Foreign ministers and top diplomats of the Pacific Islands countries attend a meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in Suva, Fiji, on August 7, 2026, ahead of the full leaders meeting scheduled for September 2026 in Palau. Photo: VCG

As foreign ministers and senior representatives from Pacific nations convened in Suva for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to discuss key regional issues, New Zealand's foreign minister reportedly pushed to secure a joint statement condemning China's missile tests in July, however, his effort ultimately fell flat. A Chinese expert described the outcome as a clear rebuke to Canberra and Wellington's ingrained habit of speaking for the Pacific, saying the two countries must come to terms with a shifting reality: Pacific Island states are increasingly unwilling to let Australia and New Zealand dictate who their friends, foes and perceived security threats should be.

Pacific Island foreign ministers failed to agree on Friday to a joint response to China's missile launch in July, with further discussions expected at the Pacific leaders meeting at the end of August, said New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, according to Reuters. 

According to a report from Radio New Zealand, there has not been a unanimous statement from Pacific nations about China's test-launch in July, and Peters said New Zealand had been pushing for one. Peters claimed that the Pacific missed an opportunity not to issue a joint statement soon after China's launch.

Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong said before the meeting that she hoped China took note of the "very clear response" already sent from the Pacific about the test, according to AFP.

Peters' push for a joint PIF statement on China's missile tests, together with Wong's remarks, are less about technical security concerns than an effort to turn their own anxieties about China into a regional agenda and pressure Beijing under the forum's collective banner. His description of Pacific Island countries' refusal to single out China as a "missed opportunity" also reveals little respect for their independent judgment, Chen Hong, director of the New Zealand Studies Centre, East China Normal University, told the Global Times.

The result is a clear rebuke to Canberra and Wellington's long-standing habit of arrogantly "speaking for" the Pacific, as island states are increasingly unwilling to let Australia and New Zealand decide who their friends, foes or security threats should be, said Chen Hong. 

The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy said on July 6 that one of its strategic nuclear submarines successfully launched a strategic missile toward relevant high seas of the Pacific Ocean, which landed precisely within the designated waters. China notified relevant countries in advance of the test launch, a move that demonstrates the openness and transparency of the Chinese armed forces, Chen Xi, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defense, said at a press conference on July 7. 

Chen Hong also noted that Peters' recent China-related rhetoric has become increasingly populist and hawkish as elections approach in New Zealand. "Such an approach risks undermining New Zealand's long-standing reputation for pragmatic, independent, and rational diplomacy," Chen Hong said. 

In July, during a parliamentary debate on New Zealand's Covid-19 pandemic response, Peters, who is also leader of the populist New Zealand First party, told a Chinese-born lawmaker to "go back to your own country" while mocking his English proficiency. His remarks drew wide criticism in New Zealand.

Yet Australia and New Zealand continued to amplify missile-related issues and great-power rivalry, pushing the "China threat" narrative to the center of the regional agenda while sidelining the priorities that matter most to Pacific Island nations, said Chinese analysts. 

Chen Hong noted that for island states, the most urgent concerns are not geopolitical competition but everyday challenges: climate change, energy security, development financing, infrastructure and economic resilience. By shifting the focus from these concerns to strategic rivalry among major powers, Australia and New Zealand risk distorting the region's real priorities and undermining the aspirations of Pacific Island countries.

According to an introduction on the forum website, "The Forum's Pacific Vision is for a resilient region of peace, harmony, security, social inclusion and prosperity, so that all Pacific people can lead free, healthy, and productive lives."

At the opening of the meeting, Rick Houenipwela, foreign minister of the Solomon Islands and chair of the meeting, said that the Pacific's agenda must continue to be "conceived ⁠by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific," according to Reuters. 

Chen Hong said Pacific Island nations have made their position clear: differences with China do not mean signing up to the strategic agendas of Australia and New Zealand. A growing number of island countries refuse to be trapped in the black-and-white binary choice of siding with either China or the West.

If Canberra and Wellington keep pushing rhetoric beyond the regional consensus, they risk undermining the very institution they claim to support. The PIF's strength lies not in issuing confrontational statements, but in preserving Pacific unity. Turning that consensus into a tool for pressuring China would erode the forum's cohesion and weaken its central role in the region, said Chen Hong.