{"id":49232,"date":"2019-07-22T06:00:14","date_gmt":"2019-07-21T20:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=49232"},"modified":"2019-07-19T17:45:45","modified_gmt":"2019-07-19T07:45:45","slug":"the-oz-pacific-policy-that-cant-be-named","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/the-oz-pacific-policy-that-cant-be-named\/","title":{"rendered":"The Oz Pacific policy that can\u2019t be named"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

Australia has a Voldemort<\/a> problem. Our big new ambition for the South Pacific\u2014economic and security integration\u2014has become the policy that can\u2019t be named.<\/p>\n

Australia\u2019s policy is integration, and we\u2019re working to make it happen. We just don\u2019t use the i-word.<\/p>\n

Canberra talks constantly of the Pacific step-up<\/a>, and lots of new steps are being made. Step-up is policy in action.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a Voldemort-style caution about naming integration as the ultimate step at the top of the ladder. We\u2019re happy to talk about all the steps, just not the aim\u2014proud of the process, shy about the point.<\/p>\n

Integration was one of the top priorities unveiled in the 2017 foreign policy white paper<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Government is delivering a step-change in our engagement with Pacific island countries. This new approach recognises that more ambitious engagement by Australia, including helping to integrate Pacific countries into the Australian and New\u00a0Zealand economies and our security institutions, is essential to the long-term stability and economic prospects of the Pacific. Our partnership with New\u00a0Zealand will be central to advancing this agenda.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The white paper referred to the integrate\/integration vision six times. In lauding the integration ambition as a new ideal\u2014not just neighbours, but joined\u2014I described it as a complex task for Australia and New Zealand<\/a> and an important offer that the South Pacific would embrace cautiously. Integration would be soft and slow<\/a>, evolving over decades. The softness, though, has faded to silence.<\/p>\n

While Australia is saying important things about the region, look in vain for the i-word in Prime Minister Scott Morrison\u2019s significant Pacific speech (\u2018Australia and the Pacific: a new chapter<\/a>\u2019)or from Foreign Minister Marise Payne (State of the Pacific 2018 conference <\/a>or Fiji Press Club<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Secretary Frances Adamson seemed to offer i-word gold at the 2019 Australasian Aid Conference<\/a>: \u2018No one ever said integration was easy, or complete!\u2019<\/p>\n

But it was a false sighting. She was talking about the integration of AusAID into DFAT.<\/p>\n

When the i-word does appear, it\u2019s confined to the economic side, not security.<\/p>\n

DFAT\u2019s head of the Office of the Pacific, Ewen McDonald, gave the best example in a speech last month at the Australian National University, titled \u2018Realising the Pacific\u2019s vision for stability, security and prosperity<\/a>\u2019:<\/p>\n

At a time when uncertainty permeates the global economy, we are also committed to better integrating Australian and Pacific island economies. This will improve regional prosperity. The Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus\u2014or PACER Plus<\/a> trade and development agreement\u2014will be the first reciprocal regional trade agreement in the Pacific, and is expected to enter into force in late 2019. The agreement will open up new markets and opportunities for Australian and Pacific businesses.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The tortuous<\/a> PACER Plus negotiations (2009\u20132017) certainly showed that integration is tough; and after all that effort, Papua New Guinea and Fiji didn\u2019t sign.<\/p>\n

DFAT\u2019s description of the step-up<\/a> points to integration only once, also in talking about PACER Plus. The department says Australia is offering \u2018a more ambitious and intensified engagement in the Pacific to support a more resilient region\u2019.<\/p>\n

Why does Australia have a policy that can\u2019t be named? Several factors combine to make integration a tough topic to talk about:<\/p>\n