The 55th Pacific Islands Forum in Palau has just concluded. The global headlines, predictably, focused on the heavyweights—Australia’s Prime Minister and the debate over China’s missile test. But those of us watching from within the region saw something far more significant than a mere geopolitical squabble.
We saw the quiet, deliberate presence of Chinese and Indian diplomats in the room. Not as interlopers. Not as aggressors. But as representatives of nations that recognise what our so-called “traditional partners” have long refused to acknowledge: the Pasifika is no longer anyone’s backyard. It is a neighbourhood of sovereign nations with agency, ambition, and the right to choose.
For too long, our region has been framed as a “contested space.” This is the language of empires, not of equals. External powers see us as pawns on their grand chessboard—a place of “permanent contest” between Australia and the West on one side and an ascendant China on the other. This narrative, peddled from Washington and Canberra, is dangerously condescending. It assumes that our leaders, our people, and our islands are passive objects to be won, rather than sovereign nations with our own priorities.
The presence of India, alongside China, at the Palau summit proves that the world is far more complex and that our options are far more diverse. Just as the US and Australia have long sought our favour, so too are India and China signalling their genuine interest. India’s engagement, for instance, is not merely transactional. It is rooted in deep historical diaspora connections and a philosophy of cultural diplomacy that seeks “unity and harmony”—a model that feels far more sustainable than the transactional scramble for influence we too often witness.
The events at the PIF meeting demonstrated this complexity in action. Australia, in a clear attempt to lock in its influence, spent the summit securing a web of new security deals, from police deployments to defense pacts. Yet even as it did so, it faced a stark reminder that its influence is not absolute. The forum failed to reach a unanimous condemnation of China’s missile test, with nations like Naoero and Kiribati signaling their refusal to be drawn into a confrontational stance.
This is not a sign of division. It is a sign of maturity. It is our leaders recognising that tying our future exclusively to one power—even an old and trusted friend like Australia—is a strategic gamble. The geopolitical climate is shifting. Singapore’s foreign minister called it a “geostrategic climate change.” We, of all people, know the cost of rising sea levels. We must also recognise the cost of being swept away by geopolitical tides.
As Pasifika peoples, our identity is not defined by allegiance to any single great power. Our identity is defined by our ocean, our culture, and our shared aspiration for a peaceful and prosperous future. The “friends to all” approach, which has served us well, is no longer simply pragmatic—it is essential. It means engaging with China on infrastructure and trade, with India on development and cultural ties, and with Australia and the US on traditional security, all while keeping our own sovereign interests at the centre of our decision-making.
The Pasifika Way has always been about consensus, respect, and mutual benefit. These values are not compatible with the zero-sum logic of great power rivalry. We are not a “theatre of rivalries.” We are the Blue Pasifika Continent—a family of nations with a collective voice. Our unity; imperfect as it may be, is our greatest strength.
The path for the Pasifika is not to be found by walking the fence for any one master. It lies in keeping our options open, setting our own standards, and ensuring that the only permanent resident in our region is a robust and lasting peace. Our ancestors navigated our vast ocean without a compass. They read the stars, the currents, and the winds. Today, we must navigate geopolitics with the same wisdom—charting our own course, not following anyone else’s map.
The diplomats from China and India were not in Palau to claim territory. They were there to offer partnership. We should accept that gesture on our own terms, not as a rejection of the West, but as an affirmation of ourselves. The Pasifika’s future will not be written in Washington, Beijing, or Canberra. It will be written in Suva, Port Moresby, Nuku’alofa, and across the great expanse of our ocean. Let us write it together, with our eyes wide open and our options freely chosen.
Pasifika Talanoa by a traveled ITaukei Fijian 