The Pacific Now Has a Shared Position on AI, But the Rules Themselves Are Still a Year Away

Disclaimer: This article summarises the official Forum Communiqué and published news reporting. It is not legal or policy advice. The Communiqué and the Foreign Ministers Meeting outcomes document (7 August 2026) were read in full. The separate Pacific Digital and Artificial Intelligence Technology Principles document itself could not be found in public, so what follows about its contents comes from what leaders and ministers stated in those official documents and from news reports. Check the Forum Secretariat's own publications before relying on any detail.

At the 55th Pacific Islands Forum in Koror, Palau (31 August to 3 September 2026), leaders endorsed the Pacific Digital and Artificial Intelligence Technology Principles. The Communiqué describes them as "the Pacific's first collective regional position on artificial intelligence and responsible digital technologies."

That's a genuine first. It's also not a law. The Principles are not binding rules, and leaders agreed only that they should inform the development of a Pacific AI Governance Framework "for consideration in 2027."

2027 is the same year Fiji has targeted for its own national framework, which we covered in Fiji's path to a 2027 National AI Framework.

How It Got Here

Date	Step
24 July 2026	Forum ICT Ministers Meeting in Port Moresby. Forum Secretary General Baron Waqa urged ministers to "shape digital transformation on our own terms"
7 August 2026	Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting, held in hybrid format at the Forum Secretariat in Suva. Ministers supported the Principles and backed development of an AI Governance Framework, with the Principles "to serve as an input to that Framework and to be tested and adapted, as required, for consideration by Leaders in 2027"
31 Aug – 3 Sep 2026	Leaders endorse the Principles at the 55th Forum in Koror, Palau

What the Communiqué Says

The AI language sits in the Communiqué's "Technology and Connectivity" section. Leaders:

Endorsed the Principles, highlighting their importance for "enhancing cybersecurity, protecting digital assets and digital resilience, while strengthening national digital capabilities"
Said AI "must remain human-centred, inclusive and aligned with Pacific values," and that advances should "narrow rather than widen inequalities"
Stressed the need to strengthen "Pacific capacity, skills and digital sovereignty," to safeguard "Pacific languages, cultures and traditional knowledge," and to ensure AI governance promotes "transparency, accountability, safety and meaningful human oversight"
Recognised "the growing energy and environmental implications of digital infrastructure and emerging technologies"
Supported a phased regional approach to online harms, including the impact of social media and technology-facilitated violence on children, youth, women and other vulnerable groups
Supported an ITU Area Office in the Pacific, with a final decision due at the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in November 2026
Welcomed that all Members are now connected to undersea telecommunications cables for the first time

The Skeptical View

A Devpolicy Blog analysis of the Communiqué called it heavy on procedure and light on action, describing the AI endorsement as a symbolic first step with the framework deferred. It asked whether the coming months would "produce action on the commitments made in Koror, or another communiqué heavy on reaffirming and light on tasking."

That's one analyst's reading, not a settled verdict. But the gap between an endorsed principle and an enforceable rule is exactly what this story turns on.

Fiji's Position

Fiji hosted the step before Leaders. The 7 August Foreign Ministers Meeting, where ministers first backed the Principles, was held at the Forum Secretariat in Suva, with Fiji's Minister for Foreign Affairs and External Trade, Sakiasi Ditoka, attending at Ministerial level.

At the Leaders' Forum itself, the Communiqué lists Fiji among four members "represented at Ministerial level," while thirteen others were attended by Heads of State and Government. It gives no reason, and it shouldn't be read as a signal about Fiji's engagement with the AI discussion without further reporting.

No source I found describes Fiji's specific contribution to drafting the Principles.

What Is Still Not Known

The full text of the Principles as a standalone document. It was tabled at the Foreign Ministers Meeting as paper PIFS(26)FFMM.10, but it isn't attached to the Secretariat's published outcomes and I found no public copy. It's likely obtainable from the Forum Secretariat directly.
Who will draft the 2027 framework, whether it will be binding on member states, and how it would be enforced. The Communiqué says only "for consideration in 2027."
How Fiji's national framework relates to the regional one, and whether it follows, feeds into, or runs parallel to it.

What This Could Mean

A shared regional position could give small Pacific states more weight with large technology companies than each would have alone. The emphasis on "digital sovereignty" points that way, though the Communiqué doesn't say how it would work in practice.

Two overlapping 2027 timelines, one regional and one national, could reinforce each other or duplicate effort.

The bigger concern is the gap. Principles arriving well before rules leave AI-related technology operating without a dedicated legal framework in the meantime. We've already seen this with the deepfake investment scam, which is being handled through consumer warnings and takedown requests rather than law. Voluntary principles don't close that gap on their own.

There's also an interesting pairing in the Communiqué's concern for the energy and environmental cost of digital infrastructure. Given the data center and cable build-out at Natadola, which we've covered, that could matter for Fiji specifically. The Communiqué doesn't link the two, so that's my inference, not something it states.

I work with Fijian businesses on technology strategy, and AI policy is increasingly something they need to understand before it reaches them as a compliance question. If you'd like to talk through what this means for your organisation, get in touch.