MSG delegation to the International Court of Justice on climate change, explaining that the MSG was included because it could represent voiceless members like New Caledonia.
The MSG operates across multiple sectors including trade and investment, sustainable development, sports, and arts and culture. Nimbtik discusses initiatives he worked on, including bringing together vice-chancellors from national universities across Melanesia to establish collaborative mechanisms for sharing lecturers and resources, and creating APEC-style arrangements for private sector mobility within the MSG region. He emphasises that the MSG should be framed not as a competitor to the Pacific Islands Forum, but as a sub-regional body that adds value to the regional architecture. The MSG's 2038 Prosperity For All Plan is being harmonised with the Forum's 2050 Strategy.
On Indonesia's associate membership and the sensitive issue of West Papuan independence, Nimbtik explains that the rationale for engaging Indonesia is pragmatic: to advance Melanesian interests in West Papua's political liberation, dialogue with the Indonesian government is necessary. The approach has shifted from the hard political positions Vanuatu took in the past towards using economic and trade lenses to engage with Indonesia on development issues. This represents what Nimbtik sees as a changing paradigm in how regional politics are conducted.
The interview concludes with discussion of Vanuatu's leadership role in seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on UN member states' climate change obligations. Nimbtik explains that Vanuatu was motivated to take this leadership role because, situated on the Ring of Fire and prone to disasters including cyclones, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes, the country faces existential threats to its people's livelihoods. The economic costs of disasters and recovery are very high relative to GDP, and Vanuatu wanted bigger countries to recognise their obligations to support smaller countries facing climate change impacts. He notes the challenge of accessing climate finance, which "takes like ages" despite numerous international commitments.
Gregoire Nimbtik (opening grab): "In kastom governance a legitimate leader is someone who distributes resources. The question as to where you get those resources and how you get it, it's not in the lens. So as long as you play your role by giving the gift, or continue sustaining the communities and family members and members of the political parties, people still regard you as a great leader. And that's how it plays in the politics in Vanuatu. But then when you look at the impact on the lives of the people in the real world, there's no impact there."
Amita Monterola: We wish to acknowledge the indigenous people of Australia, the wider Asia-Pacific region and other parts of the world, and express our respect for their traditional knowledge and practices, which stem from a deep connection to the lands and waters they have inhabited for millennia.
Robin Davies: Welcome to Devpolicy Talks, the podcast of the Development Policy Centre. We're part of the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country in Canberra.
I'm Robin Davies.
This is our twelfth season, and we're bringing you a mix of interviews, event recordings, and in-depth features on topics at the heart of our research — Australia's overseas aid, development in Papua New Guinea and the Pacific, and other regional and global development issues.
In this episode, I speak with Gregoire Nimbtik — or Greg — who has held senior roles in Vanuatu's government and in regional organizations. As a former head of Vanuatu's Prime Minister's Department and a former Deputy Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat, Greg offers unique insights into how traditional governance systems intersect with modern development challenges in the Pacific.
Our conversation was recorded in the margins of the 2025 Pacific Update conference in Suva. We explore how Vanuatu has recently navigated one crisis after another — from the bankruptcy of its national airline in May 2024 to a devastating earthquake the following December — all the while grappling with long-standing political instability that has its roots in the country's colonial history. Greg talks about the tension between custom governance and Westminster systems, drawing on his PhD research on corruption in politics.
We also discuss some controversial topics — including the citizenship-by-investment scheme that made headlines earlier this year in connection with the case of Andrew Tate, the unintended consequences of labour mobility programs, and the evolving role of the Melanesian Spearhead Group with respect to independence movements.
Greg also reflects on leading the Melanesian Spearhead Group delegation to the International Court of Justice hearings on climate change obligations, and explains why Vanuatu has taken such a prominent role on this particular world stage.
I should note this interview was recorded a while back, in June 2025, before two notable events. First, the International Court of Justice released its advisory opinion on climate change obligations in July. And second, in September, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited Vanuatu intending to sign the Nakamal Agreement on security cooperation. As you may remember, that didn't work out.
Gregoire: Well, firstly, Robin, thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Gregoire Nimbtik, and I'm from Vanuatu.
Robin: Thanks Greg for speaking with me. Now you're currently outside the Vanuatu government, but you've previously worked as head of the Prime Minister's Department in Vanuatu, also as Deputy Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat. So I'd like to ask you some questions about Vanuatu's development challenges, and then perhaps a couple of things about your MSG experience.
So I guess to start with, Vanuatu has been through a very difficult time in the last year. We had the bankruptcy of Air Vanuatu, which was a bit over a year ago, which then led to a collapse in value-added tax receipts, so huge revenue impact on the government, and of course a fall in tourism as well. And then we had the huge earthquake in December, which hit the capital Port Vila really badly. How does Vanuatu come back from something like this, which seems to be really beyond the scope of a development assistance response?
Gregoire: Thank you, Robin. Well, I think to answer your question, let me just briefly put it into context. The governance arrangement and the political context that we have at the moment in Vanuatu is quite complex, and also diverse in terms of culture. But prior to that, we know the history of Vanuatu very well. It's a condominium system, a type of government arrangement during that colonial period. I mean, there was nothing much in terms of development. We had two parallel systems, British and French systems running in parallel. And when we had our independence in 1980, it was sort of like we inherited a two-divisional administration from our colonial governments.
And then our government at the time, they've been struggling in trying to harmonise things and unify things together. But then you look, you look at only a decade, a period of 10 years to do that, and from 1991 we started experiencing political instabilities. And political instability is the root cause of many challenges that the country is facing.
Now, you mentioned Air Vanuatu. Air Vanuatu is one of the examples. The fact about Air Vanuatu is that since independence, the airline is totally owned by the government, and then the governance arrangement is totally controlled by the government. You have politicians who run the organisation, and every time you have changeover of governments, more or less you have the changes of the board of the airline. And that's what ripped the airline off to the point where we now liquidated the airline. And then we have to look for a new arrangement at this time.
In addition to that, we're on the Ring of Fire and prone to disaster. So we have Cyclone Pam in 2015, and then we had the severe Tropical Cyclone Harold and Twin Cyclones Judy and Kevin, and also evacuations because of the volcano eruptions, and then not to mention the recent earthquake. So these are the crippling humanitarian challenges that Vanuatu has to cope with, and finding how they can recover from some of the cyclones. We haven't finished from the recovery of Tropical Cyclone Harold and then the Twin Cyclones Judy and Kevin, and then the December 2024 earthquake in Port Vila. So these are the big challenges that Vanuatu needs to find a way of how they can rebuild back the economy.
And then in addition to that, I mean, given that background context, we inherited the divisional, very slippery structure, and that's something that is also contributing to the challenges that we have now. And how you can see the evidence of that is through many political parties who emerge nowadays, and that's also a reflection of the divisional societies that we have inherited and across the islands. And simply because of the fact that we are linguistically diverse, 110 languages with [110] different value systems, and it's very hard to unify the nation and create inclusive societies. And you see the ripple effect of these affecting the government administration and how the country is administering its national [agenda] at the moment.
Robin: You referred to the political instability, which has really been there since 1991. And in fact, when I used to work in Vanuatu, I recall thinking at that time that there was an endless rotation of politicians through government roles in Vanuatu, and it never seemed to affect the economy too much. It seemed the country was relatively immune to this instability for a long time, but that's begun to change. In recent years, we're beginning to see the consequences.
Now, I know that there have been efforts at constitutional reform, very significant efforts in the last year, which aim to make it harder for people to switch between political parties. What's your view on that? Is that working?
Gregoire: The amendment took place last year and the country went through the referendum. The most strange thing about this amendment is that we have another group who challenged the validity of the amendment at a court, and then the court made its ruling early this year, but they haven't released the decision yet, and that's still with the court. The challenge is still with the court, and while the challenge is with the court, the government is going ahead implementing the provisions of the two amendments, 17A and 17B.
17B is more to do with independent members who contest the elections, and after three months, they have to affiliate to a bigger body. And that's like you've said, it was in the interest of ensuring the stability. So this current government came into power in late January, and there is a hope that we will see a lot of improvement through the systems, simply because one of the facts is that a lot of government ministers now are former senior government administrators, who went back into politics, and now they've come back to power as ministers, even the current Prime Minister. So it remains to be seen as to whether there is an impact of that constitutional amendment.
Robin: You did your PhD at RMIT on corruption in politics. When you were with the Prime Minister's Department, you sponsored the introduction of Right to Information laws, champion of transparency. How much of the political instability is due to those perverse incentives we just talked about, and how much is due to corruption?
Gregoire: Well, the thing about corruption that we heard from the update yesterday is that, firstly, my thesis is about how custom covenants clash with Westminster systems and create what is moral on the other side of the wall and immoral on the other side of the wall. So that's the dilemma that we are in at the moment. So there's a lot of things and issues happening in Vanuatu context at the moment, as far as corruption is concerned. In the Western world, or modern, through modern lens, the country is very quiet about it, and that could probably be due to that fact that what is immoral on the other side of the wall is moral on the other side of the wall.
I'll give you an example. I mean, in custom covenants, a leader, a legitimate leader, is someone who gives and distributes resources. The question as to where you get those resources and how you get it, it's not in the lens. So as long as you play your role by giving the gift, or continue sustaining the communities and family members and members of the political parties, people still regard you as a great leader. And that's how it plays in the politics in Vanuatu.
But in, I mean, if you look at the impact, it's actually ruined or affected the potential, diverted potential for the country to develop. Because one of the things, one of the reasons, is that it's skewed resources away. For example, money is not being used in a proper way. We had about 67 billion [vatu] in our budget. But then when you look at the impact on the lives of the people in the real world, there's no impact there. And these are some of the things. I mean, even the 17 December earthquake, it reminds us — that's a good example — where we are not holding people against the standard of the building code. Foreign assets coming in and build the way they want, and all of a sudden we have the earthquake, and it demonstrated that we haven't enforced the standards and implementation according to the rules, and that's simply because of the corruption activities that are going on.
But again, you have no reaction from the civil society. I mean, the public accountability is not there. You cannot hold the government accountable to that. And that's something that it frightens me. It reminds me of what I've been reading in my thesis, where what is moral in Vanuatu context, as far as the custom is concerned, is immoral on the other side of the world. So it depends, depends on where you are standing and looking at the things. Which is very sad. Leaders need to make sure they sort out these things.
Robin: Now, as you know, governments in Australia, New Zealand, the US are all very anxious about the strengthening of relationships between Pacific governments and China. And geopolitical competition is becoming quite pervasive across the region. Does Vanuatu's current situation suggest that it might need, in fact, to look to China for additional resources to support recovery?
Gregoire: Robin, that's a very interesting question. If you look at the way OECD countries operate, it's quite different from South-South cooperation. China — every country around the world has a parallel relationship with China, and that's mainly because of economic reasons, with something that also small island states are looking for. And everyone is running to China for that.
What needs to be understood is that there's a lot of big countries — for example, America, even Australia, two neighbouring big countries like Australia and New Zealand — they think that the smaller countries should be in the same position as they have. Like, for example, if China is the enemy, we all should treat China as our enemy. And that's one fact. But when you look at it through the economic lens, the way Chinese help smaller countries is quite different from the way our Western partners help a smaller country. Chinese just give it sometimes without strings. Of course, if it's a loan, then there are requirements to pay back.
But then you look at the investment that China did. None of the Western partners would be falling there to invest in a big building, like, for example, building the President's Palace in Vanuatu, or even the National Convention Centre, even the Ministry of Finance and Treasury, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that kind of thing. So you haven't, you've seen the partners are more focussing on the development side of things, like, for example, schools and dispensaries, but in building like government ministries, and that's something that you find it's [unclear - different approach]. They did it in most of the Pacific island countries. But like I've said, mostly for economic reasons, every country is running for China at the moment.
Robin: Vanuatu's economy is really dominated by agriculture, with some tourism, and the tourism aspect is constrained both by connectivity and by, I guess, labour supply issues within Vanuatu. Do you think the government is moving in the right direction to diversify the economy away from agriculture?
Gregoire: They do. I mean, if you look at the plans and policies that the government is using at the moment, the focus is more on growing the productive sector. I mean, in the past years, they have greater focus on private-sector-led growth. But as we discussed through the update this week, if you look at the RSE [Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme] and SWP [Seasonal Worker Programme] and PALM [Pacific Australia Labour Mobility], they are hitting away the resources of the smaller countries, like Vanuatu, for example, in terms of the skills. You go back to the rural villages at the moment, you will hardly see any young people there. Most of the energetic young people in the rural areas, they move. They go for the RSE and SWP and seasonal workers.
So I can — like we heard from Fiji yesterday, there's a skills shortage in the countries at the moment, which affects private sector and the public sectors as well. So it's a similar experience that is affecting our economy. In Vanuatu, we put more focus, government put more focus on the productive sector, agriculture sector, of course. I mean, you're talking about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that depends mainly on subsistence farming. There's no commercial farming there, which needs more people to grow more production in order to supply the markets. But at the moment, we don't have that labour to do that. So it's a kind of throwing a balance between seasonal workers and the priorities of the country to grow the economy.
Robin: And we are speaking in the margins of the Pacific Update here in Suva, and we've heard a lot about the citizenship-by-investment scheme in some of the presentations. And there's a diversity of views about this. It certainly plays an important role in Vanuatu's government revenues. It's varied, but it can be 20 to 30% in some years. At the same time, we've had the news this week of the embarrassing case of Andrew Tate having purchased a visa, and someone in the Vanuatu government has said, oops, we're looking at that, having been in the system. What's your perspective on this scheme? Is it something that can be operated in a way that contributes to revenue without damaging Vanuatu's international reputation?
Gregoire: It is. I mean, look at the way the citizenship through passport — New Zealand did it, Australia did it, and most of the countries they did it. But going back to the Vanuatu case, it was in a desperate situation. Straight after Cyclone Pam, they had a shortfall in the budget, and then they looked into how they can fill that shortfall with their [resort to] the citizenship through cash contributions. And that's where, without realising, it became a source of corrupted activities in the country.
But the modern way of doing that is you find a lot of developed countries tying it towards investment. You invest so many millions in a bigger project which generates a lot of employment opportunities and has a potential of generating tax in many forms, in many ways, and that's a more better way of doing it, tying the passport with an investment, a bigger investment that has a bigger impact in the economy.
So now it's become a very controversial issue now to do that, then in turning the clock around, simply because you have a lot of political leaders who have been involved in these schemes, and they are part of the schemes, and they benefited from the scheme. So to change the narrative on the system and approach would take a while, and it needs strong leaders who have a different mindset of how they can turn things around.
But it's become a real issue in the country also with global and international community, even AML [Anti-Money Laundering], CDF [Combating the Financing of Terrorism] rules. Things have become more tougher nowadays. The expectation that they would get more money through passports, it's no longer there. They've seen a bigger reduction in terms of revenue that comes through the citizenship, and that's simply because a lot of international institutions and companies, even the countries, are tightening up the rules and the systems. We've heard about CBR [correspondent banking relationships]. So that's one of the greatest challenges that most of the countries who are involved in the citizenship programs have found. So these are some of the challenges of citizenship passports.
Robin: And it's worth noting that one of the perspectives we've heard at this conference is that donors should consider supporting Vanuatu to increase the integrity of the scheme. I'd be surprised if any do, because they're so risk averse. But you know, in theory, that's one course of action.
I wanted to ask about labour mobility and Vanuatu's participation in temporary migration schemes like the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme that Australia operates, or the New Zealand equivalent, or the Pacific Engagement Visa, which is a more permanent pathway. I have the sense that the Vanuatu government has been a bit ambivalent about participation in these schemes. It's happening, but I think there are concerns about brain drain, impacts on families and so forth. Can you elaborate a bit on that?
Gregoire: Yeah, when we started developing this program, there were a lot of people involved. But from the policy perspective side, when we were at the policy and planning, the rationale behind that was developing it as a capacity-building exercise, where you send the farmers to Australia and people to New Zealand and Australia. They go there and learn the skills and come back with a small dollars that they earn in Australia or New Zealand. And then if they want to start, if they have enough to start up small businesses — and then if they don't have enough cash to do that, then the government is also establishing an Agriculture Rural Development Bank where they can go and borrow at a lower interest rate to complement the money that they bring in from Australia and New Zealand to grow the industry. And I can — it falls under the policy of promoting the productive sector, agriculture sector, and encouraging everyone into business activities.
And then as times go by, the objective was diverted to something else. And now we've seen more one-way directions, people flocking in and flocking out. And the idea is you go once, and when you come back, you start in your own business and growing your — whether you grow your taro, cassava or whatever, and start selling it to the market, kind of thing. And that, to give the opportunity for everyone to go and get the money. And if they don't have enough, the government has additional support to Agriculture, Rural Development Bank, which they can borrow, and then they can start their own businesses. That's basically the idea, Robin, but now it's something else. The story changed, which is very sad. I mean, for me, it's sad for me personally, because that's not the way we wanted it at the very beginning.
Now people are going to get the money there, come back and go back, and then without really developing the country. We've heard about the remittances, but the question is, how much does that contribute to the economy of the country? Maybe individuals, they can say, yeah, it's improved my wellbeing. I have good accommodation, a good house. I am able to send my kids to school. But if you look at the impact as a nation, how does that contribute to the economy of the country? So we heard from [a representative from] Britain, and they argued about the shortage of skills, which is really affecting the private sector. In most of the small island states, you have a small size of the private sector. When people are disappearing, skills are moving, it's really hurt the economy.
Robin: Is that a perspective that has been articulated back to the Australian government by the Vanuatu government?
Gregoire: It depends on who talked to Australia, Robin. Like I've said, we started differently, and then the story changed, and the approach changed, and now it becomes a political propaganda. Most of the politicians use it — you send in more, you send in more people from your area, you have a good chance of getting back to the elections. And that's how they're using it. So it is very sad. The way we designed it was more like upskilling the farmers. But I can — it's not like comparing apple with apple, because if you look at the industry from Australia and New Zealand, it's totally different from our agriculture sector in Vanuatu.
Like, for example, apples. We don't grow apples in Vanuatu. Maybe piggeries and poultry probably would be relevant. But now it is just like going into any, anything, any horticulture industry. But that's why they designed it like you could specifically do one of the things that you want to get skills in and then come back and implement it in the country. And something that should be part of the pilot or discussion between Australia and the nations, together with the interest of building up the capacity of our agriculture sector.
Robin: Now I know you're no longer with the MSG Secretariat, but I just wanted to ask a couple of questions about your experience with the MSG during your time there. I guess first, how successful do you think the MSG has been as a force for economic development and integration within Melanesia?
Gregoire: Well, my personal opinion, and that's the reason why I always want to go back — I want to go back to MSG. I'm applying for the position at MSG simply because MSG has a big potential, and we've seen through the years, there's a lot of politics into it which really affected and impacted on the Secretariat's capacity to help the leaders fulfilling the political development and economic and social aspirations.
On the political side, you know, the rationale of setting up the MSG is to make sure that we help our neighbouring countries to have their political independence. On the economic side, there's promoting trade within the MSG countries. We have the ministerial sports meeting, meeting this week in Suva to talk about sports. And we also have [part of] arts and culture, which is the most important part of it. I think in the past, they have been advancing a lot of certain objectives, but because of the constraints that the Secretariat has in terms of the resources, human and finance, some of these visions or dreams, they haven't come to the stage where the leaders expected or the members expected. And that's where we are hoping that there is a need for looking at the capacity of the Secretariat and how the Secretariat can be self-sustained in order to fulfil some of these development aspirations.
And one of them last year — I mean, when I was with MSG, a good example is we have, now we have national universities, our own national universities. You have Fiji National University, you have Solomon Islands National University, you have National University of Vanuatu, you have University of Papua New Guinea and many others. So for the first time, we bring together the vice-chancellors of those universities in Port Vila and the idea is, okay, discussing how they can have a collaborative mechanism between them in terms of stepping up their resources.
Like, for example, if Vanuatu needs some lecturers, probably Papua New Guinea can help, or even Fiji, or even Solomon Islands. So, and then creating the mechanisms where they're helping each other. But not only that, but they also [have] the opportunity for sharing knowledge and experiences in between the citizens of the region. That's one. And we also created what we call similar things like APEC, working with private sector and business communities within the MSG regions, where they can move freely between the MSG countries to do the businesses.
Robin: So there is an MSG formal trade agreement in place, I guess?
Gregoire: Yes, we have that agreement in place. But of course, it's very difficult to implement that. But there are some of the common things that can be done. Some of the things will take time because of sovereignty issues, that people have different interests and different things. But there are a lot of things that can be done through that trade lens. And even now, we have the security strategy in place, and that's one of the things that can hold people together, on common interest things like transnational crime and other things.
Robin: And do you see the MSG as operating within the broader framework of the Pacific Islands Forum with consistent priorities, or is there a tension?
Gregoire: They have what we call 2038, Prosperity For All Plan at the Pacific Island Forum. They have the 2050 Strategy. Now, I think there was a discussion last year to review that strategy and bringing it in harmony, or in line with the 2050 Strategy. And the way — one of, well, when I was there, our thinking is to frame MSG not as a competitor, but as a sub-region of the regional architecture, complementing or adding value to the regional architecture. And that's where I think the Forum is now reviewing the regional architecture.
And the discussion is, okay, how can we fit in sub-regional mechanisms into it, like Melanesian Spearhead Group? You have Micronesian nations. You have Polynesians as well. So how can you fit in some of these sub-regional groupings into that regional architecture? Not as a competitor, like I said, but how can they add value to that regional objectives and visions?
Robin: Maybe this is a sensitive question, but I think if Australians are aware of the MSG, they remember that it used to be about decolonisation. In fact, it's much broader than that. And since 2015, Indonesia has been an associate member of the MSG. So what sort of position do members take now on independence movements, whether it's the Papuan provinces of Indonesia, or whether it's Bougainville? Or is there a more nuanced approach these days to those?
Gregoire: It is. The [goal] is still there, the rationale or the objectives of helping some of our members, or neighbouring states or countries, to have the political freedom and liberty. I think it's still there, but the approach has changed. You've seen Indonesia is now an observer within the MSG councils, and the recent rationale for that is looking to advance our interest in bringing West Papua to achieving their political liberation. We need to dialogue with the Indonesian government. We need to work with the Indonesian government, and that's particularly the rationale of bringing Indonesia in.
But it was more through the lens of the economy and trade that member countries are interested, without using the politics as a barrier or as an obstacle for countries to trade with Indonesia. The approach is now changing, so they're using more economic lens rather than political lens, and working with the Indonesian government. So I think that's where I think a lot of member countries share the same position. Although Vanuatu took a very hard position in the past, and now it's like slowly keeping in [step] with it and working with Indonesia in many development aspects. Which is, to me, I think it's a changing paradigm of how they do things. No longer like in the past, where you have to take a hard route, not talking to each other and fighting each other. But I think the approach now is changing. People are finding different ways of doing things.
Robin: Now, I wanted to finish with a question about climate change. So I think it's quite well known now that Vanuatu has really spearheaded the process of seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on UN member states' obligations in relation to climate change. This started with first achieving a UN resolution, and then there has been a process of submissions to the ICJ. They are currently deliberating, and I think their opinion is due actually quite soon. And I believe you led the Vanuatu delegation to the submission to the ICJ?
Gregoire: Yeah, I led the MSG delegation to the ICJ. I mean, the reason why they included the MSG is simply because that's the only perfect forum to represent the voice of the voiceless there. For example, New Caledonia, they don't have the voice there. And similarly, some of the countries that the MSG seems to represent. So yeah, so we joined — the leaders agreed that was in 2023 for MSG to make a submission on behalf of the members. But not preventing the members to submit their own submissions. But as a group, MSG is representing the other member countries to make a submission to the ICJ in 2023. And then we work with Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia, collecting the inputs and making our submission to the ICJ. So that's how we participated in it.
Robin: And what motivated the Vanuatu government, of all of the Pacific governments, what might have motivated Vanuatu to play such a prominent role in relation to the ICJ case?
Gregoire: I guess, like I mentioned earlier on, we are on the Ring of Fire, and we are prone to disaster, and we face a lot of the impact of disaster, especially cyclones, also volcanic eruptions and other, now earthquakes. And that's basically, if you look at in terms of the GDP, how much we lost, and also in terms of the cost of the recovery, the cost is very high. So, and that's what prompted Vanuatu to take the lead. We need to do something. We need to do something about how can bigger countries recognise the impact of climate change that we have on our economy. It's about existential threat to the livelihoods of the people. How can international countries, bigger countries recognise that and play a role in supporting the smaller countries?
Of course, it's very difficult for smaller countries to access some of the climate finance. It takes like ages. We had a lot of commitments in the area of climate change, but to access those resources, it's quite challenging.
Robin: Okay. Well, thank you very much. That's all I wanted to ask. It's been very convenient that you're not in the Vanuatu government or the MSG at the moment, but it sounds like you might be back in the system sooner or later. So I appreciate your talking to me today.
Gregoire: Thank you. Thank you, Robin. I hope I have answered your questions rightly.
Amita Monterola: Devpolicy Talks is the podcast of the Australian National University's Development Policy Centre. Our producers are Robin Davies, Amita Monterola and Finn Clark. You can read and subscribe to our daily blogs on aid, international development, and the Pacific at devpolicy.org, and find the transcript and show notes for this episode on our website. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter. Send us feedback or ideas for episodes to devpolicy@anu.edu.au. Join us in a fortnight for the next episode of Devpolicy Talks.