New Zealand’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, has expressed concern over Tuvalu’s warning that it could boycott the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders’ Meeting if dialogue partners are excluded. The remarks come after Tuvalu’s prime minister, Feleti Teo, told The Guardian that he would weigh the views of other Pacific leaders before deciding whether to attend the leaders’ summit in Honiara.
Luxon’s comments follow Teo’s earlier statements in which he said he had received personal assurance from Solomon Islands prime minister Jeremiah Manele that Taiwan would not be excluded from the forum. Yet Solomon Islands has since confirmed a move to bar 21 donor countries from the leaders’ summit next month, a decision that also excludes key powers like the United States and China.
The list of excluded donors includes Canada, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, the European Union, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Italy, Cuba, Spain, Turkey, Germany, Chile, Norway, and Singapore. Taiwan, while a persistent regional participant, is not an official PIF dialogue partner. Despite the narrowing of attendance, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and civil society groups will still be invited to participate in the summit.
In Suva, Luxon reiterated his support for preserving the current attendance framework, saying, “We want all dialogue partners to be there. We think that’s important. We can still continue our regional architecture conversations, which we need to close out.” He also noted he had spoken with Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters after the Foreign Ministers Meeting in Suva, underscoring that New Zealand will continue to advocate for Pacific-led engagement and the centrality of the Forum in regional affairs.
Analysts and regional experts have warned that excluding dialogue partners could deepen fragmentation within the Pacific and overshadow the forum’s ability to address shared challenges. Dr Anna Powles, an associate professor of security studies at Massey University, described Tuvalu’s potential non-attendance as deeply concerning for Forum unity and cautioned that regional fragmentation could come to dominate discussions if attendance is narrowed. She argued that attempts to keep the Forum from becoming a geopolitical stage for outside powers may be behind the move to limit participation, but the broader trend reflects a increasingly fractured regional dynamic.
The debate over Taiwan’s place in the Forum is central to the tension. Some Pacific leaders, including Samoa, Palau, and the Marshall Islands, have voiced strong support for maintaining Taiwan’s participation, viewing it as essential to inclusive dialogue and regional resilience on issues like climate change and development. Others argue that the Solomon Islands’ decision signals a shift toward a more China-centric regional alignment. The current moment has foregrounded the so-called Pacific Way—consensus and mutual respect—as a test for whether leaders can uphold regional solidarity while navigating external pressures.
Implications for climate finance, development projects, and regional resilience are a major part of the discussion. Excluding major donors could affect funding streams and the implementation of regional initiatives, even as institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank remain involved. The broader question is whether the forum can remain the central hub for practical cooperation on climate resilience, sustainable development, and security—without sidelining partners that the region has long relied on.
Value-added context and outlook
– The Pacific Islands Forum has long framed its approach around regional leadership and shared priorities. How leaders balance sovereignty with inclusive dialogue will shape the Forum’s legitimacy and effectiveness in addressing climate finance and development.
– Taiwan’s participation remains a live issue, tied to broader dynamics of U.S.–China competition and Beijing’s influence in the Pacific. The future of Taiwan’s role within the Forum could influence regional cooperation on climate and security.
– There is cautious optimism that Pacific leaders can reaffirm core goals—climate resilience, sustainable development, and regional security—while engaging a diversified set of partners in a way that respects regional sovereignty.
Context and analysis
– The current moment tests the resilience of the Forum’s core principles and the extent to which regional actors can preserve a Pacific-led agenda in the face of shifting great-power dynamics.
– A constructive path forward, many analysts suggest, lies in reinforcing the Forum’s “Pacific Way”—emphasizing consensus, mutual respect, and practical outcomes—while maintaining inclusive dialogue with a broad range of partners.
Summary note
– The Solomon Islands’ decision to exclude 21 donor countries has sparked a broad debate about unity, inclusivity, and regional priorities. As leaders prepare for the Honiara summit, the region faces a defining choice between sovereign prerogatives and the collective strength of regional cooperation.
Positive note
– Despite tensions, there remains hope that Pacific nations can navigate these pressures by upholding inclusive dialogue, prioritizing shared regional needs, and reinforcing the Forum as a central platform for collaboration on climate action, development, and security. The enduring appeal of the Pacific Way offers a framework for renewing trust and advancing common goals.
Leave a comment