Photo: AFP
Pacific states can be increasingly expected to call the shots as to when, and if, they can accommodate visiting diplomatic missions.
In a paper, titled 'Pacific states are setting the terms of diplomatic engagement', Adelaide University academics, Henrietta McNeill and Maualaivao Maima Koro, point out the pressures small countries often experience when having to host visiting delegations.
Their view is pertinent given the often negative response to the Kiribati government's announcement that it was suspending diplomatic visits until the new year as the country elects a new parliament.
In a media release, dated 21 August, Kiribati's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration said the suspension of diplomatic and official trips was due to the national elections and that the government was in now caretaker mode.
It said the notice is to inform diplomatic missions in advance and to avoid any disappointment in response to the many requests received to visit Kiribati at this time.
However, visits for critical, urgent, and emergency activities and ongoing works and projects are not affected by this measure but these would go through the usual clearance process with the relevant offices in Kiribati.
One Pacific political expert suggested that the pause to diplomatic trips was "to avoid foreign checks on its government formation process".
"It does reflect a pattern of seeking to avoid international scrutiny, which we have seen under [Taneti Maamau's] government]," the Australian think tank Lowy Institute's Mihai Sora was quoted by AP.
But speaking with RNZ Pacific ahead of the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting in Nukua'lofa, Kiribati's Education Minister, Alexander Teabo, said; "We believe that this is one thing that's gone viral".
"We believe that we [have] got foreign policies. We believe that our task now is to elect our members of the Maneaba ni Maungatabu (Parliament) and elect our government.
"That's our national and constitutional task. We [didn't] close the border," he said.
RNZ Pacific spoke with one of the authors of the academic paper, Maualaivao Maima Koro.
(The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.)
Maima Koro: What we said in our paper, it's basically Kiribati making a statement so that it can take time to consider for themselves the results of the elections and go into forming their own government, having their own national conversations. I think that was really important, and that is how I read it when I received that news. That was how I interpreted it, and that's how the paper came out, with my colleague, Dr Henrietta McNeill.
Don Wiseman: These sorts of situations, despite the surprise in some circles, these situations are actually that uncommon.
MK: Not that uncommon. And I think also those who follow regional policies and elite regional politics, the action that Kiribati has taken, to my mind, and also with Dr Henrietta, is that this is really Kiribati exercising its sovereignty. It may come as a surprise to some people. I don't think it should have been given Kiribati has changed its political affiliation, it was, I think, not very well received as well by some of the international community. I don't think that was a fair call on the government and the people of Kiribati. So, this is kind of a step that they have taken for themselves to come through this process on their own terms. It's really about Kiribati coming to their own maturity as a democratic nation.
DW: You've suggested in the paper that there's going to be more and more of this because Pacific countries are being put under more and more pressure by a greater and greater flow of diplomats and foreign missions and so on and so on. We have more and more embassies being opened and this sort of thing. So, what it does is put enormous strain on what are very often very skimpy resources within those countries in terms of looking after those diplomatic people coming through.
MK: We noted that in the paper, but also that Samoa was the first country to go on this 'no mission' and that was also a response to the absorption capacity of the country to cope with that. And then also coming through in terms of addressing their own priorities. I think it's one of those issues that development partners talk about collaboration, and it's probably why that notion of, potentially, this will become a norm in some situations for the countries to deal with some of the issues, because there's enormous capacity that goes into these things. I do recall Samoa coming out earlier. This is way back, about 20 years ago, when they had actually documented how much time that is taken up by the visiting missions. So that came down to the real push for donor harmonisation, that's still escaping the region. I don't know how many times, how many reports that you'll notice this, Don, better than me, about there's a lot of reports that have been written about this. It's made it into an OECD major agenda, and yet we are still dealing with this.
I believe, going forward, I don't think it should be a surprise that countries may give a call to just give us time, we need to sort some things out, or we need to have our own discussion, or we need to revisit and review some of the things we are doing. And this also goes back to that call in 2022, I believe Fiame [Samoa Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa] made the point that how much time have we been given to really articulate and understand the things that we are signing up? I wouldn't be surprised if this policy, this kind of practice does surface again in some spaces.
DW: For a whole host of reasons, there should be a whole lot more use of the Internet, shouldn't there, rather than people travelling to these countries. It would be a lot more efficient, well, cheaper, and it doesn't consume time so much.
MK: And it does save money. There were some good practices in a way that Covid taught the Pacific Island countries and even development partners. I think it's been prioritising, being strategic, of the value of the visit, and then also what other collaborations should come through because one of the things that I've noticed going back and forth in Kiribati is this ministry - the National Planning ministry, they deal with all of the development partner and coordination, and that it's a very small ministry, and it's phenomenal the amount of administration that is involved in just not only responding to the requirements of these funds, but also the meetings. I don't think due consideration is given to some of those real constraints and the real challenges of Pacific countries to deal with these issues, when it should be front and centre of any discussion around these things. Because I wouldn't be surprised, going forward, that this may become just as a way to deal with it, because it's one of those things, if the development partners can't deal with it, then the countries will take ownership and say, 'Okay, maybe we should start doing things differently'.
DW: In the case of Kiribati, of course, they could perhaps make more effort to tell outsiders just what's going on and why they're doing what they're doing and explain things more fully.
MK: You're absolutely right about the communication. But again, to my mind, these are such big issues, you know, forming governments, going through constitutional change, these are very big issues. The Kiribati government representative to the Forum has already said that they've already made their constitutional position and all that. So, all they need to do now is form their government, have that conversation in country. I think it wouldn't hurt also for us to learn to be patient, to wait on that, because it's much better that we get the full picture once it's it all comes out, then things being drip fed to us, and then we can also likely jump on it and make our own assumptions and make our own interpretation, or misinterpretations, that sometimes are not useful and it's not helpful in domestic national settings.
DW: Overriding all of this, of course, and again, I guess Kiribati is right at the centre of it, is the geopolitical scrap that's happening in the Pacific. Kiribati is very much a focal point of that.
MK: I don't think you can ever have a discussion about anything that goes around in any of these countries now, in Pacific countries, especially, also Kiribati, without not having a geopolitical angle into it. Since the switch [Kiribati aligning with Beijing over Taipei] there's so much that is going on in the geopolitical space. We've seen that come up with play out at the recent Forum. Of course, the attention is there because of that environment, and I think it's also why, to my mind, it's very important that Kiribati defines their own government on their own terms, or at least be respected to give it the space to be given to do so. Our main point is that just, give the space. Nobody should panic about these things and just wait be patient, all of us to be patient and respect the process that is happening in Kiribati.