It wasn’t the perfect start for the endorsement of the Pacific Policing Initiative (PPI) on Wednesday at the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting.
The Pacific-owned and led initiative aims to increase coordination and cooperation across the region as well as provide new training centres of excellence and deployable forces to regional crises. But concerns raised about the motives of the PPI, and Chinese attempts to influence perceptions of the initiative, failed to stymie the program or reduce its potential to deliver truly valuable assistance to the region.
Prior to the endorsement by PIF leaders, the PPI had received strong backing from several prime ministers, including Fiji’s Sitiveni Rabuka and Tonga’s Hu’akavemeiliku Siaosi Sovaleni. But then, in the midst of the forum, two other key leaders voiced concerns around the initiative’s potential to lock China out of the security space in the region. For a moment, there was uncertainty around how the PPI would progress.
Ni-Vanuatu prime minister Charlot Salwai said the Pacific needs ‘to make sure that this PPI is framed to fit our purposes and not developed to suit the geo-strategic interests and geo-strategic denial security postures of our big partners’. Director General of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, Leonard Louma, made similar comments.
The PPI is first and foremost an initiative for the Pacific by the Pacific that addresses key security needs. It responds to several statements from the region, including the Boe Declaration, PIF 2022 Communique and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific, which call for a family first approach to peace and security and regional solutions to regional security problems. The Pacific has a real need for policing cooperation, both to combat transnational crime and to address the capacity challenge the small island states face in training and maintaining their own security forces.
Greater interoperability and coordination between police across the region reduce the space and need for other external partners like China. Done right, the PPI would reflect the more principled approach desired and increased capacity for PIF members to collectively take care of their own security, something that every Pacific nation is striving for.
China, however, which is still attempting to increase its security presence across the region, would like the initiative to be perceived negatively.
Reporting on the PPI had been building prior to the PIF. The Sydney Morning Herald reported just before the meeting that the intent of the pact was to exclude China from the Pacific’s security architecture. This was promptly picked up by the Chinese Communist Party state media outlet, the Global Times, who accused Australia of pushing the initiative to exclude China.
But the Global Times has a history of trying to undermine Australia’s partnerships in the Pacific. Moreover, the statements in the article are patently overblown. The article includes the claim that the PPI ‘will grant Australia effective veto power over any possible security pact between China and the [Pacific island countries], according to the Australian report’. There was no such claim in the Sydney Morning Herald article, or anywhere else that we can find. There is no provision in the PPI agreement that undermines the sovereignty of Pacific nations or prevents engagement with China.
Multiple Pacific leaders, including PM Salwai, have visited Beijing in the months leading up to the PIF. China would likely be seeking to influence Pacific leaders on the PPI during these visits. Furthermore, Solomon Islands, who is set to host the PIF next year, reportedly attempted to remove Taiwan as an observer and development partner of the PIF. This move, in isolation, doesn’t reflect the values shared by many Pacific countries, particularly when three countries in the region maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan. But that does not mean it is a move taken purely in isolation to other considerations.
In publicly airing a debate over geopolitics, the focus was temporarily lost on the Pacific’s real and pressing needs, and the positive architecture Australia can foster in the region. If China has its way and the PPI fails, it would ultimately hurt the development of the region.
The PPI will likely face further criticism from China, as will other initiatives that are emerging. The South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting have a directive to develop a Pacific Response Group, which is a Pacific-led initiative to improve military coordination for humanitarian crises. Much like the PPI, better responses from within the region will mean less need for external partners.
Security cooperation in the Pacific cannot escape the spectre of increasing competition. Australia should lead the way in ensuring that Chinese machinations won’t impact important regional initiatives. Acknowledging competition and concerns over China doesn’t undermine Australia’s other, legitimate motives. Ignoring it, however, could lead to more awkward situations that damage Australia’s image. And when there are concerns raised by Pacific leaders, they should be addressed through open and honest dialogue.
Australia can, and should, do better than China. Both in terms of the support it provides, and in being honest and sincere in its engagement with the region to ensure that competition and influence from outside isn’t hurting its own development.