“I think there’s opportunities for us as we host those two respective forums to make a connectivity between the two, which I think would be in the benefit of everyone in the Pacific to have a strong connection to Asean and vice versa.”
Foreign Minister Winston Peters has been in Palau before Luxon’s arrival and on Tuesday announced a deal between the US, New Zealand and the Cook Islands to build a major upgrade to the port in Penrhyn. The deep lagoon is of interest because it will enable the port to host large ships, including military ones.
New Zealand will contribute $17.5 million and the US will contribute US$50m (about $84m).
US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced the project with Peters and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown on Tuesday morning.
In a joint statement with Peters, Landau hinted the agreement related to US interest in Pacific critical minerals. The US has made no secret of its desire to build strong critical mineral supply chains, allowing it to diversify its supply of such material away from China.
“This project underscores the United States’ strong commitment to our partners in the Pacific and builds on the Critical Minerals Framework the United States and the Cook Islands agreed to earlier this year,” Landau said.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters (left), Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown and US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau.
But Luxon said the port was “completely separate” from the US’ interest in critical minerals.
“It’s just generally about… critical infrastructure needed across the whole of the region,” Luxon said, listing upgrades to ports, airports and critical energy infrastructure.
“No, no – we’ve been talking about partnering with the US on a project like this for some time.”
The port is in the spotlight because of increased geopolitical competition as the US and China vie for greater control of the region. The Cook Islands were themselves at the centre of such a spat when Brown entered into a deal with Beijing without consulting New Zealand, which the coalition viewed as a breach of longstanding agreements between the countries.
This competition casts a shadow over the meeting in Palau, which is one of 12 countries that diplomatically recognises Taiwan. The self-governing island, which is claimed by China, has sent its Foreign Minister Lin Chia-lung to Palau for the meeting. Taiwan has been a development partner of the forum since 1993. China lashed out at the invite and said there would be “consequences”.
One agenda item for the forum will be whether to issue a joint statement on the missile China launched into the Pacific in July. The missile was nuclear-capable but armed with a dummy warhead. New Zealand and Australia condemned the move.
The PIF has been unable to issue a joint statement criticising China since the test.
There had been hope of a breakthrough at last month’s PIF foreign ministers’ meeting in Suva, Fiji, but ministers were unable to reach agreement, with Kiribati and Nauru speculated as blocking consensus on any statement. Both countries have been moving closer to China diplomatically.
There’s little hope of a breakthrough in Palau. Five leaders are not attending the meeting, including Kiribati President Taneti Maamau. Also absent will be Samoa’s Prime Minister Laʻaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt and Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.
Luxon had hoped to schedule a bilateral meeting with Rabuka on the sidelines of the meeting but this has been cancelled.
The string of absences could undermine one of the strengths of the PIF leaders’ meeting, which is when Pacific leaders get together without large numbers of officials to thrash out issues.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters laughs at having his photo taken with his counterparts at last month’s foreign ministers meeting. Photo / Thomas Coughlan
Luxon didn’t seem too bothered by this.
“We’ve always had leaders who can or cannot make PIF by virtue of it being a very difficult region to travel within or connect within. For myself, I’m going in for a good part of the time.
“Those moments and that mechanism are quite special and quite unique in that forum,” Luxon said.
He said one of his main messages to the forum would be the idea of its “centrality” and building it into the “central organisation” of the region. One reading of this concept is that Pacific countries use the forum to speak with one voice.
This is because most Pacific Island states are small and could be picked off by great powers in a bid to divide the region. A strong, unified forum is seen as the best way for the region to stand against this.
But some critics have wondered whether Australia and New Zealand practise what they preach in this regard, noting both countries do a fair bit of bilateral dealing on the sidelines of the forum.
As the forum gets more divided and unwieldy, there’s a risk this increases.
Pacific historian and AUT Law School lecturer Marco de Jong told the Herald his concern was agreements that might have come through the forum were done elsewhere in bilateral deals. This would reduce the forum to a procedural rubber stamp with the power lying elsewhere.
“A couple of years ago, I said that were the forum to die, it wouldn’t be with a bang. It would go out with a whimper.
“By that I meant that it would become procedural, that the agenda and the agreement would be found elsewhere,” he said.
“There’s a risk that the agenda is pre-empted and that when the forum leaders come together, it’s simply to rubber stamp and the risk there is that there’s no genuine agreement and that Pacific nations are kind of going along with something that they don’t truly agree with.”
The most controversial of these is an alliance signed between Fiji and Australia, committing each to consider coming to the other’s aid if attacked.
Luxon disagreed with that assessment, saying he wants to see bilateral agreements alongside the PIF’s collective deliberations, describing it as an “and, and, and” situation of bilateral and multilateral deals.
He compared the forum to Asean where “you can have strong bilateral relationships and also be part of a multilateral forum as well”.
“So we deal with them all at an individual level and that’s important to build rapport relationships and connectivity, but at the same time, you can have a lattice work of countries coming together through a grouping like PIF or Asean, and be able to work through both those levels,” Luxon said.