From August 26 to 30 this year the most recent (53rd) summit of the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) took place in the Pacific island state of Tonga. The summit was a significant development in the Indo-Pacific theater of the “Great World Game.”
However, commentators on this event are agreed on one point—that the actual functioning of the PIF is of merely secondary importance. The true significance of the event held in Tonga is due to the way it (like all other forums) is affected by the escalating clash between the interests of the world’s leading powers. It is now become a commonplace for those commenting on this event to refer to the “shadow of US-China relations” hanging over the latest meeting of the PIF.
However, this image is not complete enough, as it increasingly signifies the presence of Japan which, after a previous (disastrous) attempt, is reasserting its interests in the Pacific region. But this time it is doing so together with a former enemy and in a competition with the current number two world power, China.
The Taiwan issue at the center of the standoffs in the 53rd PIF Summit
Meanwhile, almost all 18 full members of the PIF, both independent states and “overseas territories” suffer from a large number of serious, and frequently shared, problems. The first of these, which could be described as “external” in origin, has already been referred to. It stems from the fact that the PIF participants (like the 10 Southeast Asian countries that make up ASEAN) are exposed to a field of tensile stresses created by the world’s leading powers in the wider Indo-Pacific region. The involvement of these powers (often quite intense) in various aspects of the activities of certain PIF participants is facilitated by their status of “development partner.”
Since 1992, along with the PRC, Taiwan, with which most Pacific Rim states had diplomatic relations at that time, has also enjoyed “partner” status. But by now there are only three PIF members that still recognize Taiwan. All the others have established diplomatic relations with China, on the condition that they accept Beijing’s key “one China” principle. It was therefore to be expected that at the most recent PIF summit the issue of the revocation of Taiwan’s “development partner” status should be raised. This was done by the representative of the Solomon Islands, the PIF country with the closest ties to China.
At this point it should be pointed out that China’s main geopolitical opponent was present at the most recent PIF summit, most likely anticipating the upcoming standoff. The US delegation was led by First Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell. It seems likely that the US delegation’s involvement was responsible for the “first draft” of the final Communiqué, which restated the 1992 position of the PIF.
But in the 30 years that have passed since then, the relations between the three points of the China-PIF-Taiwan triangle have changed radically, as already described. Therefore, the explanation offered for the above-mentioned clause in the final document, i.e. that three members of the PIF (“who may withdraw from it”) have maintained diplomatic relations with Taiwan, is less than convincing. Qian Bo, China’s plenipotentiary Representative for Indo-Pacific affairs, who was present, therefore had every reason to claim that there had simply been some technical problems with the drafting of the Communiqué. After that, all references to the Taiwan question were removed from the document.
Nevertheless, on August 30 the Taipei Times reported that the Taiwanese Foreign Ministry had signed a document on cooperation with the “PIF Secretariat,” valid for the next three years. It is clear from the text of the document, however, that the signatories were representatives of the three countries that have maintained diplomatic relations with Taiwan, as well as a certain “PIF secretariat official.”
By the way, it should be noted that at the same time as the PIF summit, in China US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan was engaged in no less heated battles with his Chinese colleagues on the Taiwan issue. At the final press conference in Beijing, he said, among other things, that while respecting the “one China principle,” the US would continue to arm the Taiwanese armed forces.
Other issues
However, there are also a number of “local” problems affecting all the PIF member states. Of particular concern is the issue of geography—all these countries are vulnerable to a wide range of natural disasters.
Here the author shall limit himself to mentioning the catastrophic volcanic eruption that occurred in early 2022 on one of the islands of the Tonga archipelago, 70 kilometers from the capital of the country, Nuku’alofa. It is not difficult to imagine what this catastrophe meant for Tonga itself, when one considers that the resulting tsunami reached all the countries on the Pacific Rim, and that on the eastern coast of Japan, located eight thousand kilometers away, huge accumulations of pumice were found. Interestingly, one of the main countries that provided most support to Tonga in the aftermath of this catastrophe was China, which built a gymnasium in Nuku’alofa, where the leaders of the PIF member countries met.
But unfortunately, although the climate crisis issue was at the heart of the discussions in Nuku’alofa, everything seems to have come down specifically to the “decarbonization issue.” As, indeed, has been happening recently in all other platforms where the leading world powers are engaged in a “dialog” with the Global South.
As for the task of these countries’ economic development, this can hardly be resolved without external support, which would be especially effective if the “leading global powers” could coordinate their efforts and set aside their current confrontation, which affects all sectors including trade and the economy. China is implementing one of the branches of its global Belt and Road Initiative project in relation to the PIF countries. Meanwhile, the US and its regional allies are trying to counter the Belt and Road Initiative with an array of their own projects, such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) launched by President Joe Biden in May 2022.
Australia provides police services to PIF members
Unlike the US and China, Australia (which is also becoming one of the significant players in the Indo-Pacific region) is also a full member of the PIF, and in fact the main conductor of Washington’s policy in this regional grouping. Including by taking leading positions in the extremely important area of defense and security. These positions are set out in the Biketawa Declaration, which was adopted in the 2000 PIF summit.
Australia’s “special” status in the PIF was further developed by the adoption in the 53rd PIF Summit of the so-called Pacific Policing Initiative (PPI), the main provisions of which are outlined on the Australian Prime Minister’s website. As is evident from Anthony Albanese’s own explanations, the main objective of the PPI and the structures that will be set up to implement it (including a control center in Brisbane, Australia) will be to “boost the capability of Pacific nations to meet law and order and internal security requirements.”
It should be noted that, given the underdeveloped governance structures of most Pacific Island countries, they do indeed have problems in maintaining what could be described as basic law and order. And they have a real interest in receiving external assistance in this area. China is already providing its support to the Solomon Islands, and this has clearly irritated its geopolitical opponents. It seems clear that the discussion and adoption of the PPI in the 53rd PIF Summit was a reaction to the development of China’s relations with the Solomon Islands and a number of other countries in the Pacific.
In broad terms, everything that took place at the last PIF summit can be seen as a further confirmation of the fact that almost all international forums have now in effect become wrestling grounds where the leading world powers face off against each other. And that is not a good thing.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
