Grassroots movements and Pacific civil society generally view European engagement with a critical and complex lens that contains elements of all three: supportive in terms of climate and development aid; opportunistic regarding strategic geopolitical competition; and, most significantly, neo-colonial in its underlying economic models and lack of local consultation.

The perspective is defined by a deep-seated suspicion of external powers stemming from the region's colonial past and the existential threats posed by climate change, which they argue, are largely caused by historical emitters like Europe.

The Dominant Critique: Neo-Colonial Extraction and Double Standards

For Pacific grassroots movements, the accusation of neo-colonialism is the most potent critique. This view argues that European engagement often serves European self-interest under the guise of partnership.

Economic Neo-Colonialism in Fisheries

The most direct and tangible critique of European neo-colonialism revolves around fisheries agreements.

• Extraction of Resources: While the EU has "Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements" (SFPAs) with some Pacific nations, grassroots groups and environmental NGOs frequently argue that these are essentially payments for access to resource exploitation rather than true partnerships. The substantial profits are accrued by the Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs), including European fleets, while the Pacific nations receive a fraction of the value.

• Depletion and Livelihoods: Critics argue that European fishing practices, sometimes involving massive purse seiners and Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), contribute to the depletion of regional tuna stocks, thereby threatening the food security and subsistence livelihoods of local communities. This mirrors the historical colonial practice of extracting natural wealth without providing commensurate benefit or ensuring sustainability for the local population.

Infrastructure and "Global Gateway" Skepticism

The EU's flagship infrastructure investment strategy, the Global Gateway, is often viewed with skepticism, not as a purely supportive development tool, but as an opportunistic geopolitical response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

• Top-Down, Strategic Focus: Civil society groups frequently point out that the Global Gateway is a top-down, strategic framework designed primarily to secure Europe's supply chains, critical raw materials, and strategic autonomy. This focus can lead to investments in "bankable mega-projects" that favor European businesses and financial institutions over small-scale, local, and community-driven projects.

• Lack of Local Voice: A key concern is the lack of transparency and genuine consultation with grassroots organizations, local authorities, and Indigenous groups. Civil society engagement is often seen as ad hoc and uneven, with decisions concentrated in the hands of central governments, EU delegations, and private sector financial institutions. This approach, which bypasses local governance and knowledge, is seen as perpetuating colonial-era power dynamics.

The Supportive Side: Climate Action and Development Aid

Despite the harsh critiques, grassroots movements do recognize and welcome Europe's constructive contributions, particularly in non-traditional security domains.

Leadership on Climate Change

Europe is often seen as a crucial supportive ally on the existential threat of climate change.

• Financial Commitment: The EU is a major provider of development assistance to the Pacific, much of which is earmarked for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and renewable energy. This funding is essential for the survival of vulnerable island nations.

• A "High Ambition" Partner: Unlike Australia, which has historically faced heavy criticism from Pacific leaders over its fossil fuel policies, the EU's strong, proactive stance in global climate negotiations, its emphasis on the 1.5°C limit, and its overall political backing for the Pacific's climate goals position it as a supportive diplomatic partner.

Alignment with Democratic Values

For local NGOs focused on governance and human rights, the EU's traditional emphasis on a rules-based international order, democracy, and human rights is seen as a positive counterweight to engagements with less democratic external powers. The EU's aid programming has historically been more transparent and better integrated with local civil society compared to other major players, though this is evolving under the new strategic initiatives.

The Opportunistic Dimension: Geopolitical Competition

The resurgence of European interest in the Pacific is widely perceived as opportunistic, driven by the region's newfound geopolitical significance rather than altruism.

• The "Indo-Pacific" Framing: Grassroots leaders are wary of having their homelands framed primarily through the geopolitical lens of the "Indo-Pacific," a concept they see as a strategic manipulation by major powers (including the US, Australia, and European states). They fear their core issues—namely climate change and self-determination—will be sidelined in favor of military and security interests.

• The China Factor: European engagement is correctly interpreted as a desire to provide a "values-based alternative" to China's model. While this gives the Pacific leverage, local groups reject the notion that they must choose sides. They see external partners, European or otherwise, vying for influence in a classic great power competition. Their core message is: "We are not a battleground for your strategic interests."

A Conditional and Cautionary Welcome

The grassroots view of European engagement is thus a conditional and highly cautionary welcome.

• Supportive but with Strings: Europe is a welcome partner on climate and human development, but this support is often seen as a necessary form of atonement by historical emitters.

• Neo-Colonial Core: The economic heart of the relationship, especially in resource sectors like fishing, is still seen as a form of neo-colonial exploitation that privileges European corporate interests over the long-term sustainable development and self-determination of the "Blue Pacific Continent."

For a European partnership to be truly seen as supportive, Pacific grassroots movements demand a fundamental shift: all engagement must be demonstrably Pacific-led, fully aligned with the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, and prioritize justice and community benefit over European strategic and commercial profit.