The major agreement to emerge from this week’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ meeting has been the establishment of a new $270 million Pacific Policing Initiative (PPI). The initiative will have three core pillars – the creation of a central police development and coordination hub in Brisbane, Australia; four police training “centers of excellence” throughout the region; and a new “Pacific Police Support Group.” The latter is to be a multinational force that can be deployed in response to regional emergencies like national disasters, transnational crime such as drug trafficking, and other major events.
Taking the lead on the design of the new initiative will be the Pacific Islands Chiefs of Police, a multilateral body founded in 1970 to bring together regional police chiefs to exchange information and drive regional policing agreements. The concept and drive for the PPI has come from Pacific Island countries, although Australia will provide most of the funding.
This Pacific-led regionalism process is one advocated for in the latest paper from Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy and Defense Dialogue (AP4D) on how Australia can best support the institutional arrangements within the Pacific Islands region. Australia is, of course, a member of the PIF and therefore considered a Pacific Island country itself, but it stands out within the forum due to its relative size and the scale of its resources compared to other members of the PIF.
This presents an advantage to the region in being able to use Australia’s capabilities to advance initiatives like the PPI that might otherwise struggle for resources, but it also presents the potential problem of Australia overwhelming other states due to its weight within the PIF.
Central to getting this balance right is recognizing that while Australia’s money and capacity has value, Pacific Island countries contribute knowledge, networks, and experience that are critical to understanding and working effectively within the Pacific Islands region. Without this intimate, local knowledge, greater resources may simply be ineffective.
Whereas previously Australia has created parallel agencies – like the Pacific Fusion Center and the Pacific Security College – that did not specifically respond to Pacific Island countries’ priorities, the PPI has greater regional credibility due to its impetus coming from the region itself.
For Pacific regionalism to be successful, Canberra needs to embrace this kind of Pacific-led process, even if it means restraining some of its own creative instincts. When larger countries coordinate with smaller ones, they need to be aware of their own footprints and potential to create pressures that cannot be resisted. This doesn’t mean Canberra should submit itself to actions that are not in Australia’s interests, but it does mean having a strong sense of diplomatic empathy, and flowing from this a comprehension of how Australia’s interests align with the wider region.
The impetus for the PPI is an indication that there is a broad alignment of interests and perspectives on traditional security matters within the PIF. This new regional policing agreement comes after the 2022 rejection of a region-wide security pact proposed by China. Although Pacific Island leaders are unlikely to state this directly – preferring a more subtle approach to international relations – their actions give a strong indication of their intent.
This intent also sits within the current comfort levels within the existing Pacific regional architecture. Pacific regionalism has had an emphasis on the maintenance of sovereignty. Pacific countries are free to utilize bilateral and multilateral mechanisms to advance their objectives in addition to regional structures and institutions. The new PPI will operate via this opt-in model.
As Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavemeiliku highlighted at a joint press conference with the prime ministers of Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Australia, and the president of Palau, “The central tenet of this initiative is that forum members would have the discretion to choose how they would contribute to and benefit from the three pillars identified in respect of national sovereignty and in line with national priorities.”
Issues of security go to the heart of national sovereignty and thus are always the most delicate issues to pursue in a regional forum like the PIF. The creation of the PPI is therefore an indication of the strength of Pacific regionalism in that each of the 18 members of the forum – all with distinct national interests – have been able to reach a substantive agreement. It is a demonstration of the practical implementation of regionalism – the pooling of resources and expertise to enhance the region’s overall capabilities.
