Inside, outside: (mis) understanding Kiribati

By Tearinaki Patiale Tanielu , Beretitara Neeti , George Ueantabo MacKenzie

As Kiribati scholars studying at the University of Melbourne, we’ve had the privilege of engaging in long, reflective conversations about our political system and practices, that bridge our professional backgrounds. These are conversations that do not normally happen in Kiribati, due to our cultural expression of silence, which is equally a practice of democratic freedom. Our "maroro" (local version of a talanoa) sessions made critical observations on the way our political system was created, the primacy of the cultural values in which it was created, and how this plays a role in contemporary politics in Kiribati.

Breaking silence

While we share a friendship that makes our discussions cordial, we’re also staunch defenders of our respective professions, often finding ourselves at odds. Like many, we each believe our work carries unique importance. Yet, there is one area where we are in complete agreement: our deep passion for decolonisation and a philosophical foundation rooted in post-structuralism. We firmly reject any notion of racial superiority, believing instead in the egalitarian ideals of our ancestors—ideals that resonate deeply within our culture and our people, spread across our sea of islands. We also believe that our lived experiences shape our understanding, and this should change over time. We cannot be fixated on things that are not useful for our communities, whether cultural or colonial.

This article is a culmination of those conversations, held in Naarm, on the unceded lands of the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung and Bunurong Boon Wurrung Peoples of the Eastern Kulin Nation. It also embodies the perspectives of our people, whose silent voices have been misunderstood and overshadowed by foreign interests fixated on the priorities of foreign institutions rather than ours. It is a collection of thoughts and opinions, that have not been expressed freely, due to cultural values. This silent expression, we had agreed, needs to change. We need to be vocal and speak up to share our perspectives from the inside, to counter the prevailing narrative from the outside, that has often dominated all verbal spaces.

We believe that upon achievement of independence, our nation should move forward. And in doing so, we need to dismantle every policy, every law, every structure that does not work for us. We need to make diplomatic allies on the basis of logic, not emotion. We cannot be told what works best for us. We must tell that to ourselves.

Scrutiny from within vs scrutiny from outside.

Ahead of the 2024 elections, foreign media expressed concerns about the lack of information filtering out of Kiribati. The closure of borders to diplomats was clearly explained to all non-resident diplomatic missions and international organisations. Exemptions were made on missions for projects, but must undergo normal procedure. This is a very logical position, which is made very clear. The Rt. Honourable Winston Peters, New Zealand’s foreign minister, told the Associated Press that "it was not unusual for countries to request that visiting delegations avoid scheduling trips close to an election. The push by foreign media for more information, seems to now be a fish-hunt beyond the scope of the principles of freedom of information, which Freedom House recently scored Kiribati (4/4) on political rights.

Concerns raised suggesting an observed pattern of seeking to avoid international scrutiny, which were expressed by foreign media, seem peculiar. Where did this illusion emerge that international scrutiny is necessary. Is there a conflict happening? Are we under siege? Are there reports of systematic violations of human rights? Is there a natural disaster or a State of Disaster/Emergency? In regards to the latter, and apart from the border closures due to COVID-19, all state of disasters proclaimed by Te Beretitenti, have always welcomed foreign intervention and support. It is incredibly far-fetched to consider that the outside world has a non-obstructive right to scrutinise our national affairs, beyond the terms acceptable under regional and international agreements. For instance, under the Biketawa Declaration, Forum Leaders acknowledged the need for collective action during crises or upon members' requests, based on the unity of the Pacific Islands' extended family. But at the heart of Biketawa lies the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries, which some so called experts openly ignore.

The more pertinent scrutiny is those coming from within, from our people. And they can, and they do ask questions, in our own cultural format, during Ministerial visits held by government and similar consultations held by the opposition. This is in addition to live broadcast of Parliament meetings. Moreover, any I-Kiribati that wishes to have a copy of the Hansard record, is given this information freely. There may be costs for printing, but this has changed with the use of electronic formats. People are aware of what is happening. The local media provide adequate coverage. No I-Kiribati is deprived of information and Kiribati received a score of 4/4 for 'freedom of expression and belief" by freedom house in 2024. I-Kiribati can ask questions about their government, whenever they wish. Responses may take time, and may even get discussed only when raised in Parliament, but this is a procedure similar to all governments. The notion of international scrutiny on Kiribati seems very obscure and often concocts articles to enhance viewership, career driven, or both. And both have nothing to do with the rights of I-Kiribati to information that have been supposedly deprived by their government.

The high volume of citation of China in the foreign media coverage of our 2024 national elections is regrettable. Yet, in our maneaba, where our leaders, men and women, sit and deliberate on national politics with local communities, foreign interests were never a primacy.

The misplaced logic of a (mis) behaving State

We find it very interesting to consider the dichotomy of the inside/outside and the dialectics of political theory and international relations, as evinced by RBJ Walker and others. We find it more interesting when such thoughts challenge the rigid boundaries of political identity between "inside" and "outside,", because it seems to be a logical explanation, at least in our view, of the international community's misunderstanding of Kiribati's actions. Kiribati’s assertion of its right to self-determination and sovereign decision-making is often undermined, as outsiders remain fixated on a colonial mindset that imposes Western norms on non-Western states. This perpetuates an agenda of coloniality, wherein the autonomy of sovereign Pacific nations like Kiribati are routinely dismissed. As an example, we consider two events concerning Kiribati.

In 1985, Kiribati made a decision to enter into a fisheries access agreement with the Soviet Union. This action by Beretitenti Ieremia Tabai, albeit sovereign, challenged the prevailing geopolitical norms of the time. Often viewed as a small State with negligible foreign influence, Kiribati commanded significant attention because of this action. The literature tends to frame Kiribati’s decision as one of desperation or naivety, but we believe this view is myopic and fails to recognize the strategic foresight and agency demonstrated by the government.

When he discussed this decision by his government at an address for the University of Papua New Guinea, Beretitenti Tabai, emphasized the importance of autonomy in development decisions for Pacific island States. His remarks asserted why nations must have the freedom to make their own development choices based on their own interests, rather than being influenced or dictated by outsiders. He argued that "above all, development is the ability to make a free decision, a free choice, in pursuit of one’s self-interest,".

The international community’s reaction was swift and predictably critical. Western commentators framed Kiribati’s decision as reckless, a naive move by a small nation out of its depth. An article by the late Dr. Ueantabo Mackenzie described this reaction as "russophobia", and critically explained that the A$2.4 million worth of soviet fees enabled Kiribati, at the time, to terminate budgetary aid from the United Kingdom. An action he described as a component of Kiribati's right to pursue its economic interests in accordance with its own assessment of needs, costs and benefits. He further described the painful reality, however, which Beretitenti Tabai later realized, is that independence is subject to constraints, and if those constraints are breached, so-called traditional friends and allies will strive to bring such 'adventurous' countries back into line.

Often that involves resort to misinformation, buy-offs and the creation of fear and suspicion, and in the case of Kiribati, warnings about the likely consequences of dealing with the Soviet Union were particularly important. Combined with distorted information (i.e. about Soviet atrocities and ulterior motives in Kiribati), russophobia has been effective in creating dissension in Kiribati, for there are many who question the wisdom of dealing with a 'godless communist country'.

Dr Mackenzie added that Russophobia is part of the ideological superstructure which Kiribati inherited from colonial rule and a 'western upbringing', and is often used as a smokescreen for strategic denial. He rightly noted that a cornerstone of US policy in the Pacific at the time, is the desire 'to deny access to the islands to any present or potential enemy and to [ensure] that whatever political changes may take place....the government (of Kiribati) thereof will remain friendly to the interests of the United States and its allies.

Fast forward to 2019, and Kiribati once again found itself under international scrutiny, this time for switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing by Beretitenti Taneti Maamau. Much like the Soviet fishing pact, this decision was met with a barrage of criticism, particularly from Western media and scholars, which oddly rings a sense of 'dejavu', except, now it pertains to the People's Republic of China, and involves the same traditional partners and friends in ploy.

Kiribati’s actions over the past few decades demonstrate a consistent and deliberate effort to assert its sovereignty and right to self-determination. These actions challenge the narrative that Pacific post-colonial States are merely reactive or passive players on the global stage. Instead, they highlight the strategic thinking and agency that underpin their foreign policy decisions.

As Amber Murrey and Patricia Daley argue asserting sovereignty in the face of external pressures is a form of resistance, a way of challenging the dominant narratives that seek to define and limit possibilities for small nations. Kiribati’s actions, often misunderstood or mischaracterized, are a powerful reminder that the right to self-determination is not just a legal principle but a lived reality, requiring constant vigilance and courage to uphold.

The pathway towards sustainable development

The upcoming election is a timely opportunity to expect a renewed message committed towards decolonisation. We hope to see both parties exert strong a message in their political manifesto that beckons a new order, and recognises that true and lasting change demands a systemic overhaul, one that is rooted in and driven by internal values rather than external pressures.

To achieve sustainable and meaningful development, we must embrace a decolonized approach—one that honours and integrates customary values rather than imposing foreign norms. The path forward after achieving independence must involve a critical reassessment of policies, laws, and structures that do not serve our nation. It is essential to dismantle those systems and build new ones that reflect our unique needs and aspirations. Diplomatic relationships should be formed based on rational, strategic decisions, free from external pressures or emotional influence. Ultimately, we must define what works best for us, guided by our own wisdom and self-determination.

Political groupings in our parliament should be based on objectives that advocate our indigenous cultural values, not those inherited from the colonial administration. It needs to be rooted in a post-structuralist approach to transform Kiribati, redrawing geographical imaginaries, including a shift from being a "small island" to a "large ocean State".

Observation on party alliances

In terms of party alliances, over the years, party dynamics in Kiribati continue to shift, as observed by Dr. Takuia Uakeia in his PhD dissertation. From 1978 to 1994, the National Progressive Party (NPP) was in power, with opposition from Reitan Kiribati, Te Waaki ae Bou, and the Christian Democratic Party. From 1994 to 2003, Boutokan te Koaua (BTK) became the opposition, while Maneaban te Mauri (PMP) governed. Between 2003 and 2007, BTK formed a coalition with Maurin Kiribati (KPP), while PMP was in opposition. The coalition split in 2008, leaving BTK in government, with PMP and KPP in opposition. From 2008 to 2016, BTK remained in power, facing opposition from PMP and KPP. In 2016, these parties merged into Tobwaan Kiribati Party (TKP), with BTK moving to opposition.

Between 2020 and 2023, political alliances shifted further. TKP remained in government with a majority but experienced a split, leading to the creation of the Kiribati Moa Party (KMP) by MP Banuera Berina. BTK also split, forming the Kamanoan Kiribati Party (KKP) led by MP Tessie Lambourne. These three parties then formed a minority opposition.

In 2024, an unprecedented shift in power occurred. Normally, new MPs do not declare their party allegiance before the Speaker’s election and the nomination of Presidential candidates. However, the TKP Chairperson, MP from Abaiang, Betero Atanibora, recently reported securing 33 members for TKP, including 19 original members and 12 newly elected ones. This majority has never before been seen in our political history, and is quite remarkable to happen before the Speaker's election and the subsequent call for Presidential nominations. This leaves 12 MPs to form the opposition, most likely through a coalition. But we have not sighted any announcement at this point in time.

Recent commentary suggests that the political landscape remains an open contest, and initially, we agreed. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the dynamics have shifted significantly. Changes in parliamentary rules and procedures have altered the traditional playing field. In the past, the party majority was often unclear until after the Speaker’s election, which was held via secret ballot. Now, with MPs required to vote openly in a manner akin to a division vote (as outlined in Rule 6), the balance of power is more transparent. When we compare the influence of 33 MPs campaigning in their island constituencies with that of only 12 MPs, a distinct majority emerges, fundamentally shaping the political dynamics in favor of the larger group. This shift makes the outcome less about speculation and more about numbers, with a clear majority driving the political agenda.

In the span of our 45-year political history, Beretienti are always re-elected for a third term if the opportunity arises, reflecting our cultural ideals of egalitarianism. The unprecedented majority within TKP suggests that Beretitenti Maamau is likely to secure the nomination as the TKP Candidate. It also suggests that the potential for a third term for Beretitenti Maamau looms large. With TKP's unprecedented majority, it is likely that Beretitenti Maamau will secure the nomination and vote, leading to another term in office.

What we look for in our new government

As I-Kiribati, we hope to see a few things by our government, once elected. We wish to see an approach dedicated to changing our status quo, deconstructing systems that have inhibited growth, localizing expertise and enhancing accountability ecosystems. It must emphasize customary practices and insist that long-term, sustainable development must come from within, not outside. It must NOT be about a pro-China and anti-China agenda. We must work with ALL our partners fluently.

It is heartening to recognize the importance of long-term planning. In the past, our 4 year development plans, continue to be guided by the longer term plans of our partners. It is commendable to see Kiribati's first long-term plan, the KV20, refocusing attention on national priorities and rejecting the defeatist narrative of a nation doomed to disappear. This needs to continue. We also need a firm Foreign Policy, based on an actual document, created by I-Kiribati, for I-Kiribati. It is laudable to see Kiribati's first ever foreign policy launched on Kiribati's national day (12 July) 2024. From our post-structural perspective, we see the launching of this document as very timely. It also explains what has been (mis)understood by the outside world: that Kiribati’s actions over the past few decades demonstrate a consistent and deliberate effort to assert its sovereignty and right to self-determination.

The Kiribati Foreign Policy 2024, inter alia, shifts from deficit-based to opportunity-driven partnerships rooted in local context and identity. Asserting itself as the second largest Ocean State, it emphasizes resilience and the well-being of all I-Kiribati within the Blue Pacific Continent. We hope this document continues to guide our government.

Kiribati is at an important crossroads, with a unique opportunity to shape its future through a renewed focus on decolonization and self-determination. The upcoming election offers a valuable moment to reaffirm our nation’s local values and priorities, while fostering partnerships that respect mutual interests and the shared principles of international cooperation. We hope to see our beloved Kiribati committed to working with all partners on the basis of equality, mutual respect, and non-interference, ensuring that diplomatic relationships are built on the international principle of the sovereign equality of states.

May we all be blessed with good health, peace and prosperity- Te Mauri, Te Raoi, Te Tabomoa.