The recent climate migration deal signed by Australia and Tuvalu in November 2023 has been touted as providing a "lifeline" to the people of the South Pacific nation who face existential threats from rising sea levels and climate change.

The Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty is the world's first bilateral agreement on climate mobility. Under the treaty, Australia will grant permanent residence to up to 280 Tuvaluans facing dangers posed by climate change each year.

In exchange, Tuvalu will not enter into any security or defense agreements with other countries without Australian approval. In addition, Australia will defend Tuvalu from foreign threats and provide assistance following natural disasters.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the deal groundbreaking and a "comprehensive partnership" that respected sovereignty.

However, others have criticized it as neo-colonial, especially for the control it grants Australia over Tuvalu's security, maritime zones and resources.

Groundbreaking or neo-colonial?

There have long been heated debates about the idea of such an arrangement, and some see the treaty as an important step.

As the consequences of climate change become more severe, the international community needs to protect populations who face becoming stateless as their countries literally sink into the ocean.

However, some see this deal as yet another example of western countries exerting colonial influence over others. Former Tuvalu Prime Minister, Enele Sopoaga, turned down a 2019 proposal to offer Australian citizenship to climate refugees from island states in the South Pacific in exchange for granting Australia control of their exclusive economic zones and territorial seas. He called the proposal neo-colonial and an example of "imperial thinking."

Sopoaga has reiterated those concerns regarding the Falepili Union and accused the current Prime Minister of auctioning Tuvalu's sovereignty for money.

There were also concerns about the lack of consultation with Tuvaluans, the use of this treaty to counter China's growing influence in the Pacific and how it is a poor example of climate justice.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.