The annual Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting opened this week in Koror, Palau, but the gathering has been overshadowed before the first session. Five of the forum's 18 member states sent no head of government, and Beijing has voiced anger over Taiwan's participation as a separate delegation.
Leaders from Kiribati, Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa, and the Solomon Islands are absent. New Zealand's Foreign Minister Winston Peters called the collective no-show “highly suspicious,” though he stopped short of direct accusations. The absences come as the forum tries to address pressing regional issues, from climate adaptation to economic resilience.
Why the missing leaders matter
The PIF is the Pacific's premier diplomatic body, the main venue where island states craft a common agenda. When prime ministers and presidents skip the summit, the forum's authority weakens. Australian leaders have been criticized in the past for staying home due to domestic politics, and some of this year's absences have similar explanations. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale returned to Honiara to face a no-confidence motion, a reminder that foreign policy is often hostage to domestic survival.
Still, the scale of the no-shows is unusual. Analysts point to China's growing influence in the region. Beijing has reportedly threatened “consequences” over Taiwan's presence in Palau, one of the few states that maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei. The forum's theme, “Building Economies: Life. Action. Unity,” now seems optimistic.
The Pacific prides itself on the “Pacific way” of consensus-based diplomacy. That approach has historically managed diverse interests with cultural sensitivity. But external pressures and internal divisions are testing it.
Geopolitics at play
China's assertiveness in the Pacific is a central factor. Beijing has competed with Australia for influence through aid and infrastructure, often targeting elites directly. Canberra has countered with its own bilateral deals, focusing on governance, education, and health. The Lowy Institute's aid tracker shows Chinese aid rising and then falling as Australia responded.
Australia has also secured security treaties with Tuvalu (2023), Naoero (formerly Nauru) (2024), Papua New Guinea (2025), Vanuatu (2026), and Fiji (2026). These bilateral arrangements elevate Canberra's geopolitical concerns, but they may undercut the forum's multilateral approach. Some Pacific leaders have embraced them, but others worry about being drawn into a superpower contest.
China's planned intercontinental ballistic missile test in Pacific waters, which coincided with the signing of the Ocean of Peace treaty in Suva, did not go unnoticed. Pacific leaders were unimpressed, but taking sides has consequences.
The Taiwan issue is a key driver. Palau is one of the few countries that recognize Taiwan, making it a focal point for Beijing's efforts to isolate the island diplomatically. China's anger over Taiwan's delegation is thus inseparable from its broader competition with Australia and the United States.
Unity under strain
Without unity, the Pacific cannot advance its core agenda. Sustainable economics is a worthy focus, but the region has been hit hard by global supply chain disruptions and the fallout from the US-Iran conflict. The transition to renewable energy is accelerating, but resources are scarce.
The long shadow of Covid-19 still hangs over the region. Coordinated action is needed, but the forum's secretariat in Suva can only do so much if leaders are not engaged. Key initiatives like the Blue Pacific strategy and the Ocean of Peace Alliance between Australia and Fiji depend on collective political will.
Pacific leaders may benefit from engaging in the geopolitical contest between China and Australia, but ultimately, that is a distraction from the pressing issues facing their people. The forum's credibility rests on its ability to deliver on climate, economic resilience, and regional security—not on who shows up to the photo op.
