Editor's note: Zhang Ying, a special commentator for CGTN, is the vice dean and a professor of the School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Beijing Foreign Studies University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The 55th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting is being held in Palau from August 30 to September 4. Under the theme "Building Economies: Life. Action. Unity," it should focus on what Pacific communities urgently need: climate resilience, ocean governance and sustainable development. Instead, Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr. has reportedly called on island countries to form a so-called united front over China's intercontinental ballistic missile test in July.

However, this controversy is not merely about a missile. Whipps has portrayed the launch as a warning that China could destroy any Pacific island. That interpretation goes considerably further than the available evidence.

At 12:01 p.m. on July 6, a Chinese nuclear-powered strategic submarine launched a missile carrying a dummy warhead toward designated international waters in the Pacific. The launch was a routine arrangement under the annual military training program, complied with international law and international practice, and was not directed against any particular country or target.

Li Chijiang, China's ambassador for disarmament affairs, further explained at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva that China had notified the other nuclear-weapon states, several Asia-Pacific countries and island nations near the designated impact zone. Chinese maritime and civil aviation authorities also issued navigation and airspace-clearance notices 24 hours in advance. The missile was ultimately launched within the announced time window and fell, as planned, into international waters. No navigational safety incident occurred, nor did the test cause pollution or damage to the marine environment.

A test involving a dummy warhead, prior notification and a designated impact zone in international waters does not, by itself, prove an intention to threaten Pacific islands. Admittedly, a submarine-launched strategic missile is bound to attract regional concern, even when it carries a dummy warhead. But concern is one thing; dressing speculation up as established intent is another.

Why, then, has Whipps chosen such confrontational language? The answer lies not in the missile but in Palau's geopolitical position. As it's been overwhelmingly recognized by the international community that Taiwan is part of China, Taiwan was excluded from last year's PIF summit in the Solomon Islands, whereas this year's host, Palau, has invited Taiwan authorities to attend related events.

This is no coincidence. Whipps' hyping of a missile threat and manipulation of the Taiwan question are two sides of the same coin. Both form part of a strategy of relying on external forces and adopting a posture of confrontation in exchange for political visibility. 

Yet China's relations with Pacific Island countries (PICs) are founded on tangible cooperation. In Naoero, a China-aided sports complex is being built as the main venue for the 2028 Micronesian Games. In the Solomon Islands, a Chinese-supported broadband project has reportedly increased population coverage from 56% to 86%. In Fiji, a Juncao demonstration center has helped turn saline land into productive ground.

Moreover, China and PICs have also established seven multilateral platforms covering emergency supplies, climate action, poverty reduction, disaster management, agriculture, and Juncao technology, etc. Together, these projects provide stadiums, broadband networks, agricultural technology and climate-adaptation capacity – practical benefits that Pacific communities can see and use. To stigmatize such cooperation as a "threat" not only contradicts the facts but shows contempt for the right of PICs to choose their own development partners.

Whipps also deliberately overlooks a fundamental fact. China is the only one of the five recognized nuclear-weapon states to maintain an unconditional no-first-use policy and a pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states or nuclear-weapon-free zones. By ratifying the protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, China also assumed legal obligations not to threaten its parties with nuclear weapons or conduct nuclear tests in the region.

Finally, the dispute now extends well beyond the missile itself. Whipps' call for a "united front" and the decision to facilitate Taiwan region's participation are, in essence, attempts to turn the PIF summit into a performance of political dependency. This performance serves the agenda of external forces seeking to preserve their regional dominance, rather than the genuine needs of Pacific islanders for development and stability. China and Palau do not have diplomatic relations, while Palau maintains so-called diplomatic relations with the Taiwan region. This fact has itself predetermined and constrained Whipps' room for choice in his policy toward China through the influence of external forces.

The agenda of the PIF should be determined by its members – not by others. Pacific leaders should apply the same standards when examining the military activities of every external power. The strongest response to political theater is verifiable evidence, consistent rules and diplomacy that respects the Pacific agenda. Claims that outrun the facts and deepen regional divisions will neither strengthen security nor improve islanders' lives. Peace in the Pacific depends on cooperation, not bloc confrontation.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)