The Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting in Suva last Friday was meant to set the agenda for the Leaders’ Meeting in Palau later this month. Instead, it exposed a fundamental divide – not between Pasifika nations, but between how we see ourselves and how some of our partners see us.
When foreign ministers failed to agree on a joint statement condemning China’s July missile test into Pasifika waters, New Zealand’s Winston Peters was visibly frustrated. He told media that some Pasifika nations were using the consensus system because they were “more concerned with external partners’ wishes than those that belong to the Pacific Islands Forum” – a position he described as an “unusual view”.
Let me be direct: there is nothing “unusual” about it.
What is unusual is a visiting foreign minister lecturing sovereign Pasifika nations on how they should conduct their regional diplomacy. What is unusual is demanding that small island states fall in line with a strategic narrative that serves the interests of larger powers, not our own.
The Pasifika Way is not a procedure – it is our identity
The Pasifika Way was first articulated by one of our greatest regional leaders, the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Fiji’s first Prime Minister. Coined in the early 1970s, it came to symbolise a way of doing things specific to our islands: a way that emphasised moderation, respect, consensual dialogue, inclusiveness, adaptation and compromise.
Ratu Mara conceptualised the true meaning of this phrase, representing the uniqueness of our island nations and their shared interests. The Pasifika Way is rooted in traditional values – the same values enshrined in the Fijian phrase “Me Dua Vata Tiko na Keda i Vau” – a sentiment that has a prominent place in the Vale Ni Bose Levu Vakaturaga, in Draiba, Suva.
This is not merely a diplomatic procedure. It is who we are. It is how we have governed ourselves for generations – through consensus, through respect, through the understanding that unity is found not in forcing agreement but in patiently building it.
Unlike the United Nations where you vote, the Forum operates on the basis of consensus – “just like in a BLV meeting”. The 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pasifika Continent describes this as “consensus-based decision making, whilst respecting sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in national affairs”.
When consensus is mistaken for obstruction
Kiribati and Naoero opposed a strong statement condemning the missile testing. Peters wanted them to fall in line. When they didn’t, he accused them of appeasing outsiders.
But here is what Peters fails to understand: in the Pasifika Way, consensus is not a hurdle to be overcome. It is the destination. The process of dialogue, of listening, of finding common ground – that is what holds Pasifika island states together.
Forum Secretary General Baron Divavesi Waqa rejected suggestions that any country had blocked the statement. He said countries had put forward their sovereign positions and ministers were working through those differences according to the Pasifika Way of dialogue and consensus. Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the meeting, stressed that Pasifika unity does not mean every member must hold the same position. He said the Pasifika Way requires countries to listen to each other’s national circumstances and perspectives and work towards positions reflecting the collective interests of the region.
When a nation exercises its sovereign right to withhold consensus, it is not “blocking” anything. It is participating in the very process that makes the Forum legitimate.
Some governments have rightly pointed out that China is not the only country testing nuclear-capable missiles in the Pasifika – the United States regularly conducts tests into the Marshall Islands. That complexity, that nuance, is precisely why the Pasifika Way matters. It allows space for all perspectives to be heard, rather than imposing a single narrative convenient to one partner’s strategic interests.
The “unusual view” that isn’t unusual at all
The Pasifika Way is not about choosing sides. It is about maintaining relationships with all powers, because our national interests require engagement with all who contribute to our security and development.
For small Pasifika states, the calculation is different:
· We need security partnerships – Australia and New Zealand offer the most credible.
· We need economic partnerships – China offers significant investment.
· We need to navigate between giants – and that requires skill, not alignment.
When Kiribati and Naoero withheld consensus, they were not betraying the region. They were protecting their sovereign right to determine their own relationships, in their own time, on their own terms. That is not “unusual”. That is the Pasifika Way in action.
A lesson for our partners
Among the discussion points at last Friday’s meeting was the Solomon Islands’ proposal for a regional security treaty – an “umbrella” on top of existing non-binding regional MOUs. The proposal is understood to require more consultation.
If our partners want to engage constructively on such proposals, they must first understand how we make decisions. The Pasifika Way is not a procedural technicality. It is the expression of our sovereignty, our unity, and our distinct identity as Pasifika peoples.
Ratu Mara understood this. He built the Pacific Islands Forum on these principles. The late leader emphasised the importance of vuvale, the Pasifika Way, consensus and talanoa. Those values have served our region well for decades.
Perhaps it is time for our partners from down south, to study them more carefully – before they dismiss as “unusual” what we know to be the very foundation of our regional family.
Pasifika Talanoa by a traveled ITaukei Fijian 