Having fallen into disrepute for being labelled a “tax haven”, Samoa's attempts to redeem itself in the digital age are being frustrated by lapsing commitments to cybersecurity and combatting transnational crime. 

These are the findings of new research from three universities in Australia and New Zealand – University of Adelaide, The Australian National University and Massey University that map Pacific regional security cooperation. 

The interactive digital map was published this week by the Asia and Pacific Policy Society. 

Based on the number of memberships held by Samoa in regional organisations committed to fight transnational crimes and maintain cyber security, Samoa falls behind Tonga, Fiji and Australia. 

Tonga, Fiji and Australia hold membership in all nine organisations listed on the map: Pacific Aviation Safety Office (P.A.S.O.), Pacific Immigration Development Community (P.I.D.C.), Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime (T.S.O.C.) Pacific Task Force, Oceania Customs Organisation (O.C.O.), Pacific Island Chiefs of Police (P.I.C.P.), Asia Pacific Group Money Laundering (A.P.G.M.L..), Joint Heads of Pacific Security (J.Ho.P.S.), Pacific Cyber Security Operational Network (Pa.C.S.O.N.) and the Pacific Island Law Officers Network (P.I.L.O.N.).

Samoa holds membership in all but one of the organisations – Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime (T.S.O.C.) Pacific Task Force.

In February 2019, the T.S.O.C.— a four-nation taskforce involving Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga—was established to combat transnational serious and organised crime, states an Australian Federal Police report. 

The new task force is meant to “enhance operations and information sharing across the Pacific.”

“The A.F.P., Fiji Police Force, Tonga Police and New Zealand Police are working together to ensure the Pacific is not a safe haven for criminals,” the report states.

The new map also includes information on the membership of Pacific states in organisations that focus on defence, environmental and resource security and regional governance.

Creators of the map explain: “Much like the region itself, the security infrastructure in the Pacific Island region is vast and diverse, and for the first time this complex patchwork of organisations has been collated and mapped, thanks to researchers at the University of Adelaide, The Australian National University, and Massey University,” states a 10 June announcement from the society.

“In the 2018 Boe Declaration on Regional Security, Pacific Islands Forum (P.I.F.) leaders recognised that the region is facing ‘an increasingly complex regional security environment driven by multifaceted security challenges’.  This raises the question of how Pacific Island states will respond to these wide-ranging, but frequently interconnected, challenges, including what role regional security cooperation can play.”

Security cooperation, the society explains, is occurring in the context of ‘a dynamic geopolitical environment leading to an increasingly crowded and complex region’ – involving Pacific states, regional organisations, partner states, and international bodies. 

“The forms that security cooperation takes, and the targeting of resources devoted to it, are driven both by partners and by Pacific Island governments themselves. Security cooperation frequently involves the piecing together of state, bilateral, and multilateral initiatives, as well as ongoing or crisis-responsive meetings, programs of work, and informal communities,” the society says.

“[N]o formal, region-wide collective security agreement exists in the Pacific Island region. Rather there is a combination of bilateral arrangements both between Pacific Island states and their security partners, as well as multilateral forums. 

This means the security architecture of the Pacific Islands is a patchwork of interactions that fluctuates depending on geopolitical dynamics and the priorities of the individual Pacific states. 

"Due to this loose style of security cooperation, when we mapped such initiatives for our recent research report we found that there was no study that aggregated regional security organisations.”