PACIFIC REVIEW OF THE POST-FORUM DIALOGUE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 SUVA 000350

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC PREL PIF XV
SUBJECT: PACIFIC REVIEW OF THE POST-FORUM DIALOGUE

REF: SUVA 341

Summary
--------------

1. (U) At Pacific leaders' request, an experts group
consulted widely and has drafted proposals to reform the
Pacific Island Forum (PIF) Post-Forum Dialogue (PFD) process.
They affirmed that Pacific Island leaders and partners
highly value their dialogue; they just want to improve it.
The experts recommend a one-day PFD with all partners
attending a plenary session that would focus discussion on a
policy theme important to the Pacific. Time would remain for
bilaterals, which are seen as very important. Discussion of
developmental and technical assistance issues would be
shifted to a separate regional gathering, the Pacific Island
Country (PIC)/Partners meeting that takes place earlier in
the year. While Pacific leaders urge "ministerial level"
attendance at the PFD, they will welcome the U.S. sending a
sub-ministerial "policy maker." The U.S. is seen as a "core"
PIF partner, and, as such, would likely receive periodic
invitations to attend the Leaders' Dinner. The experts' PFD
proposals will be discussed at a Forum Officials Conference
(FOC) just prior to this year's PIF meeting in October.
Action request: please provide USG comments or questions well
in advance of the FOC. End summary.

Rethinking the Post-Forum Dialogue
--------------

2. (U) Per reftel, the Pacific Plan Action Committee (PPAC)
met in Nadi, Fiji, on August 24-25. One item on the agenda
was to receive a report from regional experts on a review of
the PFD. Pacific leaders requested such a review at the 2005
PIF meeting, to be considered at the 2006 meeting. This
year's PIF will be held October 23-26, with the PFD to be
held October 27-28. The PIF meeting has been transferred
from Tonga to Nadi because of the King of Tonga's declining
health. The U.S. and French embassies in Suva requested and
received permission to attend the PPAC as observers for
relevant sessions.

PFD important; current mechanism flawed
--------------

3. (U) The experts consulted widely, including at Embassy
Suva and in Washington. They took as their starting point
that the Pacific needs strong partnerships with appropriate
mechanisms for interaction; but they were aware of concerns
that the current PFD arrangement is unsatisfactory. In part,
that is because the number of dialogue partners has swollen
to 13: Canada, China, European Union, France, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand,
United Kingdom, and the U.S., with three applicants in the
wings: Chile, Israel, and Italy. Arranging a separate
dialogue with each has become resource intensive. Also, some
PICs and dialogue partners have complained that dialogue
sessions have been stale and unproductive.

Proposal: one-day, with policy-oriented plenary
-------------- --

4. (U) The proposed solution is to scrap the current two-day
series of dialogues with individual partners and start anew
with a one-day PFD immediately following the annual PIF. The
new PFD would have a half-day plenary to include all dialogue
partners and a reasonable sampling of Forum ministers and/or
leaders. The plenary would begin with the Forum Chair
briefing on the results of the annual PIF meeting.
Thereafter, a themed discussion would occur, with each year's
theme reflecting a priority regional issue. One participant
might be designated to commence discussion with prepared
remarks, but the aim is a policy-level, interactive
discussion.

Shift assistance issues to separate venue
--------------

5. (U) A criticism of the present formal PFD sessions is that
some become bogged down in discussion of development or
technical assistance issues. The experts' proposed solution
is to shift all such discussions from the PFD to the
PIC/Partners meeting that follows the annual Forum Economic
Ministers meeting in early summer. All dialogue partners
would now be invited to that mid-year meeting, which could
include bilaterals between Forum and partners on specific

SUVA 00000350 002 OF 003


issues, including development-assistance programs. PIF
Secretary General Greg Urwin offered a distinction: the PFD

SIPDIS
is for "partners, not donors." The PIC/Partners session
would be for "donor" issues and could, in fact, serve as a
donor-coordination opportunity. If Pacific leaders adopt a
proposal to amalgamate regional technical agencies under an
SPC umbrella (ref),the experts envision that the SPC
Director General would collaborate with the PIF SG in
organizing the PIC/Partners meeting.

Everyone likes bilats
--------------

6. (U) The expectation is that Forum members and partners
would continue to engage in bilaterals around the edges of
the PFD plenary session, though the current two-day schedule
would reduce to one. Everyone gave the experts an impression
that the bilats are valuable opportunities, "the most
important aspect of the PFD process."

Participation level: "policy makers"
--------------

7. (U) In the experts' consultations, Forum governments made
clear they strongly prefer "ministerial level" participation
in the renewed PFD. That is already a "requirement," though
it has often been honored in the breach. Senior officials,
including PIF SG Urwin, assured us that for the USG a "policy
maker" will be just fine, and certainly the EAP A/S
qualifies. A member of the experts group suggested to us
that if the USG designates its lead PFD participant as a
"special envoy," that too will suffice.

Some special treatment for "core" partners (like U.S.)
-------------- --------------

8. (U) The experts' consultations indicated some sentiment
for separating PFD partners into two groups: "core partners"
with high commitment and contributions to the Pacific and
others with more limited interests. The experts decided
against a formal tiering, but they did propose that Forum
leaders could each year, at their discretion, invite one or
more "core" dialogue partners to attend the Forum Leaders'
Dinner as special guests with the possibility of providing
formal remarks. We heard from PIF SG Urwin that the U.S.
delegation head might well receive such an invitation early
on, though Urwin indicated that invitation would likely shift
from one core member to another annually.

Membership issues
--------------

9. (U) At the 2005 PIF meeting, Forum leaders decided to
freeze new PFD-membership applications because of concern
about the numbers becoming unwieldy. If the revised PFD is
adopted, the experts group proposes to remove the freeze.
Forum members that recognize Taiwan asked the experts to
consider ways to more fully integrate Taiwan into the PFD.
(Currently, Taiwan has a separate dialogue arrangement on the
margins of the PFD.) The experts punted on that one,
deciding the PRC/Taiwan issue was not within their mandate.

Comment
--------------

10. (U) From Embassy Suva's perspective, the PFD has been a
welcome annual opportunity for high-level USG visitors to
discuss Pacific issues with counterparts. Bilaterals on the
margins have been a valuable aspect. The proposed revisions
to the PFD formula seem to retain both those elements, though
arguably the new thematic plenary session would reduce or
eliminate the opportunity for the U.S. delegation head to
raise U.S.-specific regional issues in the formal PFD. On
the occasions when Forum leaders invite U.S. participation in
the Leaders Dinner, that problem could be removed. Diverting
development and technical-assistance issues to the
PIC/Partners meeting and having that meeting include a
donor-coordination opportunity sounds promising to us. It
could help keep PFD discussion on a policy track. Would
Washington be prepared to undertake an additional
PIC/Partners trip to the region each year?

Action request
--------------

11. (U) The experts group proposals for revising the PFD had
just been unveiled at the time of the Nadi meeting, and they

SUVA 00000350 003 OF 003


received minimal discussion. As with proposed revisions to
regional structures (ref),a Forum Officials Conference (FOC)
will convene in October, just before the Forum meeting, and
will consider the new PFD concept. We have provided a copy
of the experts' PFD report to EAP/ANP for further
distribution in Washington. Please provide USG comment on
the report ASAP, well before the October FOC meeting.
Thanks.
DINGER