By Sione Tekiteki*
Taneti Maamai, left, and Winston Peters. Photo: RNZ
Opinion - The diplomatic rift flowing from the last-minute cancellation of a scheduled meeting between President Maamau of Kiribati and New Zealand's Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters demonstrates how personalities and misunderstanding can often drive foreign policy and aid.
President Maamau cancelled the meeting to attend an ordination of a Catholic priest in his home island, Onotoa.
We are seeing power plays from the US, but it is surprising from New Zealand. For years, New Zealand has been careful to engage in the Pacific by the "principles of understanding, friendship, mutual benefit, collective impact, and sustainability".
For all the talk on the intensifying geopolitics playing out in the Pacific, there remains a lot to be understood of Pacific context, and Pacific leaders.
When incidents like these play out in publicly, there is generally a "like-for-like" presumption. In other words, Pacific nations do not always rationalise decisions in the same manner as developed nations, nor do they have the same capacity to engage in strategic diplomacy.
From my own experience, a Pacific leader's public image can be very different to who they are as a person. President Maamau has always prioritised domestic affairs, which explains why he was elected for a third consecutive term. He is also a devout Christian, and in the Pacific, church is the most important priority. It makes sense of me why he would prioritise a domestic religious event.
In the Kiribati government as with most other Pacific Island governments, limited capacity means juggling a host of different responsibilities. Coordinating meetings are primarily undertaken at officials' level. Leaders therefore can make last minute changes, and it's rare for officials to push back. This can really frustrate partners, who are eager to engage. Delayed communications seem to have been the main factor here, which has blown out of proportion.
While President Maamau has faced criticism from the Opposition over his leadership style, its clear that he has the support of his people. His predecessor, former President Anote Tong was highly regarded in international circles for his global advocacy on climate change, yet there was local critique that he was not paying enough attention to domestic issues. President Maamau's past actions of prioritising domestic issues has been interpreted by some as a "path of self-isolation".
Following his re-election in 2024, President Maamau closed Kiribati's borders to diplomats until 2025. He may be second guessing that decision.
Coincidentally, the challenge of scheduling dates was also at the heart of why President Maamau formally withdrew Kiribati from the Pacific Islands Forum in 2022. In that case, there was a miscommunication with resulted in the date for Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting clashing with Kiribati's Independence Day celebrations. It was floated in some media reports at the time that China was behind Kiribati's withdrawal, which was in my opinion was farfetched.
Some Pacific leaders are big on protocol. Protocol wise, President Maamau's counterpart is Prime Minister, Luxon. Kiribati's suggestion to facilitate a meeting between the Vice President of Kiribati and Deputy Prime Minister Peters seems reasonable on paper. In my experience, there seems to be an expectation from foreign diplomats visiting the Pacific to meet with leaders rather than their counterpart. This is a double standard. In any event, Kiribati probably underestimated the reaction from New Zealand, and Winston Peters.
New Zealand is well within its right to seek a review of its aid package. This is not the first time that New Zealand has leaned on its aid in diplomatic rifts. New Zealand in 2015 suspended its aid to Nauru in what Foreign Minister, Murray McCully said at the time was concerns over judiciary dismissals and suspension of opposition MPs.
In the Pacific, we are already seeing partners use aid as a bargaining chip in return for exclusive or veto rights to sovereign decisions that rest with democratically elected Pacific nations. Aid also runs the risk of being led by personalities. We are also seeing aid being used to project power.
We are seeing the Trump administration pause its global aid. It would be a mistake for New Zealand (so called "members of the family") to follow a similar posture. Firstly, the idea that respect is owed to New Zealand because of the amount of aid it gives sends a negative message to Pacific nations. At the same there are better ways of resolving "justifiable" concerns outside of the public eye. No doubt this issue will be resolved diplomatically, but personal relationships are much harder to amend.
While a lot has been written on the neocolonial nature, and the politicisation of aid in the Pacific, and personality politics has always existed - everything just seems more brazen these days.
*Sione Tekiteki is a senior lecturer at the School of Law at the Auckland University of Technology. He previously served at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in three positions over nine years, most recently, as director governance and engagement.
