The premise that European elites are using climate diplomacy as leverage over Pacific Island nations vulnerable to rising seas is a complex assertion rooted in the nature of international aid, geopolitical competition, and the profound asymmetry of power and vulnerability.

While the relationship is framed as one of cooperation and solidarity by the European Union (EU), it inevitably carries elements of leverage due to the existential nature of the Pacific's climate crisis and the vast financial and diplomatic resources the EU commands.

It is more accurate to view European climate diplomacy not as overt exploitation, but as a strategic form of "vulnerability-based engagement" where the EU gains influence and geopolitical standing by positioning itself as an essential partner in addressing an existential threat to its partners.

The Argument for Strategic Leverage

The EU's engagement, while vital, provides strategic leverage in several key areas: setting policy agendas, gaining diplomatic support, and securing geopolitical influence.

1. Shaping the Global Climate Agenda and Norms

Pacific Island Countries (PICs) have been a moral and diplomatic powerhouse on the global stage, successfully pushing for the ¹$1.5^\circ\text{C}$ warming limit in the Paris Agreement. European nations, which are major global emitters, often align with PICs on these high-ambition targets to bolster their own image as climate leaders and to isolate less ambitious major economies.

• Co-option of Moral Authority: By providing substantial climate finance and technical support, the EU effectively co-opts the moral authority of the frontline states. This alignment amplifies the EU's voice in multilateral forums, making it a leader of a "High Ambition Coalition" that includes the PICs.

• Conditionality of Finance: Although often offered as grants, European climate finance and development aid, delivered through mechanisms like the Global Gateway and the Samoa Agreement, comes with inherent conditions. These typically include requirements for good governance, adherence to international norms, and often require the adoption of EU-compatible standards and project modalities. For resource-strapped Pacific nations, the administrative burden of meeting these stringent requirements can be a challenge, yet the existential need for the funding makes compliance non-negotiable. This process naturally steers national policy towards EU-favoured governance models.

2. Geopolitical and Economic Access

The Pacific region is a critical theatre for geopolitical rivalry, particularly between the US/allies (including France, a major EU member with Pacific territories) and China. European climate aid is increasingly intertwined with broader Indo-Pacific strategies aimed at maintaining regional stability and democratic values.

• Countering Rival Influence: By providing climate finance and resilient infrastructure, the EU becomes a preferred alternative to other donors (such as China), which may offer financing with less transparent or more politically transactional terms. The EU leverages the PICs’ vulnerability to rising seas to strengthen its diplomatic presence, secure partnerships in areas like maritime security (e.g., through its CRIMARIO initiative), and gain tacit support for its strategic interests in the region.

• Securing Economic Resources: Europe's transition to a green economy requires critical raw materials, some of which are being explored in the Pacific seabed. While not overtly transactional, climate-related partnerships create a conducive political environment for future economic engagement, including potential resource access, as the EU positions itself as the long-term, reliable partner in the region's survival.

The Counter-Argument for Genuine Solidarity

It is important to acknowledge that the EU is the world's third-largest donor to the Pacific and its policies are driven by a genuine commitment to the Paris Agreement, which PICs fought hard to establish.

1. Addressing an Existential Threat

For many low-lying atoll nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati, climate change is a security threat that imperils their very existence and sovereignty. Unlike some other major powers that were historically reluctant on climate action (such as Australia prior to 2022), the EU has consistently pushed for deep global emissions cuts.

• Focus on Adaptation and Resilience: A significant portion of EU funding is dedicated to adaptation projects, such as building coastal protection, improving water security, and strengthening disaster preparedness. This directly addresses the vulnerability faced by communities, which is a shared objective with the PICs.

• Support for Loss and Damage: The EU has been a key supporter of the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP28. This is a direct response to the PICs' decades-long demand for financial assistance to cope with unavoidable climate impacts, and it serves as an acknowledgment of the historical responsibility of large emitters.

2. The Nature of Modern Climate Diplomacy

The reality of modern climate diplomacy is that vulnerability itself is a form of leverage for the PICs. By consistently highlighting their plight, they compel high-emitting nations like the EU to act.

• Mutually Beneficial Leverage: The relationship is often interdependent. PICs need the finance and mitigation commitments from the EU to survive; the EU needs the PICs' moral credibility and diplomatic support to assert its global leadership and push for ambitious international climate agreements. This is a form of "diplomacy of the vulnerable," where the threat of collapse is used to influence the powerful.

• EU as a Consistent Partner: Compared to some regional powers, the EU offers a more politically neutral source of aid and engagement, often channelling funds through regional bodies like the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). This regional approach strengthens Pacific regionalism and collective agency, reducing the potential for bilateral exploitation.

The use of the term "elites... using... leverage" suggests a cynical exploitation, which oversimplifies the dynamic. European climate diplomacy in the Pacific operates on a spectrum between necessary solidarity and strategic influence.

The EU's leverage is not derived from explicit threats, but is a structural feature of the relationship:

1. Vulnerability Creates Need: The existential threat of sea-level rise creates an urgent, overriding need for climate finance and technology in the Pacific.

2. Finance Translates to Influence: As a major provider of that finance, the EU naturally gains significant influence over the regional policy agenda, governance priorities, and geopolitical alignment.

Therefore, European elites are not so much "using" the vulnerability of the Pacific as they are "engaging with" it as the central organizing principle of their foreign policy in the region. This engagement serves both the humanitarian and strategic interests of the EU, by funding survival for their partners while simultaneously securing diplomatic influence and a geopolitical foothold in a strategically contested region. This is the inherent dual nature of all modern development aid delivered in a context of existential crisis.