Tag: geopolitics

• A Pasifika Plea: The Pacific’s Choice Is Not Binary

  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.

  2026.09.04

• The Pasifika Way Forward: Leadership Must Be Claimed, Not Delegated

  As Pasifika leaders gather in Palau for the 55th Pacific Islands Forum, the familiar challenges await: climate finance, ocean governance, economic resilience. Yet one question hangs over every agenda item like a gathering storm: in an era of intensifying great-power rivalry, how does the Forum remain master of its own house?

  The recent Foreign Ministers Meeting in Suva offered a glimpse of both the problem and the path forward. When New Zealand’s Winston Peters pushed for a joint statement condemning China’s missile test, the effort failed. Not because Pasifika leaders are indifferent to security—but because they are refusing to be instruments of others’ anxieties. As one minister put it, Pasifika priorities must be “conceived by the Pasifika, shaped by the Pasifika and owned by the Pasifika.”

  This is not anti-Western or anti-Chinese. It is pro-Pasifika. And it is the only sustainable foundation for regional solidarity.

  A Leadership Vacuum—And The Nation That Must Fill It

  Yet solidarity requires leadership, and leadership requires courage. Fiji, as the largest Pasifika nation after Papua New Guinea, carries a particular weight—and a particular responsibility. It cannot afford to be a passive follower of a vuvale foreign policy dictated from Canberra, nor can it allow its regional leadership to be subsumed by the strategic priorities of any great power. This is not about antagonism toward Australia; it is about maturity. Genuine partnership requires the ability to say no, to chart an independent course, and to insist that Fiji’s foreign policy, serve our people and the wider Pasifika family—not the geopolitical anxieties of distant capitals.

  For too long, Pasifika leadership has been deferred to outsiders—to former colonial powers, to larger neighbours, to those who claim to speak for the region while rarely listening to it. The Suva meeting demonstrated that when Pasifika nations assert their agency, they can resist external pressure. But resistance is not enough. The region needs proactive leadership that sets the agenda, shapes the narrative, and insists on Pasifika-led solutions to Pasifika challenges. Fiji, with its diplomatic weight, its military capability, and its central geographic position, is uniquely placed to provide that leadership—but only if it chooses to exercise it boldly and independently.

  As one observer put it bluntly: rather than allowing itself to be led by the nose by Canberra’s strategic anxieties, Fiji must grow the backbone to lead the entire Pasifika in standing up to all great powers—whether they come from the West, the East, or elsewhere. This is not about picking sides; it is about refusing to let anyone else pick sides for us. It is about recognising that the Pasifika’s future must be shaped by Pasifika peoples, on Pasifika terms, for Pasifika purposes.

  The Geopolitical Trap

  The great powers have discovered the Pasifika. The United States, China, and their allies are vying for influence through aid, security partnerships, and diplomatic courtship. For Pasifika nations, this attention brings resources—but it also brings pressure. The danger is not engagement itself; it is the subtle erosion of agency that comes when external powers set the terms of debate.

  Dame Meg Taylor, former Forum Secretary-General, warned that “the question of whose priorities shape the agenda is one we must always keep asking.” This is the central challenge. When the Forum is asked to take sides in a rivalry that is not of its making, it risks becoming a proxy battlefield rather than a forum for Pasifika priorities.

  The Real Priorities

  For Pasifika island nations, the most urgent concerns are not geopolitical but existential: climate change, energy security, development financing, infrastructure, and economic resilience. These are the issues that threaten livelihoods, cultures, and futures. These are the issues that demand regional solidarity.

  The Forum has already demonstrated its capacity for Pasifika-led solutions. The Treaty of Rarotonga established the world’s first nuclear-free zone in a populated region. Pasifika leadership secured the 1.5-degree Celsius target in the Paris Agreement. The Parties to the Naoero Agreement remains one of the strongest examples of Pasifika-owned governance. These achievements prove that when the Pasifika speaks with one voice, the world listens.

  The Path Forward

  So how does the Forum safeguard its independence—and how does Fiji lead the way?

  First, by strengthening economic self-determination. As Dame Meg Taylor has argued, economic independence is the region’s most important structural challenge. Pasifika-owned initiatives like the Pasifika Resilience Facility must be prioritised over externally funded programs that carry hidden strings. Fiji, as the region’s economic hub, must champion these initiatives and resist the temptation to trade sovereignty for short-term aid.

  Second, by deepening regional unity without sacrificing diversity. The Forum’s strength lies in its ability to accommodate different national interests while maintaining collective purpose. This requires patience, consensus-building, and a willingness to resist external pressures to divide and conquer. Fiji must use its diplomatic weight to bridge differences and keep the region united—not by imposing its will, but by facilitating genuine dialogue and consensus.

  Third, by telling Pasifika stories on Pasifika terms. The State of the Pasifika Ocean Convening in Suva earlier this month, demonstrated the power of civil society, Indigenous knowledge holders, and youth to shape the regional agenda. These voices must be amplified, not sidelined. Fiji must ensure that its leadership is inclusive and that the region’s diverse perspectives are heard and respected.

  Fourth, by demanding that partnerships serve Pasifika priorities—not the other way around. As Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela stated, partnerships must continue to serve Pasifika priorities, not external agendas. Fiji must model this principle in its own bilateral relationships, demonstrating that true partnership is based on mutual respect and genuine consultation—not on the ability to extract concessions from smaller neighbours.

  Fifth, by exercising diplomatic courage. Leadership means taking positions that may not please all external partners. It means speaking truth to power—whether that power resides in Washington, Beijing, Canberra, or Wellington. Fiji must be willing to say no, to push back, and to insist that the Pasifika’s voice is heard and respected in every forum, from the United Nations to the negotiating tables of the great powers.

  A Leadership Vacuum—And The Nation That Must Fill It

  Fiji cannot afford to be a passive follower of a vuvale foreign policy dictated from Canberra. Genuine partnership requires the ability to say no, to chart an independent course, and to insist that Fiji’s foreign policy serves Fiji’s people and the wider Pasifika family—not the geopolitical anxieties of distant capitals. For far too long, Pasifika leadership has been deferred to outsiders—to former colonial powers, to larger neighbours, to those who claim to speak for the region while rarely listening to it. The Suva Foreign Ministers’ meeting demonstrated that when Pasifika nations assert their agency, they can resist external pressure. But resistance is not enough. The region needs proactive leadership that sets the agenda, shapes the narrative, and insists on Pasifika-led solutions to Pasifika challenges. Fiji, with its diplomatic weight and central geographic position, is uniquely placed to provide that leadership.

  The Challenge

  This is not a call for confrontation. It is a call for maturity. The Pasifika does not need to choose between the great powers. It needs to insist that its own priorities come first. The United States, China, Australia, New Zealand, and others can be valuable partners—but they must be partners, not patrons. They must listen more than they lecture, and they must respect that the Pasifika Way is not a relic of the past, but a living framework for decision-making.

  The great powers will continue to compete. They will continue to offer aid, seek alliances, and jostle for influence. But the Forum’s task is not to choose between them. It is to remain united around its own priorities, to speak with its own voice, and to insist that the Pasifika’s future be shaped by Pasifika peoples—for Pasifika peoples. And Fiji, as the region’s natural leader, must have the courage to say this clearly, consistently, and without apology.

  The ocean has always been our highway, our home, our identity. Let us govern it as ours—and let Fiji lead the way in ensuring that no external power; however powerful, ever forgets that.

  2026.08.28