TONY KEVIN. The diplomatic disaster that was APEC Port Moresby

There is still a lot we do not know about how and why the APEC Summit  just ended in Port Moresby was such a diplomatic disaster, from which APEC may not readily recover anytime soon.

China’s President  Xi had been the  first leader to accept the 2016 invitation to attend the 2018 APEC meeting in Port Moresby, extended by the Chairman, PNG Prime Minister Peter O’Neill.  At that time, the focus of Chinese interest was thought to be seeking to involve more Pacific island countries in joining China’s One Belt One Road regional trading infrastructure  initiative. Peter O’Neill  was the first Pacific leader to sign up for OBOR .

This set alarm bells ringing in Australia’s US -reliant  strategic and intelligence communities.  Counter-plans were developed, including: more generous Australian infrastructure aid to Pacific countries , obviously to counter China’s growing influence ; an attempted rebranding of the  traditional diplomatic term ‘Asia-Pacific region’ to ‘Indo-Pacific region’, a clumsy attempt  to belittle Asia’s and China’s centrality; and an ill-conceived  and inappropriately-timed announcement by US Vice-President  Mike Pence at APEC, that an Australia-US joint military base would be set up on the now infamous Manus Island In PNG, to confront the presumed adversary to the north, China.

APEC has a long and creditable history . It was a mainly Australian vision, under Hawke and Keating, to develop an Asia-Pacific regional cooperative grouping  that  would not go the way  of that discredited and now moribund Cold War relic, SEATO. The focus would be on economic cooperation under a free market framework, but not aggressively so. APEC would be open to all. It was understood that  it was desirable to try to bring ASEAN and China and Russia  on board as important Asia-Pacific  seaboard country members.

All this required a subtle and sensitive Australian  diplomacy, which in those  years Australia had the the skills and political maturity to practice.

None of this was in evidence at the  diplomatic debacle just ended in Port Moresby, from which APEC as an institution may not recover any time soon – perhaps never.

The US sent its Vice-President Mike Pence, who was clearly cranked up and ready  to play hardball with China. Bizarrely, he  chose to accommodate  himself in safe and comfortable Cairns, from where he flew up to Port Moresby to do battle with the Chinese each day. The meeting  itself took place , equally bizarrely, on ocean liners moored in Port Moresby harbour.

The meeting was preceded by weeks of mounting US verbal assault on Chinese trade practices , and the unilateral imposition of US tariffs (trade sanctions) against China, contrary to WTO rules. This global contest effectively came to eclipse any contest over local influence in South Pacific nations.  Both  China and the US  were now playing for bigger  stakes before a bigger audience that included India, Russia, Japan ,Korea, and the ASEANs.

We don’t yet know a lot of what  transpired at the meeting. The skills of former Pacific   ABC correspondents like  Sean Dorney  and Louise  Callaghan in ferreting out useful behind-the- scenes colour and movement are sadly missed these days in the ABC.

We do know from the public record that Xi appealed passionately for observance of traditional multipolar courtesies among sovereign  nations which had come together freely in APEC.  He condemned blatant bloc-building efforts by the US. Pence, undeterred, handled himself as if he was attending  a NATO or SEATO meeting. This would be for the US an opportunity to lecture China about her alleged aggression in the South China Sea, to humiliate a captive Xi in front of a largely Asian audience of his peers.

To his discredit , O’Neill as Chairman  made no apparent effort to control the meeting, to pull the Americans  into line, to remind them  of APEC’s  conciliatory diplomatic traditions and protocols developed over decades. Nor did Australia seem to play any role encouraging him to do so. Australian diplomacy  seemed missing in action.

In fact, Morrison and and O’Neill  watched on mutely,  like  rabbits caught  in the  headlights of an oncoming car, as the meeting wound  down to its disastrous end, marked by an anti-climactic and dispirited ‘Aussie barbecue’  party on an Australian Navy vessel for anyone who was still there.

Before that, there had been some  kind of unpleasantness  of four ‘burly’ Chinese diplomats allegedly trying  to ‘shove’  their way into Peter O’Neill’s office. We have so far only heard the Australian-American media version of this.

But my guess is that the Chinese may have got wind of a planned anti-China communique fait accompli, to be forced through the meeting under US pressure, which would  have meant international loss of face for Xi and a victory of sorts for Pence.

Chinese diplomats  would have been determined – as was China’s right – that this would not happen. They got  their way,  in that  no communique was issued , which would support my supposition of the possible sequence of events.

Both Morrison and Peter O’Neill  were manifestly way out of their depth . Morrison spoke in marketing platitudes, trotting out archaic and now otiose Howard -era lines, to the effect that Australia could maintain a close strategic alliance with the  US , while also maintaining China as our no 1 trade partner. He tried to grin his way through the  mess , and nothing he might say on it now after the event could be trusted again.

O’Neill lacked the confidence or authority to ensure  that China and the US would both behave according to the protocols of APEC.

Australian diplomacy, which should have been stiffening PNG’s chairman’s spine, was missing in action. The meeting fatally degenerated into a theatre for China-US rivalry.

No doubt Australia’s  US-compliant  mainstream media will spin this story in coming days to try to make it all look like China’s fault. They have already started  to do so. But the more experienced Asia-Pacific leaders who were present will not be fooled by such propaganda. They saw with their own eyes what happened, including Australia’s US-facilitating role.

For Australia to host Pence simultaneously in Cairns  – an insult to PNG – and to allow Pence to announce in the APEC meeting in PNG the  Australia-US joint base to be built on PNG sovereign  territory, was grossly insensitive and clumsy . These errors will cost us.

Australia seems under the faltering Morrison administration to be backing away from meaningful and  mutually respectful  engagement with our  region at the rate of knots. First the continuing  regional disaster over the Jerusalem Embassy gambit, now this Port Moresby debacle. We will know to our  cost if this government in its remaining  months manages comprehensively to alienate some of our most  important historical partners in our Asian region.

Diplomatic relationships are easy to destroy, much harder to rebuild.  A country at odds with its region needs to put a lot of GDP into defence and police, and be prepared for a tense life.

Tony Kevin is a former Australian ambassador to Poland and Cambodia, and the author of five books, most recently ‘Return to Moscow’ (2017)

https://www.uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/return-to-moscow  

 

print
This entry was posted in Asia, International Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to TONY KEVIN. The diplomatic disaster that was APEC Port Moresby

  1. Rosemary O'Grady says:

    That’s 2017, naturally, that I enjoyed reading Return To Moscow – after hearing Tony Kevin chat with Margaret Throsby. I can’t really blame the library pc for this error : I just wasn’t paying adequate attention (because I thought you would ignore the post as too eccentric)!! Humble pie for tea! I suspect that I’m a wee bit envious of these dips who get to go ‘serve’ us (sic) in places I’d love to have visited but never shall do.

  2. Rosemary O'Grady says:

    I’ve read Return to Moscow – in deed, I paid ready money for it in 1917. I enjoyed it – except for one tiny misgiving: it seems that when we (Australia) posted Tony Kevin to Moscow as Embassy staff we sent someone who had never heard of Voronezh.
    This sent a twinge of incredulity through my sensitive soul.
    I wondered about the probitiveness (sic) of such an author.
    In this interesting piece on APEC much good sense of the ‘western’kind, but it is not an article which could have been written by a non-Westerner. Appreciators of different cultures would, and do, understand that Peter O’Neill’s making ‘no apparent effort to control’ is consistent with ways of seeing and doing in cultures where to attempt to control is a taboo behaviour. It must have been an extraordinary effort for PNG to ‘host’ APEC, and the experience could never have been like hosting APEC from the point-of-view of ‘westernized’, post-colonial (sic) ‘developed’ nations in the region. While we might think it a fair cop to analyse ‘western-style’ fora by western-style criteria, the facts are that Pacific nations want to be present and heard at these shindigs, and by the sheer nature of history and geo-politics/-physics, they shall be. And they will do things in their own fashion, however we deplore the styles. In my limited and humble opinion: we need to adapt.

  3. R. N. England says:

    It is useful to look at the US/China conflict in terms of soft power and hard power. Increasingly threatened by the hard power of the US, China has reacted mainly by stepping up its soft-power relations with the rest of the world, which is what it has been doing at APEC. That means giving those countries better commercial deals than it would otherwise have done, at the expense of living conditions in China. American hard power is also commercially driven: it is about forcing other countries to accept lousy deals. As American firms become less capable of satisfying their customers, lousy deals become the only option, and these need to be backed up by threats. The biggest of these is the treat to blockade China’s trade, and block the good deals it gives the rest of the world via the South China Sea. China’s military preparations in the South China Sea are a defence of world trade against blockade by the US. There is no doubt who is winning the peace, and no doubt who are the bad and the ugly in this competition.

Comments are closed.