While the Pacific Islands Forum ended a week of talks with a sense of satisfaction, any sense of comfort – including from New Zealand – cannot afford to curdle into complacency, Sam Sachdeva writes
As leaders put down their talking points and picked up bottles of Fiji Bitter – or cups of kava – at the conclusion of the Pacific Islands Forum, the prevailing mood seemed to be one of relief as much as anything else.
After the disarray of recent years, there must have been fears about all that could go wrong as members gathered in Suva this week.
But it was largely smooth sailing outside the organisational chaos that comes with events organised around ‘Pacific time’.
Even the contentious midweek address of US vice-president Kamala Harris, breaking with usual protocol regarding the role of non-members, passed without any public objections from leaders.
Whether that holds may depend on China’s response. The superpower has already shown it has no intention of backing down, holding its own Pacific event on the same day of the leaders’ retreat.
The first China-Pacific dialogue took place in May last year - several months before the forum week of 2021 - with eight Pacific leaders and a suite of additional envoys taking part in the virtual talks.
There was no such turnout this time around, hardly surprising given the deliberate scheduling conflict.
Instead, Chinese state media said “political party leaders from Pacific Island countries” and business representatives attended - the former largely lesser-known figures, and the identities of the latter left unclear.
If the goal was to peel off Pacific leaders from the forum talks, it was an outright failure - but it is hard to see how Chinese diplomats could have ever thought that would prove successful, and equally difficult to figure out another rationale.
“If anybody knows what we want and what we need and what our priorities are, it's not other people – it's us, and so it was on that basis that the region did not accept that approach [from China].” – Henry Puna, Pacific Islands Forum secretary-general
It may have been a simple reminder to forum members and the US that it is willing to set up its own systems when shut out of existing frameworks, although offering “counter-programming” to the forum seems unwise given the Pacific's irritation at Beijing’s approach to its regional security proposal as articulated by forum secretary-general Henry Puna.
“Their foreign minister, when they came here a couple of months ago, they came here with their own prepared outcomes document and it was that that our members reacted against…
“If anybody knows what we want and what we need and what our priorities are, it's not other people - it's us, and so it was on that basis that the region did not 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 cited national day celebrations this week for his inability to explain its departure in person at the leaders’ meeting, but the country’s ambassador to China David Teaabo found time to take part in the China-run dialogue.
Teeabo was quoted by the CCP-run China Daily as “express[ing] gratitude to China for assisting his country's infrastructure projects under the framework of the BRI [Belt and Road Initiative]”.
Chinese officials have vehemently denied claims their country had a role in Kiribati’s withdrawal, but while the intra-regional problems cited by Maamau cannot be brushed off, it is fair to wonder whether the Asian superpower’s strong support made a departure more palatable.
The door remains firmly open, with leaders saying “the people and Government of Kiribati will always be a part of the Blue Pacific Family”, but the consensus from observers on the sidelines in Suva was that a swift re-entry is off the table.
Over the longer term, though, there is a view from some that the country will find its way back. China may in theory be able to provide the i-Kiribati with plenty of money to fund its own programmes - but the benefits of being in the room as the Pacific’s peak body hashes out a collective response to its most pressing issues can be less easily replaced.
As for New Zealand’s role in the region and at the forum, the picture is more complex than it might appear 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 polarised, she remains a drawcard abroad, as evidenced by the excitement of young employees at Suva’s seed bank and the warm applause to her remarks at a talanoa (dialogue) on leadership.
That has helped to give her Government the benefit of the doubt on some issues, as has a warm relationship with Fijian leader Frank Bainimarama.
New Zealand also flew somewhat beneath the radar this week compared with fellow trans-Tasman traveller Australia, as the new administration across the ditch was eager to prove its climate credentials and willingness to meet the Pacific’s needs.
But there is a possibility that sense of comfort could curdle into complacency - not in recognising 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 the need for environmental safeguards. Left unstated was the fact New Zealand itself does not have an outright ban on the practice, while the Government has faced criticism for a “weak” stance on the world stage.
One minister, Phil Twyford, last year spoke about establishing a “Pacific preference” in immigration settings to offer more visa opportunities for skilled workers from the region, but Ardern seemed to suggest any changes could be some time away.
New Zealand does have natural advantages when it comes to working within the Pacific, but without sufficient care they could easily be squandered.
Then there is the Government’s ‘move’ from a Pacific reset to Pacific resilience in late 2021, which in truth seems 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 ‘consideration’ of new approaches to aid, with less travel and more local delivery as well as closer collaboration with other donors.
But aid organisations and other NGOs were raising the same issues at least 18 months before Covid struck, and in reality for much longer, so why is it taking so long for that message to get through?
New Zealand does have natural advantages when it comes to working within the Pacific, but without sufficient care they could easily be squandered.
The good news is that there will be plenty of opportunities for Ardern and her Government, as well as their eventual successors, to show they are up to the task.
From Vanuatu’s movement to get a legal judgment on climate change in court, to Tuvalu’s argument for sinking states to retain their sovereignty, and the forum’s work on making their lofty 2050 strategy a reality, the support of larger nations will be crucial.
