These were the kinds of activities that PIPA was not capable, in terms of finance and staffing, of handling itself. Thus the Secretariat's role was one of collating material, organising other bodies to under take studies, handling inquiries, and carrying out research into smaller subjects.
At the Eighth Session (1973) it was agreed that 'logically the 3
functions of PIPA should be absorbed by SPEC' . As an interim measure a 'PIPA Desk' was set up within SPEC on 31 July 1973. The final con ference was held in Rarotonga on 15 March 1974. A formal resolution terminated the Constitution and 'it is now left to SPEC, as part of its own functions, to carry on the work for which PIPA was originally
4
intended'. There is no evidence of PIPA's activities or importance slackening prior to its termination. In fact the evidence points the other way. Several developments which occurred in its last two or three years of operation indicate the increasing importance that the Pacific states attached to the organisation. It was only in June 1970 that the organisation had adopted a constitution. It came into
operation in January 1971. This was not the action of a body that was
1 PIPA, Seventh Session: Record of Proceedings (1972), p.10. 2 Ibid. , p.6.
PIPA, Eighth Session: Record of Proceedings (1973), p.5. Correspondence with Bruce Davidson, Research Officer, SPEC, 24 April 1974.
dying. In April 1971, a high-level committee was formed consisting of the heads of government of the member states. Once again this does not seem to indicate any flagging of interest. Even at the June 1973 meeting of PIPA at which it was decided that its functions should be absorbed by SPEC there is no evidence of any lessening in activity: technical committees were appointed, the banana and coconut situation was discussed, and such subjects as shipping, bulk purchasing, regional copra processing, and the pest and disease survey, were again on the agenda.'*'
The increasing importance attached to PIPA in the years prior to its termination supports the view that the organisation formed a
significant stage in the evolutionary development of indigenous regional ism. Its members agreed that it would be logical for its functions to be taken over by the new regional organisation, SPEC, which had
basically the same membership but which had much wider functions and purposes. The Chairman of the 1973 PIPA meeting, A.L. Phillips of Western Samoa, said:
. . . subsequent to the formation of PIPA there have been other developments aimed at achieving even more meaningful co-operation which would facilitate more comprehensive
approaches to the region's development and its predicaments. In this process PIPA may be observed to be somewhat eclipsed either partly or totally. Should this in fact be so I do not believe it is something that we should regret. On the contrary such situations are to be expected as the region evolves mechanisms for greater and more effective co operation. I believe PIPA has played a legitimate and valuable part in this evolution.2
2
PIPA, Eighth Session: Record, of Proceedings (1973) . Ibid. , p . 2.
The central argument of this chapter is that institutional developments can be seen as important expressions of the Islanders' desire to assert indigenous control over regional decision-making and activity. The creation of PIPA supports this proposition. It was not created merely to work on practical problems of development,
though this was the stated objective. Most of the activities under taken by PIPA could have been approached through the SPC, and yet a decision was taken to establish a new organisation. The creation of PIPA can therefore be regarded as being, at least partly, an effort to take control of regional programmes. It was an exercise in self- determination. It was of the utmost importance to Island leaders that PIPA was their organisation - created by them, financed by them, and having only Island countries as members. It is suggested then that to the Island leaders, PIPA was as important as a symbol of indigenous assertion as it was a means of solving practical problems.
Prince Tu'ipelehake, Prime Minister of Tonga, referred to PIPA as being, in its day, the 'only one [organisation] of its kind which spoke with a true island accent'. He did not object to PIPA being subsumed by SPEC because he regarded them both as 'speaking the same language'/ a reference to the fact that SPEC, like PIPA before it, was an indigenous organisation. The importance of the all-island
aspect of PIPA was also stressed by Tupua Tamasese Lealofi IV, then Prime Minister of Western Samoa. In his closing speech to the 1971 PIPA Conference he said:
1 See The 5th South Pacific Forum: Summary Record and Final Press Communique, Rarotonga, 20-22 March 1974, p.7.
This is the strength of our small body . . . this is an association of islanders, created by islanders, and successful only from the efforts of such.-*-
For Albert Henry, Premier of the Cook Islands, PIPA was important as a symbol of Polynesian assertion in particular:
. . . for 200 years the white man has been exploiting the resources of the Pacific, but now Polynesians are working together for Polynesians.^
As PIPA was the first regional organisation created by Island leaders its establishment must be regarded as an important development in
relation to indigenous moves to take control of the regional structures. It also derives importance from the fact that it formed a stepping stone to the creation of a more significant indigenous organisation with
wider objectives, the South Pacific Forum.
3. THE SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM
The South Pacific Forum was set up in August 1971 to provide the heads of the newly independent Pacific states with a forum to discuss
3
'matters of general interest'. Its creation was spurred by the
frustrations felt with the limits placed on the scope of discussion in the South Pacific Commission. As we have seen, the Canberra Agreement limited the SPC's scope to economic and social development. Political matters had been purposely excluded. This began to annoy Island
delegates to South Pacific Conferences during the 1960s. Several
PIPA, Sixth Session: Reeord of Proceedings (1971), p.24. 2
'Pacific Leaders Make Nukualofa a Get-Together to Remember', PIM (May 1971), p.22.
3
Ratu Mara, The South Pacific Forum, Address delivered at the University of the South Pacific, Suva, 25 August 1972, p.5.
attempts were made to introduce political issues. At the 1962 Conference, for example, Netherlands New Guinea delegates attempted to raise the subject of the Indonesian 'invasion' of their country. The Chairman ruled against hearing the issue in view of its political nature. It was reported that this ruling 'caused mutterings of
dissent'.^ A more recent example was the attempt to introduce the subject of the French nuclear tests at the 1970 Conference. The issue was raised repeatedly by Island delegates until the French Commissioner,
2