Aid Isn’t Under Attack — But the Pacific Is Under Pressure

By Joanna Bourke, CEO, Pacific Cooperation Foundation

The phrase “aid is under attack” has become increasingly common, especially as international donors rethink their funding models and global priorities shift. However, I want to reframe this notion. Aid itself is not under attack. What is under pressure is the manner in which aid is being utilised — often as a geopolitical tool rather than as a mechanism for empowering Pacific-led development.

I occupy a unique position as Chief Executive of the Pacific Cooperation Foundation (PCF). We’re not an implementing agency; we don’t undertake large-scale infrastructure projects. Our role is to convene, amplify, and connect. We work across Aotearoa New Zealand and the wider Pacific region to build trust, share knowledge, and ensure that Pacific voices—from grassroots to government—are included in the conversations that shape our future.

From this vantage point, the shifts we observe in the Pacific are impossible to ignore. We are in the midst of growing strategic competition. Our region is no longer perceived as a peripheral space — it’s a central arena in the evolving contest between major global powers. The United States, China, Australia, New Zealand, and others are enhancing their visibility through aid, defence agreements, and trade initiatives. Some of this is welcome, but much of it requires scrutiny.

Strategic Competition Is Real — But So Is Pacific Agency

Let’s be clear: Pacific nations are not naive. Our leaders are engaging with multiple partners with clarity and pragmatism. They are making decisions in the best interests of their people. However, strategic competition adds layers of complexity to development — because aid, once viewed as primarily humanitarian or developmental, is now also about influence.

This is where things become uncomfortable.

When aid comes with strings attached — when it prioritises a donor’s strategic interests over a recipient’s long-term wellbeing — we risk undermining the very goals we claim to support: resilience, sovereignty, and sustainable development.

At PCF, we often hear this from our partners. They are grateful for the support but are asking deeper questions: Who decides how the aid is spent? Whose voices are included in the design process? Does this project build local capacity or create dependency? And, most importantly, does this reflect our values as Pacific peoples?

The Pacific Has a Plan. Are Partners Listening?

There is a tendency—even among well-meaning actors—to assume the Pacific needs rescuing. However, the truth is, we’ve already charted our own course.

In 2018, Pacific leaders adopted the BOE Declaration, which redefined regional security to include climate change, human rights, environmental threats, and the importance of regional cooperation. We named climate change, not foreign interference, as the single greatest threat to our region.

The Blue Pacific 2050 Strategy articulates a long-term vision for regionalism grounded in shared values, collective stewardship of our ocean, and sustainable development. Frameworks like the FRDP (Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific) reinforce these priorities.

In other words: the Pacific is not adrift. We are not lost. We have a map. The question is — are our development partners willing to follow our lead?

Aid at a Crossroads

What we are witnessing today is not an attack on aid — it is an evolution. The Pacific is asking for more than funding. We are asking for fair partnerships. We are asking that aid reflects our timelines, not election cycles. That it strengthens local institutions, not sidelines them. That it honours Indigenous knowledge, rather than imposing imported solutions.

At PCF, we believe that development must be done “with” Pacific peoples, not “to” them. We champion partnerships that are rooted in mutual respect and long-term trust. And we encourage our diaspora — especially our youth — to become informed, engaged, and assertive. Because geopolitics isn’t just playing out in parliaments and boardrooms — it’s shaping our communities, economies, and futures.

A Final Word

Pacific peoples are not attacking aid. We are interrogating it. And that’s a sign of maturity and leadership.

Strategic competition may be the context.