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