Islands of Solomon Islands (Wade Fairley/WorldFish)

Everyone has their own motivation to maintain and be included in the Forum (Photos: Wade Fairley/WorldFish and US Embassy New Zealand)

The Pacific’s diplomatic retreat from great power competition

Regional leaders are excluding outside powers as they seek consensus on a way to safeguard both unity and diversity.

Hansley Gumbaketi

8 September 20254 min read

The agreement to restrict non-member states from attending the forthcoming Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting next week in Honiara is seen to signal a risk of fragmentation. But the decision appears to be less controversial and more prudent when considering the context. While external influence is real, and this can tear at the connections that bind the members, deeper internal questions now confront Pacific leaders. Limiting outside voices is a choice that ensures the Pacific can align itself.

The Pacific Islands region is not like anywhere else in the world. There is a long tradition of consensus-building, which, though slow and full of nuance, continues to draw members back into the fold. Fiji and the Micronesian states re-entering the forum after their respective issues are indicative of the value placed on being included in the regional association.

What Pacific leaders are looking to achieve now is space to deliberate. “Fragmentation” is a word that carries the implication of conflict, tensions and frustrations. But what Pacific Island leaders are seeking to achieve at the coming Forum is an alignment of purpose.

The theme for this Forum meeting, “Iumi Tugeda: Act Now for an Integrated Blue Pacific Continent”, places integration at the centre of the regional agenda. For Australia and New Zealand, integration offers predictability; but for the smaller states, it raises difficult questions about sovereignty and identity. Resolving this will offer a way forward.

This carries a practical implication. The region has long favoured a “friends-to-all” approach in diplomacy. But the language preferred by partners is of “deepening ties”, which can imply a preference for some friends over others. This presents a delicate balancing act, which is already being negotiated despite calls for peace in the Pacific region.

The Forum must grapple with this new reality: how to manage remaining friends to all but inevitably partners to some – if not fewer.

So, coming into this meeting, states have accepted limits, recognising that it is practical to regroup at this moment. New Zealand, Cook Islands, and perhaps even Nauru and Australia arrive in Honiara with baggage. Those Micronesian states in a compact of association with the United States have accepted that their benefactor won’t be there. Solomon Islands and Kiribati, both of which have relatively recently switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China, also accept the decision to distance the grouping. This can help the region recalibrate.

The reasons for this are practical given the shared constraints in geography and economy. Everyone has their own motivation to maintain and be included in the Forum.

Part of the effort in the coming meeting, then, is to explore what the future of a regional approach will resemble. This reflects a shared presumption that any single member going rogue risks isolation, which doesn’t serve anyone else in the region.

With China, the United States, and others having expanded their security footprint in the Pacific, this challenges regional desires to remain non-militarised. Australia, meanwhile, has stepped forward as a self-declared “partner of choice”. The Forum must grapple with this new reality: how to manage remaining friends to all but inevitably partners to some – if not fewer.

Papua New Guinea has exemplified this potential shift within the forum's membership. Prime Minister James Marape’s 2024 address to the Australian parliament symbolised the desire for deepening bilateral partnership. PNG has expanded its security ties with Australia and will soon formalise a long-anticipated defence treaty.

While PNG frames this as pragmatic cooperation, it implicitly tests the limits of the “friends-to-all” doctrine. It is an advantageous position for Australia to be in. It has used this as endorsement to push for deeper security ties across the region over the last 12 months.

It is against this backdrop that the principles of regional relations will be debated at the Forum within the confines of the “Ocean of Peace” declaration. As an outcome, it is intended to reaffirm the region’s commitment to peace and security, but its final wording will be closely watched by those not in the room.

Ultimately, the direction this PIF leaders’ meeting takes may prove the most consequential of the decade. Key questions will surface but the least among them will be whether the Forum can hold together. Instead the focus looks to be on how it can act decisively, with purpose in an increasingly complex region. By limiting external voices, the region is ensuring this is a choice for itself, to craft a model of strategic autonomy that safeguards both unity and diversity.

About the author

Hansley Gumbaketi

Hansley Gumbaketi is an infrastructure development specialist from Papua New Guinea with interests at the intersections of urban governance, infrastructure development, and Pacific regionalism.

Topics

Pacific Islands