The Pacific in an Era of Geopolitical Fluidity
Keynote Address by Professor Transform Aqorau, Vice Chancellor of SINU at the PIPSA Convention in Wellington from 20 to 21 February 2025
Introduction – A Personal Reflection on China’s Presence in the Pacific
Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.
(Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all,)
E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.
(To the esteemed authorities, to the many voices, to the many affiliations, I extend my greetings to you all.)
I extend my warmest greetings to the tangata whenua of this land, the Māori people of Aotearoa. I acknowledge the mana whenua, the traditional custodians of this place, and express my gratitude for the opportunity to stand on your whenua, your land, and to share in this important discussion. Mauri ora!
Distinguished guests, Professor Nic Smith, Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, it is a privilege to address such a distinguished gathering today.
I am truly honoured to be here today, and even more so to speak on a subject that is not merely a matter of policy or academic discourse, but a lived reality for many of us in the Pacific. As a Solomon Islander, my understanding of geopolitics is not shaped by abstract theories or distant power struggles, but by the rhythms of everyday life in my country and across our Blue Pacific continent.
Growing up in the Solomon Islands, Chinese traders were an inseparable part of our daily lives. From the small corner stores in our villages to the bustling markets in Honiara, they were the ones who supplied our goods, extended credit to struggling families, and even became a part of our communities. Many of my peers went to school with the children of Chinese families who had called the Solomons home for generations. For over a century, our economic and social fabric has been intertwined with theirs.
This is why I find it perplexing when Western media and some geopolitical strategists speak of China’s “infiltration” into the Pacific as though it were something new and unprecedented. The reality is that Pacific Islanders have long been navigating relationships with China and other external powers—on our own terms, with our own agency. The fear that Pacific nations are merely passive pawns in a great power contest does not align with the historical and cultural realities of our region.
But while the relationships are old, the geopolitical landscape has undeniably shifted, and this brings me to the broader question at the heart of this conference: Are we in the Pacific a Zone of Peace, or are we navigating an Ocean of Discontent? What I want to reflect on here is the specific question of whether we Pacific islanders are doomed to be caught in a geopolitical storm or can we chart a path forward that ensures peace, stability and prosperity in the Pacific?
The Economic and Development Imperative: Why Pacific Nations Engage with China
One of the key drivers of Pacific Island nations drawing closer to China is development assistance. For decades, many of our people have felt that traditional development partners have not delivered enough tangible benefits. Elections in the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and Kiribati have all featured strong sentiments that our traditional donors have been slow to respond to our needs.
However, the reality is more complex. While China has been lauded for its infrastructure investments, data from the Lowy Institute shows that Chinese aid to the Pacific has actually been declining since 2016. A greater share of its assistance now goes to the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, and notably, more of it is in the form of grants rather than concessional loans.
This raises critical questions:
- What do Pacific nations truly gain from increased engagement with China?
- Are we seeing real long-term benefits, or are we merely shifting dependence from one set of donors to another?
- How can we ensure that external partnerships, whether with China, the United States, or others, align with our own development priorities rather than geopolitical interests?
Geopolitical Pressures: The Struggle to Maintain Sovereignty and Neutrality
Pacific Island nations today find themselves in a rapidly evolving geopolitical theatre, where the United States, China, Australia, and other powers are vying for influence. The strategic importance of our ocean, our exclusive economic zones, and our natural resources has drawn external actors with a renewed sense of urgency.
This great power competition has echoes of the Cold War, when the Pacific was treated as a space for strategic denial. The same language of “spheres of influence” is re-emerging, placing enormous pressure on our leaders to “take sides.” We have seen this in the tensions surrounding the Taiwan-China issue, in Australia’s push for security pacts, and in the US-Australia base in Manus, Papua New Guinea—which, contrary to popular belief, is not a new development but part of a longstanding security arrangement.
For leaders like Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka of Fiji, the challenge is not just about choosing between China and the West; it is about how to maintain Pacific sovereignty in an era where neutrality is becoming increasingly difficult. The question we must ask ourselves is: How do we assert agency in this space while avoiding being drawn into conflicts that are not of our making?
As Wesley-Smith and Graeme Smith have argued, Pacific leaders have historically leveraged external rivalries to extract benefits for their people. However, as geopolitical tensions escalate, this delicate balancing act is becoming harder to sustain.
Democracy, Sovereignty, and the Challenge of Political Stability
Another undercurrent of discontent in the Pacific has been the internal political challenges that often intersect with external influences. The student protests in Papua New Guinea over its security agreement with the US, the Malaita riots in the Solomon Islands, and the shifting political landscape in Kiribati since its 2019 switch to China all point to deeper concerns about governance, representation, and the agency of local populations in determining their futures.
It is also worth noting the events in New Caledonia, where political instability has underscored the challenges of decolonisation and self-determination. These issues are not merely about external actors pulling the strings; they are about the real aspirations of Pacific peoples who feel left behind by their own governments.
This leads us to an uncomfortable but necessary discussion: Are our leaders making decisions in the best interests of their people, or are they being influenced by external powers and political survival?
The Return of Trump: Uncertainties and Implications for the Pacific
As we gather here in February 2025, we must acknowledge that the world has entered a period of profound geopolitical turbulence. With Donald Trump now back in the White House, his administration has wasted no time in reversing many of the policies of his predecessor, reasserting an “America First” stance that has far-reaching consequences for global stability—and for us in the Pacific.
One of the most immediate impacts has been the withdrawal of the United States from multilateral institutions and agreements. The Trump administration has once again pulled out of the World Health Organization (WHO), citing concerns over China’s influence and what it calls an unfair financial burden on the US.
This move raises serious concerns for Pacific Island nations, many of whom rely on WHO-supported healthcare initiatives to combat infectious diseases, improve public health infrastructure, and respond to crises such as dengue fever, tuberculosis, and non-communicable diseases. In a region where healthcare access is already fragile, the loss of US contributions to WHO funding could have devastating consequences.
Similarly, Trump’s continued rejection of international climate commitments, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, sends a troubling message to the Pacific. Our nations are on the front lines of the climate crisis—rising sea levels threaten the very existence of Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands.
The US withdrawal signals a rollback of global climate action at a time when Pacific nations desperately need stronger commitments from major polluters. The perception among many Pacific Islanders is that, once again, the US is abandoning its responsibility as a global leader, leaving our region to bear the brunt of climate change without meaningful support.
The Trump administration’s suspension of USAID funds to several international development programs adds to the growing uncertainty. USAID has played a critical role in supporting education, disaster relief, infrastructure development, and governance programs in the Pacific. With its funding now in jeopardy, projects that have helped improve water security, food security, and health systems in our region may stall or be scrapped altogether. At a time when the US is actively competing with China for influence in the Pacific, the suspension of USAID funding contradicts its own strategic objectives.
The question now is: How will Pacific Island nations respond to these shifting tides in US policy?
For years, the United States has been trying to win hearts and minds in the Pacific, reinforcing its presence through the Pacific Partnership Strategy and increasing engagement with regional leaders. However, many Pacific Islanders remain sceptical of US intentions, particularly given the inconsistency of its commitments. Trump’s return to office has reinforced a perception that the US is an unreliable partner, prone to sudden policy reversals based on domestic political shifts rather than long-term regional engagement.
By contrast, China’s engagement in the Pacific—while not without its own complexities—has been marked by steadiness and long-term investment. Beijing has continued to provide infrastructure projects, soft loans, and direct grants even as US assistance has fluctuated.
In many Pacific capitals, leaders are watching the developments in Washington with disappointment and frustration, noting that while the US and its allies often talk about the importance of the Pacific, their actions do not always align with their rhetoric.
We must also consider the broader global context. With conflicts escalating in Israel-Palestine, Syria, and the South China Sea, the geopolitical landscape is becoming more precarious. The Pacific region, though geographically distant from these hotspots, is not immune to their ripple effects. A renewed US-China confrontation over Taiwan, for example, could force Pacific nations into uncomfortable positions, pressured to align with one side or the other.
Positioning the Pacific for Strategic Autonomy
We in the Pacific cannot control the decisions made in Washington, Beijing, or Canberra. But we can control how we respond. Rather than being passive actors in this great power rivalry, we must assert our agency and ensure that our interests—not those of external powers—are prioritised.
This means strengthening regional institutions like the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to present a united front in negotiations with larger powers. It also means diversifying partnerships, engaging not just with the US and China but also with middle powers like Japan, India, and the European Union to reduce over-reliance on any single external actor.
Most importantly, we must remind the world that the Pacific is not a chessboard for global competition. We are not pawns to be moved at the convenience of powerful nations. We are sovereign states with our own aspirations, and our voices must be heard—not only in Washington or Beijing but in every global forum where our futures are being debated.
The return of Trump may bring uncertainty, but it also reinforces one undeniable truth: If we do not take charge of our own destiny, others will decide it for us. It is time for the Pacific to stand firm, united, and unwavering in its pursuit of peace, stability, and self-determination.
Charting a Path Forward – Asserting Pacific Leadership in a Changing Global Order
So, where do we go from here? I return to the question I posed at the outset: Are we doomed to be caught in a geopolitical storm, or can we chart a path forward that ensures peace, stability, and prosperity for the Pacific?
I believe the answer lies in regional solidarity and strategic autonomy. The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) remains our best vehicle for collective decision-making, and we must strengthen its role, ensuring that Pacific nations speak with one voice on critical matters such as security, climate change, and development assistance. But more than that, we must recognise the power and potential of the Pacific—not as passive actors, but as stewards of an oceanic continent, capable of shaping our own destiny.
The foreign policy approach of Pacific Island nations in this evolving multipolar world provides a blueprint for how the region can navigate global power shifts while safeguarding sovereignty and strengthening regional stability. As great power competition intensifies across the Pacific, it brings both opportunities and challenges, making it imperative for Pacific nations to respond with foresight, strategic autonomy, and collective unity to ensure that external engagements serve our long-term interests rather than external agendas.
The Pacific as an Architect of its Own Future
The Pacific Islands has been thrust into the centre of global geopolitics, as major powers such as the United States, China, Australia, and Japan increase their engagement with the region. This heightened attention presents both economic opportunities and security dilemmas. Infrastructure investments, security agreements, and development aid come with expectations, and if we are not careful, they can create new dependencies and vulnerabilities.
But Pacific leaders must reject the notion that we are merely objects of strategic interest. Instead, we must position ourselves as active participants in shaping our future. Our foreign policies must be based on three guiding principles:
1. Strategic Autonomy – Ensuring that external partnerships serve our national and regional interests rather than being dictated by global powers.
2. Regional Solidarity – Strengthening Pacific unity through mechanisms such as PIF to amplify our collective voice in global negotiations.
3. Sustainable Development as Foreign Policy – Leveraging our foreign engagements to advance economic resilience, environmental sustainability, and good governance.
Pacific nations must not allow themselves to be drawn into a new Cold War between competing global actors. The Pacific Islands ‘ engagement with China, the US, and Australia must be pragmatic, based on the principle that we will engage with partners who respect our sovereignty and align with our long-term development needs.
Owning Our Development Agenda: Partnerships on Our Terms
Historically, external powers have framed development in the Pacific through their own priorities. It is time to reverse that dynamic. The Pacific Islands Pacific nations must set their own development agenda and ensure that external investments contribute to long-term economic sustainability, not short-term political expediency.
- Infrastructure projects must be transparent, environmentally sustainable, and beneficial to local communities rather than serving foreign strategic interests.
- Foreign assistance and security partnerships should strengthen local capacity, not create dependencies on external actors.
- Fisheries and maritime governance must remain under Pacific control, with regional agreements ensuring that our oceanic resources are managed sustainably for future generations.
This is why regional mechanisms such as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and PIF’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent are crucial in protecting Pacific sovereignty. We must push back against attempts by external powers to dictate our economic and security policies and instead assert a Pacific-led approach to development, one that prioritises climate resilience, blue economy innovation, and inclusive growth.
Security in the Pacific: A Pacific-led Approach
The growing presence of external military forces in the Pacific, including US and Australian security agreements with Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands’ security cooperation with China, and increased Japanese and French involvement in regional security, has raised concerns about militarisation. The Pacific must not become a battleground for military posturing. Instead, we must promote a Pacific-led approach to security that:
- Emphasises peacebuilding rather than military competition.
- Strengthens regional security mechanisms, ensuring that external actors operate with Pacific oversight and leadership.
- Prioritises humanitarian and disaster relief operations over military expansion.
Rather than allowing external actors to impose security frameworks that do not reflect Pacific realities, our leaders must advocate for a security architecture that aligns with our cultural, social, and environmental contexts. We do not want an Indo-Pacific that is defined by geopolitical confrontation; we want an Indo-Pacific that is stable, peaceful, and economically integrated with the Pacific at its heart.
Towards a Pacific-Owned Security Enhanced Integrated Framework The evolving security landscape of the Pacific demands a regionally-owned and led security architecture that reflects our unique needs, priorities, and realities. The establishment of an Oceanic Alliance for the Security of Island States (OASIS), as recently proposed by Fiji’s Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration, Pio Tikoduadua, represents an important step in this direction. While maritime security remains a critical concern, a truly effective security framework must adopt a broader mandate that goes beyond traditional military and law enforcement issues to address the full spectrum of security challenges facing Pacific Island nations.
Historically, external actors have driven security agendas in the Pacific, often prioritising their own strategic interests rather than the concerns of Pacific peoples. This has resulted in a patchwork of bilateral agreements, donor-driven security programs, and externally dictated priorities.
However, in a time of heightened geopolitical competition and increasing security threats—ranging from illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, transnational crime, cybersecurity threats, to the existential risks of climate change—the Pacific must take ownership of its security architecture.
A truly Pacific-led security framework should:
1. Expand Beyond Maritime Security While maritime security remains crucial—given the importance of our oceans for economic sustainability, food security, and sovereignty—Pacific security must also encompass:
- Climate security, ensuring that rising sea levels and extreme weather events are integrated into national and regional security strategies.
- Human security, addressing migration, health crises, and resource management to safeguard livelihoods.
- Cybersecurity, protecting Pacific nations from digital threats, misinformation, and external manipulation of political discourse.
- Resource security, ensuring sustainable governance of fisheries, deep-sea minerals, and water resources.
2. Strengthen Regional Coordination and Sovereignty
- Establish an OASIS or equivalent regional security body under Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leadership to ensure that security cooperation is designed and led by Pacific nations.
- Develop a regional security strategy that integrates existing agreements such as the Biketawa Declaration, Boe Declaration, and the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent into a cohesive security framework.
3. Reduce Dependence on External Security Arrangements
- While external security partnerships (with Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and China) are important, Pacific nations must ensure that these partnerships do not undermine our regional autonomy.
- Create a Pacific-led training and capacity-building program for regional law enforcement, maritime security, and emergency response, reducing reliance on external militaries.
- Strengthen Pacific regional forces and coast guard networks to enhance self-reliance.
4. Integrate Traditional and Community-Based Security Approaches
- Security in the Pacific has always been deeply tied to customary leadership, traditional conflict resolution, and community-based resilience.
- A Pacific-owned security framework must incorporate traditional governance systems, ensuring that security is not just about state-based military responses but also about strengthening community resilience.
5. Engage Global Partners on Pacific Terms
- If external actors wish to support Pacific security, they must do so on Pacific terms, aligning with the region’s own priorities rather than imposing external agendas.
- Work with international organisations such as the UN, INTERPOL, and climate-focused security initiatives to secure funding and expertise without compromising Pacific sovereignty.
A Call for Action: Pacific Leadership in Security Governance
The Pacific cannot afford to outsource its security to external actors whose interests may not always align with our regional priorities. The establishment of a Pacific-led security framework, potentially under the OASIS initiative, presents an opportunity to create a strong, coordinated, and independent approach to security.
The success of such an initiative will depend on regional unity, political will, and strategic vision. It requires Pacific nations to assert leadership, pool resources, and prioritise long-term security planning. Our collective security is not just about protecting borders and resources—it is about securing the future of our region for generations to come.
Climate Diplomacy: The Pacific’s Global Role
Perhaps nowhere is Pacific leadership more urgent than in the fight against climate change. With the US withdrawing from global climate agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, and continuing to support fossil fuel industries, the burden of advocacy falls on small island states. We must continue to lead climate negotiations, ensuring that the world does not ignore the existential threat we face.
- The Pacific must strengthen diplomatic alliances with climate-progressive nations such as the European Union, New Zealand, and Japan, while also holding major polluters accountable.
- We must expand regional adaptation initiatives, including climate-resilient infrastructure, ocean conservation policies, and renewable energy transitions.
- We should leverage international forums such as the United Nations, COP climate negotiations, and the Pacific Resilience Facility to ensure that climate financing reaches Pacific communities rather than being lost in bureaucratic inefficiencies. The world must be made to understand that climate change is not a future threat for us—it is a present reality.
Building Capacity: Investing in Pacific People
To navigate hegemonic shifts, Pacific nations must invest in their greatest asset—their people. The future of the entire Pacific’s foreign policy and strategic positioning, depends on the development of a well-educated, globally aware, and politically astute generation of leaders.
- Pacific nations must invest in higher education and leadership training, equipping young Pacific Islanders with the skills to negotiate on equal terms with global powers.
- Research institutions and think tanks must be strengthened to provide independent policy analysis, ensuring that Pacific leaders have data-driven strategies for engaging with external actors.
- Civic engagement and governance reforms must be prioritised to foster transparency, accountability, and ethical leadership in decision-making. We cannot rely on external advisors or foreign consultants to dictate our path—we must develop our own expertise, thought leadership, and diplomatic acumen.
Strengthening Pacific Research Institutions and Think Tanks
Currently, much of the geopolitical analysis that informs policy decisions in the Pacific is conducted by external institutions, often based in Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Europe. While these institutions offer valuable insights, they do not always fully grasp the cultural, social, and historical contexts that define our region.
For the Pacific to effectively navigate the geopolitical shifts and strategic competition unfolding in our region, we must build strong research institutions and think tanks that can provide independent, data-driven policy analysis. Knowledge production must be at the heart of our decision-making, ensuring that Pacific leaders are equipped with accurate information, historical perspectives, and well-researched strategies for engaging with external actors.
For the Pacific to truly assert strategic autonomy, we must strengthen our own knowledge systems through:
- Expanding Pacific-based research institutions that focus on regional policy issues.
- Creating stronger partnerships between Pacific universities and policymakers to integrate research into decision-making.
- Encouraging local scholars to produce knowledge about the Pacific—rather than having external actors dictate narratives about our region.
The Role of PIPSA in Building a Knowledge Economy for the Pacific
The Pacific Islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA) has a critical role to play in shaping the intellectual and policy landscape of the region. As an association dedicated to political studies in the Pacific, PIPSA must take the lead in ensuring that academic research is directly informing policy.
PIPSA can support this goal in the following ways:
- Strengthening Policy-Oriented Research and Publications
- PIPSA should expand research collaborations between scholars and Pacific governments to address pressing policy challenges.
- A PIPSA Policy Journal could be established, publishing data-driven research on issues such as climate resilience, security cooperation, economic sovereignty, and regional governance.
2. Bridging Academia and Policy
- PIPSA should host regular policy dialogues with Pacific governments, ensuring that research findings inform real-world governance and decision-making.
- Establish a Policy Research Fellowship Programme where Pacific scholars are embedded within regional institutions such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), and national governments.
3. Encouraging Homegrown Pacific Scholarship
- PIPSA must actively support emerging Pacific scholars through research grants, mentorship programmes, and PhD scholarships to ensure that the next generation of Pacific leaders are also leading the academic discourse.
- Partnering with Pacific universities to decolonise research methodologies, ensuring that studies on the Pacific are conducted by and for Pacific peoples.
4. Advancing Pacific Data Sovereignty
- PIPSA should advocate for Pacific control over regional data—whether in fisheries, climate science, or development aid.
- Work with regional organisations to develop a Pacific Knowledge Hub, centralising research, policy briefs, and strategic intelligence for Pacific governments.
5. Amplifying the Pacific Voice in Global Debates
- PIPSA must ensure that Pacific political studies are not just discussed within the region but are visible in global academic and policy debates.
- Establishing strategic partnerships with international think tanks and universities to ensure that Pacific perspectives are included in global policymaking forums. If we are to assert our sovereignty and agency in this shifting global order, Pacific knowledge production must be at the centre of decision-making. The Pacific Islands Political Studies Association (PIPSA) has a unique opportunity to lead this transformation—bridging the gap between academic research, policy, and governance. By investing in independent, Pacific-led research, we ensure that our leaders are not making decisions based on external assumptions, but on our own data, our own histories, and our own vision for the future. The Pacific cannot afford to be passive consumers of external policy analysis—we must become active producers of our own knowledge, our own strategies, and our own solutions.
The Time for Action is Now
I call upon PIPSA, Pacific governments, universities, and regional organisations to:
• Expand research capacity by funding and supporting Pacific-led think tanks.
• Integrate academic research into policy discussions through structured collaborations with policymakers.
• Train the next generation of Pacific scholars to take ownership of our political, economic, and security futures.
• Develop a Pacific Knowledge Hub to house independent, high-quality research that can inform decision-making at all levels. The Pacific’s future must be shaped by Pacific voices, guided by Pacific research, and led by Pacific scholars.
The Complexity of the Pacific – A Strength, Not a Limitation
As we chart a path forward, it is essential to recognise that the Pacific is not a monolithic entity, nor should it be treated as such. Too often, external actors frame the region in broad strokes, either as a homogeneous grouping of island nations or as a geopolitical chessboard where strategic calculations outweigh the realities of Pacific societies. This reductionist view ignores the deep cultural, political, and economic diversity that defines the Pacific and underestimates the nuanced approaches needed for genuine, effective engagement with our region.
Across the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), we have 18 sovereign nations spanning Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia—each with its own distinct history, governance systems, and geopolitical considerations. Within a single nation, such as the Solomon Islands, there are over 70 different languages spoken, with communities operating under both customary and state governance structures.
The political arrangements of Compact of Free Association (COFA) states like Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands are vastly different from those of larger states like Papua New Guinea or Fiji, whose political landscapes are shaped by their size, land-based resources, and complex socio-political dynamics.
This diversity is a strength, not a limitation. It is what has allowed Pacific nations to adapt, negotiate, and navigate global engagement for centuries—long before the modern era of diplomacy. We are not passive players in history; we are experienced navigators, strategically engaging with external actors while maintaining our unique identities and agency.
However, failing to appreciate this complexity has often led to misguided external interventions that do not reflect the lived realities of Pacific communities. Western diplomatic and development approaches frequently operate on the assumption that what works in one Pacific nation should work across the region—an approach that overlooks the varied needs, governance structures, and cultural foundations of our islands.
To build meaningful, lasting partnerships, external actors must:
- Recognise the diversity of Pacific governance and decision-making rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all policy framework.
- Move beyond transactional engagement and invest in relationships that acknowledge the depth of Pacific traditions, customary governance, and community structures.
- Listen to Pacific voices rather than imposing externally designed solutions that fail to align with Pacific priorities and ways of life. Understanding the Pacific is not just about knowing our challenges—it is about recognising the depth of our resilience, the strength of our regional cooperation, and the innovation of our people. True engagement with the Pacific must be based on respect, listening, and genuine partnership, rather than strategic convenience.
As we move forward, our challenge is to ensure that external actors engage with us on our terms, appreciating the complexity that defines us, rather than attempting to simplify us into a narrative of strategic competition or development dependence. Only by doing so can the Pacific truly assert its leadership, its sovereignty, and its vision for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.
Conclusion: An Ocean of Possibility, Not Discontent
I want to end where I began—with the lived experience of Pacific Islanders. For over a century, we have engaged with external actors while maintaining our own identities, cultures, and resilience. We are not pawns in a grand chess game; we are navigators of our own destiny.
The Pacific should not be viewed as a geopolitical chessboard or a battleground for external rivalries. We are a region of sovereign nations, each with distinct histories, challenges, and aspirations. As Pacific nations, we must assert our agency and pursue a foreign policy approach that prioritises strategic autonomy and regional solidarity. Rather than being drawn into great power contests, we must engage with the world on our own terms, ensuring that our diplomatic and security partnerships serve our peoples’ interests, our development goals, and our vision for a stable and prosperous Blue Pacific.
As we move forward, let us reject narratives of Pacific vulnerability. We are not an Ocean of Discontent; we are an Ocean of Possibility. The Pacific Islands must not be defined by the struggles of the past but by the vision, ambition, and leadership we bring to shaping our future.
If we fail to take control of our own narrative, others will write it for us. If we fail to determine our own destiny, others will decide it for us. This is the moment for Pacific nations to seize the initiative, strengthen regional unity, and assert their place in the global order—not as spectators, but as architects of a more just, stable, and sustainable world.
The great Micronesian navigator Mau Piailug once said, “The canoe is our home, and the ocean is our pathway.” As our ancestors did, we must navigate these shifting tides with wisdom, courage, and purpose, knowing that our path forward is not dictated by external forces, but by the strength of our collective vision.
Tagio tumas. Thank you and may the Pacific rise to the challenges ahead with resilience, unity, and unwavering resolve.
Kia ū, kia māia, kia manawanui – Hold fast, have courage, and be steadfast.
Kia tau te rangimārie ki te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa – May peace and harmony settle upon our great Pacific Ocean.
Dr Transform Aqorau
