By Lucy Craymer
SUVA, Fiji, Aug 7 (Reuters) – Pacific Island foreign ministers are expected to debate on Friday whether to issue a joint statement on China’s July missile launch, with New Zealand pushing for a response but acknowledging divisions could prevent agreement, New Zealand’s foreign minister said.
Foreign Minister Winston Peters told a media conference that talks at the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Minister’s meeting in Suva would test whether members could overcome “predetermined” positions on the issue.
“We’ll see whether logic prevails in this debate, or whether the debate has already been settled by people having a predetermined position from which they will not move,” Peters said.
China’s test-firing of a missile into the Pacific in July alarmed regional powers but initially failed to produce a unified response from Pacific Island governments, underscoring divisions over how to confront growing strategic competition in the region.
Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela, who is the current chair of the forum, told leaders at the start of the meeting that the Pacific’s agenda must continue to be “conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific.”
He added that officials, who have met for several days this week, have consistently reinforced that the challenges confronting the region are increasingly interconnected.
Officials have reaffirmed “even as our strategic environment becomes more complex. The specific response should not be fragmentation or division. It should create regional solidarity, strong consensus, and continue confidence,” Houenipwela added.
Peters earlier said New Zealand had been pushing for a joint statement responding to the missile test, but declined to identify countries resisting it.
The debate comes after Pacific leaders last year backed an “Ocean of Peace” declaration, which called for the region to remain peaceful amid intensifying strategic competition.
He described the absence of a unified regional response when the issue first emerged as a “missed opportunity,” although he said it was not too late for the forum to act.
Ministers may also discuss the forum’s engagement with external dialogue partners, energy security and proposals affecting the grouping’s future institutional arrangements.
(Reporting by Lucy Craymer; Editing by Stephen Coates)
