Remark
As the Pacific Islands Forum concluded a week of discussions with a sense of satisfaction, any sense of comfort — including from New Zealand — can’t afford to solidify in complacency, writes Sam Sachdeva
When the leaders put down their topics of discussion and picked up bottles of Fiji Bitter – or cups of kava – at the end of the Pacific Islands Forum, the prevailing mood seemed as much of a relief as anything else.
After the disarray of recent years, there must have been fears about everything that could go wrong as members gathered in Suva this week.
But for the most part, things went smoothly outside of the organizational chaos that accompanies events organized around ‘Pacific time’.
Even US Vice President Kamala Harris’s controversial midweek speech, which broke with customary protocol regarding the role of non-members, was passed without any public backlash from leaders.
Whether or not that is the case depends on China’s response. The superpower has already shown that it has no intention of pulling back and holding its own event in the Pacific the same day the leaders pull out.
The first China-Pacific dialogue took place last May – several months before the 2021 forum week – with eight leaders in the Pacific and a series of additional envoys participating in the virtual talks.
There was no such turnout this time, unsurprisingly given the deliberate scheduling conflict.
Instead, Chinese state media said “Pacific political party leaders” and business representatives — the former largely lesser-known figures — were in attendance, and the identity of the latter remained unclear.
If the goal was to pull the Pacific leaders off the forum talks, it was an outright failure — but it’s hard to see how Chinese diplomats could have ever imagined this to be successful, and equally hard to see. to think of another reason.
“If anyone knows what we want and what we need and what our priorities are, it’s not other people – it’s us, and on that basis the region didn’t accept that approach [from China].”
– Henry Puna, Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum
It may have been a simple reminder to forum members and the US that it is willing to set up its own systems when kept outside of existing frameworks, though offering “counterprogramming” to the forum seems unwise given the Pacific’s irritation over the Beijing’s approach to its regional security proposal as articulated by Forum Secretary General Henry Puna.
“Their foreign minister, when they came here a few months ago, came here with their own prepared results paper and it was our members reacting against…
“If anyone knows what we want and what we need and what our priorities are, it’s not other people — it’s us, and on that basis the region didn’t accept that approach.”
But a number of countries are accepting individual approaches from China, including the forum’s most recently departed member.
Kiribati President Taneti Maamau called this week’s National Day celebrations due to his inability to explain the departure in person at the leaders’ meeting, but the country’s ambassador to China, David Teaabo, found time to participate in the China-led dialogue.
Teeabo was quoted as “express” by the CCP-run China Daily[ing] gratitude to China for assisting its country’s infrastructure projects under the BRI [Belt and Road Initiative]”.
Chinese officials have vehemently denied claims that their country played a role in Kiribati’s withdrawal, but while the intra-regional problems cited by Maamau cannot be brushed aside, we wonder whether the strong support of the Asian powerhouse made a departure more enjoyable.
The door remains firmly open, with leaders saying “the people and government of Kiribati will always be part of the Blue Pacific Family,” but the consensus of observers on the sidelines in Suva was that a quick return from the table is not possible. .
In the longer term, however, there is the view of some that the country will find its way back. China could theoretically be able to provide the i-Kiribati with a lot of money to fund its own programs – but the benefits of being in the room while the Pacific’s top body is a collective response to the most pressing problems works out are less easy to replace .
As for New Zealand’s role in the region and in the forum, the picture is more complex than it appears at first glance.
What is undeniable is the value of Jacinda Ardern’s reputation and charisma to Aotearoa’s own brand. While perceptions of the prime minister at home have become increasingly polarized, she remains a draw abroad, as evidenced by the excitement of young employees at Suva’s seed bank and the warm applause for her comments during a talanoa (dialogue) on leadership.
That has helped her government get the benefit of the doubt on some counts, as well as a warm relationship with Fijian leader Frank Bainimarama.
New Zealand also flew somewhat under the radar this week compared to fellow trans-Tasman traveler Australia, as the new government across the street was eager to prove its climate credentials and willingness to meet the needs of the Pacific.
But there’s a possibility that a sense of comfort could lead to complacency — not in recognizing the climate, geopolitical and other issues at stake, but in strengthening the relationships needed to address them.
Asked several times during the week about a push from some forum members for a moratorium on deep-sea mining, Ardern noted that environmental safeguards are needed. What was not mentioned was the fact that New Zealand itself does not have an outright ban on the practice, while the government has was criticized for a “weak” stance on the world stage.
A minister, Phil Twyford, spoke last year about instituting a ‘Pacific preference’ in immigration environments to provide more visa options for skilled workers from the region, but Ardern seemed to suggest that any changes could stay away for some time.
New Zealand has natural advantages when it comes to working in the Pacific, but without proper care, they can easily be wasted.
Then there’s the government’s “movement” from a Pacific reset to Pacific resilience in late 2021, which in reality appears to be a reiteration of the principles outlined by Winston Peters last term.
In a recent briefing to MPs, foreign affairs officials spoke about the Covid-19 pandemic, forcing them to consider new approaches to aid, with less travel and more local delivery, as well as closer cooperation with other donors.
But aid organizations and other NGOs were address the same issues at least 18 months before Covid hit, and in reality much longer, so why is it taking so long for that message to get through?
New Zealand has natural advantages when it comes to working in the Pacific, but without proper care, they can easily be wasted.
The good news is that there will be ample opportunities for Ardern and her government, as well as any successors to show they are up to the task.
From Vanuatu’s move to get a legal verdict on climate change in court, to Tuvalu’s argument for sinking states to preserve their sovereignty, and the forum’s work to make their lofty 2050 strategy a reality, the support of larger countries will be crucial.