Dr Anna Powles, a senior lecturer at the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at Massey University, said that although China had always preferred to manage its relations with Pacific Island countries individually, it has shown increasing interest in engaging with the PIF.

China has made annual donations to the PIF Cooperation Fund – last year, its donation was just over US$1 million, which went towards supporting bilateral trade and investment. In 2019 Beijing managed to get Kiribati and the Solomon Islands to switch official recognition from Taiwan to Beijing, joining four other PIF member states that had already made the move.

“Beijing may try to exploit the split for geopolitical gain and play on Micronesian perceptions of being disrespected but it is likely that these attempts will be clumsy and not particularly well received,” Powles said. “The Global Times statement that Pacific states are tired of Australia and US pressure is an example of this.”

Pryke, of the Lowy Institute, said the PIF was now an “exclusive club” in which Australia and New Zealand can engage directly with the Pacific island countries without the US and China being involved.

Pryke said that although the PIF helped Australia and New Zealand play their part in the region, “at the same time, a strong and robust Pacific Forum can be a real pain to Australia and New Zealand because [the smaller island nations] don’t often see strategic priorities the same”.

“In recent years, the forum has been co-opted by the climate change agenda, which makes it very challenging, particularly for Australia, to get briefings based on other issues”, most notably Canberra’s national security concerns, he said, noting the forum’s past ability to stay clear of larger geopolitical disputes.

“Because of the nature of the Forum being divided between supporters of China and supporters of Taiwan, they deliberately try their best to avoid talking about the [geopolitical concerns] at all, which does kind of insulate the forum,” he said. “It gives them the safe space to talk about issues beyond geopolitics that are of regional importance.”

Palau’s withdrawal from the PIF last Friday followed weeks of debate about who would lead the forum as Dame Meg Taylor, Papua New Guinea’s candidate, completed her term.

The unwritten rule is that leadership of the forum moves between the three subregions of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, with this year’s pick expected to go to Micronesia, but as talks continued it became apparent the southern states were moving ahead with choices of their own. The Micronesian nations have often felt their southern neighbours wield greater influential.

The northern Pacific states had coalesced around former minister and current US ambassador Gerald Zackios of the Marshall Islands as their candidate.

But ultimately Henry Puna, the former prime minister of Cook Islands, was elected by a vote of nine to eight, with one abstention, resulting in Palau quitting the PIF and shutting its embassy in Fiji.

Resentment is also growing among Micronesian leaders towards Australia and New Zealand, for their apparent role in swaying the vote. Palau’s president, Surangel Whipps, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation it was clear Australia had supported Puna, because they want to preserve their influence over the South Pacific.

“[If Australia] really wanted to let small islands decide together, they wouldn’t have voted,” he said. “As we know it’s always been the position of Australia and New Zealand that the North Pacific is: ‘Oh, you’re with the United States, you’re kind of over there, we stick together in the south’.

“It wasn’t about the Pacific brotherhood, let’s bring the Pacific together,” he said. “It was about – we are going to protect the region.”

Dr Colin Tukuitonga, former director general of the Pacific Community, a development organisation, said the PIF’s importance to the region should not be understated, although he accepted the group has certain shortcomings.

“The region needs a strong, authentic, credible voice for shared concerns like climate change and pandemics,” he said. “There’s no real solidarity. It’s fragile. It’s conditional. It’s all politically motivated. I’m not surprised this has happened.”

Tukuitonga said the PIF had a real opportunity now to reform by giving power, influence and support to subregional groupings and only “escalating” significant matters to a regional body, such as a reformed PIF.

“The only way I can see any good coming from this is for leaders to agree to reform and negotiate relationships,” he said. “You can’t simply carry on as if nothing has happened. The opportunity is there, provided they’re willing to take it.”