The Pacific Island nations don't need a sheriff with Cold War compass

The Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting ended on Friday without a joint statement criticizing China's July missile test over the high seas, much to the dismay of New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters. Before the meeting, Peters had urged Pacific Island nations not to miss an opportunity to collectively rebuke Beijing, even invoking "logic" as though the region's leaders needed a reminder of their homework.

But the forum participants did not oblige. The issue was deferred to the leaders' meeting in Palau later this month. No statement was made, no condemnation was issued — just a diplomatic shrug.

This was not a missed opportunity. It was a missed memo: the Pacific is no longer a quiet pond where Australia and New Zealand decide who the neighborhood "bully" is. Pacific Island countries are sovereign states with their own interests, and they are increasingly unwilling to be drawn into a binary contest between China and the West.

Peters accused unnamed countries of being "influenced by those outside the region". But who, exactly, is the outsider? Pacific nations are fully capable of making their own judgments. Many have prioritized climate change, development, infrastructure, trade and economic security over becoming "foot soldiers" in another major-country rivalry.

The economics alone should make Peters reconsider. China is New Zealand's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade exceeding New Zealand's combined trade with Australia and the United States, its second- and third-largest trading partners respectively. It seems counterproductive to jeopardize the crucial economic relationship with China for political posturing over a military exercise that was notified in advance and conducted in accordance with international law without targeting any party.

The double standard becomes harder to ignore when considering the region's history. The US conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands during the Cold War, leaving a devastating legacy of environmental damage and health problems. Today, the AUKUS security pact is bringing nuclear-powered submarines into the region. Yet Peters has not demanded equivalent scrutiny of Washington and its allies.

When China conducts a military exercise, it is framed as a "threat"; when the US and its allies expand their military presence, it is presented as a "security guarantee". Pacific nations have every reason to question such selective outrage.

China's engagement with Pacific Island countries primarily centers on development, infrastructure and economic cooperation. Beijing stresses that its cooperation does not target at any third party. This approach does not require Pacific Island countries to choose sides, and increasingly they are refusing to do so.

The region's priorities are also clear. Pacific Island countries face rising seas, more severe cyclones, energy insecurity and fragile economies. They need climate finance, investment and market access, not their regional forum turned into a stage for major-country confrontation.

As some policymakers of the Pacific Island countries said, the Pacific's agenda must be conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and beneficial to the Pacific. That principle deserves greater respect from Wellington and Canberra.

With over four decades in Parliament and three stints as deputy prime minister, Peters should know well that China is not New Zealand's adversary but a vital economic partner. His recent Cold War grandstanding isn't ignorance; it's a cynical choice that undermines the pragmatic diplomacy he once championed.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Wellington two years ago, he met New Zealand's Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Peters, with both sides agreeing to strengthen cooperation and explore opportunities in areas such as green development and the digital economy.

That was the sensible logic: mutual respect, mutual benefit and room for differences.

The Pacific Island countries do not need another Cold War. They want partners, not guardians; development, not division; and peace, not proxy rivalry.

The lesson from the forum meeting is not that Pacific Island countries' leaders failed to find the right "logic". It is that they have their own logic — and increasingly, they are confident enough to say no when others attempt to speak on their behalf.