During Kiribati’s recent election campaign, a communication from the Kiribati Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration informed foreign diplomatic missions that “due to ongoing national elections, no visits will be permitted … until the end of December.” This directive affects a range of visiting officials, including politicians, diplomats, law enforcement, and defense officials.
Kiribati has taken significant steps in reshaping its foreign relations, including transitioning diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China in 2019, which led to a Chinese police presence on the islands. Additionally, the nation temporarily left the Pacific Islands Forum in 2021 to highlight Micronesian issues and has recently scrutinized diplomatic visas for Australian officials. These actions have positioned Kiribati as a key player in geopolitical discussions, making the “diplomatic pause” a relevant topic.
While the recent electoral focus has been on domestic economic matters, foreign diplomats and politicians remain eager to visit and engage with the new administration. Part of the travel restrictions seems aimed at preventing “chequebook diplomacy” and potential external interference.
Kiribati’s request is not unprecedented; it reflects a broader trend among Pacific nations that occasionally seek to pause international visits to evaluate their priorities. For instance, Samoa has instituted three annual “no missions” periods due to various local considerations, allowing for deeper reflection on national agendas.
These pauses in international engagement afford countries the chance to focus on their fundamental issues without the distractions posed by foreign visits, which can strain local resources. High-level official visits demand extensive time and attention from hosting governments, which often divert officials from vital local duties, such as attending to smaller outer islands or essential healthcare services.
The small size of Pacific bureaucracies exacerbates this strain. Kiribati’s National Economic and Planning Office, for example, typically has only a handful of staff responsible for coordinating numerous internationally funded projects, while many ministries operate with limited resources and personnel.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted that Pacific nations could proceed with their agendas when unencumbered by foreign delegations, reinforcing the argument for restricting international visits. Improved coordination among partner states could lead to more efficient support for Pacific island countries, better aligning with their development plans and security strategies.
Despite increased geopolitical engagement, including diplomatic efforts from partners like Australia, the push for diplomatic visits can sometimes lead to overlapping initiatives that do not align with local requirements. The increased competition for diplomatic influence in the Pacific must be balanced with respect for the needs and capacities of these nations.
Kiribati’s government had to navigate delays, including for its newly appointed High Commissioner, and plans for future visits from other nations may be stymied by this announcement. However, the situation presents an opportunity; instead of rushing to engage, partners should respect Kiribati’s request for space to foster their own political discourse.
Ultimately, this initiative for a diplomatic pause reflects a broader intent by Pacific nations to assert their autonomy in defining their democratic processes. By honoring Kiribati’s request for breathing room, international partners can build trust and support efforts that align with the nation’s own priorities.