Pacific ministers fail to condemn China missile test after Nauru and Kiribati block statement
New Zealand’s foreign minister suggested Beijing sought to influence the outcome as two members vetoed a joint rebuke at the Suva meeting.
Foreign ministers from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) failed to issue a joint statement condemning China’s recent test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile after Nauru and Kiribati blocked consensus during a meeting in Suva, Fiji, on Friday. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters told reporters the two countries, which he did not name, had “effectively blocked the joint statement” and were “responding to [an] outside partner’s wishes” – a remark widely interpreted as a reference to Beijing. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, who had pressed the gathering to display “leadership” on the issue, noted that a majority of Pacific leaders had already voiced concerns about the test’s implications for sovereignty, transparency and notification.
Peters said the two objectors offered no clear reasoning for their opposition, describing their position as having “no logic”. An official from one PIF nation, speaking privately, called Kiribati’s stance “absurd” and accused it of lecturing others on consensus while disregarding the sentiment in the room. The ABC reported that both Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened ties with Beijing in recent years, continued to block the statement despite broad support from other members.
The test-firing of the intercontinental ballistic missile last month landed in waters between Solomon Islands, Nauru and Tuvalu, according to monitors. Pasuna Tuaga, a senior Tuvalu foreign affairs official, said the launch left residents fearing a tsunami and likened it to an invasion of their home. Tuvalu has asked Australia, France and the United States to search for the dummy warhead in nearby waters. The final PIF foreign ministers’ communique is expected to remain silent on the missile test, though all members have agreed to keep discussing the matter.
The deadlock underscores persistent divisions within the forum over how to respond to China’s expanding military footprint and diplomatic influence in the region. Last year, Pacific leaders endorsed an “Ocean of Peace” declaration to maintain stability amid intensifying strategic competition. The foreign ministers’ meeting precedes a leaders’ summit in Palau in early September, where the issue is likely to resurface.
| Atlantic / Anglosphere press | −0.60 | critical |
|---|---|---|
| Chinese press | +0.40 | aligned |
| Japanese-Korean press | −0.50 | critical |
| Southeast Asian press | −0.20 | neutral |
China tried to influence the Pacific Islands Forum, and some island states yielded: the West must not lower its guard.
It attributes the blockade to Chinese manipulation and turns an internal dissent into proof of interference, reinforcing a 'them vs us' frame.
It does not report the reasons given by Nauru and Kiribati for refusing, presenting them as simply influenced by Beijing.
Beijing rejects the accusations and points out that it is Tokyo and its allies who are rearming and manipulating the narrative; China acts for regional stability.
It reverses the victim-aggressor relationship, shifting attention from the missile test to the alleged Japanese and Western denigration campaign, making China a target rather than a destabilising actor.
It leaves out the concrete security concerns of island states, such as the lack of advance notice and the tsunami risk, which appear in other accounts.
Small Pacific nations live the Chinese threat firsthand: a missile without warning can cause a disaster, and the international community cannot ignore it.
It uses the testimony of a small, vulnerable state to humanise a strategic threat, turning a military test into a concrete danger for innocent peoples.
It does not contextualise the test as part of China's routine military posture nor report Beijing's deterrence arguments; it also omits that other Pacific states refused to condemn it.
The region is divided: some states want a clear condemnation, others prefer not to irritate Beijing. The result is a paralysis that reflects the geopolitical complexity of the Pacific.
It adopts a detached tone and attributes the failure to the diversity of interests among island states, avoiding demonising any actor and normalising dissent.
It does not delve into the specific reasons of the two countries that blocked the declaration, nor the pressures they might have faced, merely registering their opposition.
Broaden your view
US imposes 15% tariff and price floors on polysilicon to counter China’s supply-chain dominance
6 languages · 16 outlets
From TechnologyIndia cuts AI-content takedown deadline to three hours after Meta row
2 languages · 8 outlets
From Science & HealthUS FDA approves Moderna's first mRNA flu vaccine for adults 50 and older
3 languages · 11 outlets