STRICTLY 4 THE ISLANDS - MATTHEW WALE AND A MORE SECURE PACIFIC (???)

Weekly Pacific Politics with Otis Whinney

The changing climate, fallout from foreign wars, and the ongoing drug crisis are just some of the reasons security has been at the forefront of any discussion between Pacific Island nations and their allies. The question of how to remain sovereign in a world where great powers seem content to throw their weight (and missiles) around to get their way is also permeating the minds of Pacific politics. Matthew Wale, who has done the rounds in the region after taking the place of Jerimiah Manele as Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, has proposed a possible solution.

Wale took Manele’s place after accusations of corruption and a vote of no confidence. He inherited a country divided on their relationship with the rest of the world, but mainly China. Manele, while always attempting to present a balanced image, had overseen a strengthening in relationships with China in areas like defence and infrastructure, much to the chagrin of Australia and the United States, who remain in lock-step trying to contain Chinese influence in the region. Wale’s ascension to the role of Prime Minister seems to be a welcome development for the Australians. He and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met in June, where the two nations put old beef aside to begin rebuilding the relationship between the Solomon Islands and Australia. Talks are underway for a new bilateral agreement between the two countries, and Australia announced new monetary aid to assist with the ongoing fuel supply issues caused by the Israeli-American war on Iran. Wale has pledged to review the older security pact with China, which was undoubtedly music to Albanese’s ears, but Wale also brought forth a more ambitious proposal that would need more than just Australia’s support. 

A Pacific-wide security agreement, with Pacific leaders at the forefront of security arrangements in the region, was proposed to Albanese by Wale during this meeting. While the idea is still just an idea for the time being, it reflects Wale’s apparent caution around both China and the other competing powers. While he’s reopened discussion with Australia, he seems to be doing his best to not antagonise China with his rhetoric, stressing his intention to remain friendly with all present in the region. A Pacific-led security arrangement would align with this. Putting more control in the hands of the nations that actually inhabit the region would probably be attractive to a lot of the smaller Pacific island nations who are constantly balancing the interests of competing powers, but countries in Australia's position, for example, may be hesitant. I mean, they are the ones helping keep this competition alive. Wale brought similar ideas to his visits to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand, and while no one has come out in full-support of the Pacific-wide security agreement, none have seemed strongly opposed either.

For now, Australia’s strategy remains focused on bilateral deals with other Pacific nations. A very significant military alliance was signed between them and Fiji where, among other things, it was agreed that if either nation was attacked then the other would be obligated to come to their aid. China has come out against this agreement, and not long after China let the region know of a planned missile test to be conducted in the Pacific ocean. I doubt this missile test was done in response to the deal, primarily due to the short time between these events, but it does give Australia and many other western-aligned nations in the region plenty of ammo to continue this back-and-forth competition. It remains to be seen whether that was China’s intention.

In terms of a Pacific-wide agreement, it's hard not to see why the idea is appealing. It would be wonderful if we didn’t have any need for anyone but us to keep ourselves safe, but the landscape of Pacific politics presents many obstacles to achieving this. Any Pacific-wide agreement that includes Australia, for example, would find it very hard to separate themselves from the US considering the closeness of those two states, and indeed Australia is not the only place with deep ties to US interests in the region (the many US-Pacific territories, for example). The French empire still rules large swathes of the Pacific, meaning their inclusion would tie the agreement to the political interests of the French as well as the Pacific peoples who live in these occupied areas. If we are to assume that this agreement is being proposed for the benefit of Pacific peoples in the Pacific, the deep-rooted connections to these foreign powers would have to be addressed. 

In my view, part of the reason this competition for dominance in the Pacific has survived is that Pacific nations have had little choice but to try and leverage it for their own gain. A move away from relying on foreign powers could spell trouble for countries who have become deeply connected to trade, aid, and allyship with these great powers, and for many Pacific people they really have no choice in who they align with, anyway. Those in Kanaky, or the Papuans of West Papua, for example, would be hard pressed to maintain a Pacific-led security agenda under the foreign regimes that still dominate their countries. The security blanket of the status quo, while certainly far from perfect, is more certain than risking it all for an ambitious new arrangement where we would have to rely far more on ourselves.

This partially explains why Wale’s idea doesn’t exist yet, hence why Australia has put their effort towards these agreements of mutual defence as opposed to anything focused on halting the endless Pacific-contest between powers. Wale’s proposal has plenty of merit, but if we are to pursue this idea, I believe there is a lot of work to do.