Pacific leaders ‘play both sides’ as China divides Forum over missile test - expert
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Pacific leaders are navigating complex geopolitical pressures by maintaining relationships with major powers like China, Australia, and the U.S., avoiding definitive alignment.
- The Pacific Islands Forum's inability to issue a joint response to China's missile test highlights this balancing act, driven by economic ties and a desire for regional peace.
- Experts suggest Pacific nations have learned to engage with competing powers to secure benefits, prioritizing their own interests amidst global rivalries.
Pacific leaders are skillfully balancing relationships with major global powers, a strategy underscored by the Pacific Islands Forum's divided response to China's recent missile test. Professor Steven Ratuva of the University of Canterbury explains that regional governments aim to maintain ties with China, Australia, and the United States without becoming entangled in their rivalry. This delicate act is driven by the region's economic reliance on China for development aid and infrastructure, alongside long-standing partnerships with Australia and New Zealand.
It’s quite a complex issue here, particularly given the broader context of geopolitical contestation, China on one hand, Australia, and the U.S.
Ratuva noted that China has become a significant development partner, offering substantial aid and infrastructure projects, while also serving as a dialogue partner for the Forum. This complex relationship leads Pacific nations to proceed with caution. Rather than choosing sides, these states have developed an "art of engaging with both sides" to maximize economic and political benefits, securing aid from various sources.
So I think that the countries are quite cautious about what to do, and where to go.
The missile test itself, which involved a nuclear-capable ballistic missile, drew criticism from some Pacific governments, but the Forum's consensus-based decision-making process prevented a unified condemnation. Ratuva criticized China's actions as abrupt and akin to "diplomacy of threat," a tactic he also attributes to the United States and other major powers. He anticipates continued division within the Forum, with Australia likely pushing for a strong statement against China, while many Pacific governments will adopt a more cautious stance due to their economic ties and security concerns.
So the Pacific Island states, after years and years of being sandwiched between the big powers, they have come to learn the art of engaging with both sides, just to make sure they get the benefits from both sides.
This approach of "playing both sides" reflects a strategic effort by Pacific Island states to remain independent and secure their own interests amidst escalating geopolitical tensions. Leaders like Pacific Islands Forum Chair Matthew Wale emphasize regional ownership, urging partners to support Pacific ambitions rather than define them. The overarching goal is to maintain the Pacific as an "Ocean of Peace," as articulated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, despite external pressures.
It makes a lot of sense, economically and politically, they can get aid from Australia, aid from China.
Originally published by Post-Courier. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.