VZCZCXRO0088
RR RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMJ RUEHPB
DE RUEHSV #0350/01 2412357
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 292357Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY SUVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3266
INFO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0198
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1273
RUEHKN/AMEMBASSY KOLONIA 0143
RUEHKR/AMEMBASSY KOROR 0082
RUEHMJ/AMEMBASSY MAJURO 0595
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0054
RUEHPB/AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 0883
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 0099
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 1065
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 0161
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHJJAA/JICPAC HONOLULU HI

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