The Pacific Islands Forum contains so much flexing, it’s a geopolitical workout

Analysis – This week’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in Palau contains so much flexing it’s a geopolitical workout.

Palau – a republic in free association with the United States – invited Taiwan to attend, and Taiwan’s Foreign Minister, Lin Chia-lung, leapt at the opportunity.

China was appalled and warned “there would be consequence”, while Australia’s prime minister returned serve saying, “the Pacific Islands Forum determines what happens here, not any other country”.

But keeping China at bay isn’t simple with a Reuters’ report in 2018 suggesting 11 South Pacific island nations were in debt to China by around $1.3 billion, an increase from zero in the space of a decade.

That’s the context in which Prime Minister Christopher Luxon arrives in Palau – a country with close ties to the US, just after his Foreign Minister has flown out.

Winston Peters celebrated – or flexed – on social media about meeting a total of 28 forum members and dialogue partners during his three-day visit.

He also concluded his visit announcing a chunk of US money – US$60 million – was heading to the Cook Islands to help develop a port. Although, Greenpeace has called it a trojan horse to start deep sea mining.

The same amount again would provide energy support to the Pacific.

It’s the most significant investment from the US in the Pacific in years, and yet, it comes in the wake of the Trump administration removing significant amounts of aid to the Pacific.

But it’s a major win for Peters, who’s long been on a mission to increase the US presence in the region and get others to “step up”. Notably articulated during a speech in Georgetown in 2018, Peters took this message to Washington DC in March last year.

RNZ accompanied him on that trip, where he conducted “quiet diplomacy” – as he continues to do at a time when the rules-based order is under threat. His message to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was that an invisible US would create a vacuum for China.

“The Blue Continent is 1/3 of the world’s surface,” Peters said on Morning Report on Wednesday, speaking about the US investment.

“There are not enough contributors to its long-term economic and the social survival,” he said, adding he was “delighted” the US had stepped up “big time”.

You’d be forgiven for thinking Luxon was late to the Palau party, arriving days after the formalities began.

His 36 hours on the ground doesn’t leave much room for absorbing what’s taken place on the ground, or for meetings on the side, and there’s been uncertainty about which leaders will even be there to meet with.

Whilst it could be deemed a rushed visit, the fact he is coming at all is a message about the importance New Zealand places on PIF, with some other nations struggling to get top level representation to the event or deliberately choosing to snub it.

Many headlines this week regarding the forum focused particularly on the absence of Kiribati’s leader. Kiribati was also one of the two countries, along with Nauru, understood to be the reason why the forum was unable to reach consensus last month on a statement condemning a Chinese missile test into pacific waters, given its ties to China.

The strategic competition in the region is real, the strategic rivalry between the US and China as well.

So too, is the determination for a truly regional response, with Australia inking the Ocean of Peace Alliance just hours before China sent its dummy warhead into the ocean near Tuvalu.

Regarding China though, there’s a perception those relationships – and the foreign influence – are threatening the ability of the forum to function as it should.

This turbulence, absent leaders and a lack of consensus, could well be seen as a threat to the forum’s core strength – its purpose as a centralising force for Pacific nations.

Luxon – as many have before him – champions it as the means of determining “Pacific solutions to Pacific problems”.

That purpose is needed now more than ever, as the region faces the existential threat of climate change, which should be the most pressing issue on the agenda this week along with transnational crime. The United Nations said on Wednesday global warming will now inevitably overshoot the 1.5 degree Paris Agreement target.

There’s also a climate declaration to agree on, and how forum partners (such as America, China and other countries outside the Pacific) are treated in future years, with varying degrees of access based on presence and funding, according to which tier they might be assigned.

Whether the forum manages to come to an agreement on how exactly to condemn China’s missile test matters little now it’s taken so long.

Peters rejects that foreign influence would compromise the forum, but even he acknowledges the delay in reaching consensus on a statement regarding China’s missile test begs the question, “is that going to be of any importance now?”

International relations experts spoken to by RNZ suggest the threat to a functioning forum is real.

Professor Alexander Gillespie said if the lack of participation and inability to reach consensus accelerates, the forum could be considered a microcosm of the United Nations (which is increasingly criticised for being ineffective in steering and encouraging a rules-based system).

“If you’re hosting a party with 18 very important people coming and 1/3 don’t turn up, you’ve got to be concerned, whether it’s a coincidence or whether it’s planned,” he added.

Gillespie said a rules based multilateral institution was needed to deal with collective problems, but the breakdown was being seen at an international level and may now be seen at a regional level in the Pacific.

“I hope we’re not going in that direction but at the moment indications are not good.”

But Professor Robert Patman pointed out Pacific nations were being pragmatic in turning to China for assistance, “We can’t blame them.”

These are countries in desperate need of infrastructure and money to fund climate change adaptation.

“We shouldn’t forget, these countries actually welcome geopolitical competition because it gives them a chance to enhance their leverage,” said Patman.

“They can maximise assistance by effectively having good relations with either China or the US or both.”

It’s a line New Zealand itself has walked for decades now, and considering global instability, and increasing interest in the Indo-Pacific, it makes sense pacific nations would do the same.

PIF, steeped in its traditional protocols of getting leaders in a room together – of Talanoa and speaking kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face) – and as the centralising force Luxon wants it to be, is necessary.

But it requires everyone who signed up to show up, and everyone who has bought in to remain in.

Luxon will be working the room on Thursday to ensure he’s got maximum buy in from Pacific leaders to attend next year’s forum, taking place in New Zealand.

Full attendance in 2027 would be a flex and signal for the first time in some years Pacific partners are all on the same page in what is increasingly a very competitive region.