The deal provides Nauru with direct budgetary support, stable banking services, and policing and security resources. In return, Australia will have the right to veto any pact Nauru might make with other countries – namely China.
The veto terms are similar to the “Falepili Union” between signed late last year, which granted Tuvaluans access to Australian residency and climate mitigation support, in exchange for security guarantees.
And just last week, more details emerged about a between the United States and Papua New Guinea, now . In exchange for investment in military infrastructure development, training and equipment, the US gains unrestricted access to six ports and airports.
Also last week, PNG to fund its own team in Australia’s NRL competition. In return, “PNG will not sign a security deal that could allow Chinese police or military forces to be based in the pacific nation”.
These arrangements are all emblematic of the geopolitical tussle playing out in the Pacific between China and the US and its allies.
This strategic competition is often framed in mainstream media and political commentary as an extension of “” played by rival powers. From a , Pacific nations can be depicted as to leverage their own development priorities.
But this assumption that Pacific governments are “”, able to play China and the US off against each other, overlooks the very real power imbalances involved.
The risk, as the authors of , is that the “China threat” narrative becomes the justification for “greater Western militarisation and economic dominance”. In other words, Pacific nations become diplomatic price takers.
Defence diplomacy
Pacific nations are vulnerable on several fronts: most have a low economic base and many are facing a . At the same time, they are on the front line of climate change and rising sea levels.
The costs of recovering from more frequent extreme weather events create a vicious cycle of more debt and greater vulnerability. As was reported at this year’s United Nations COP29 summit, climate financing in the Pacific is .
The Pacific is already one of the world’s . But about the effectiveness of that aid when recipient countries still .
At the country level, government systems often lack the capacity to manage increasing aid packages, and struggle with the diplomatic engagement and other obligations demanded by the new geopolitical conditions.
In August, Kiribati even to diplomats until 2025 to allow the new government “breathing space” to attend to domestic affairs.
In the past, Australia championed as part of its financial aid. But a lot of development assistance is now skewed towards policing and defence.
Australia recently committed A$400 million to the , on top of a host of other . This is all part of an in so-called “defence diplomacy”, leading some observers to at the expense of the Pacific’s most vulnerable people.
Lack of good faith
At the same time, many political parties in Pacific nations operate quite informally and lack comprehensive policy manifestos. Most governments lack a parliamentary subcommittee that scrutinises foreign policy.
The upshot is that foreign policy and security arrangements can be rather than policy priorities, with little scrutiny. Pacific nations are also susceptible to corruption, as highlighted in Transparency International’s .
Writing about the consequences of the , Transparency Solomon Islands Executive Director Ruth Liloqula wrote:
Since 2019, my country has become a hotbed for diplomatic tensions and foreign interference, and undue influence.
Similarly, Pacific affairs expert Steven Ratuva has argued the and showed a “lack of good faith”.
Behind these developments, of course, lies the evolving between Australia, the US and United Kingdom, a response to growing Chinese presence and influence in the “Indo-Pacific” region.
The response from Pacific nations has been diplomatic, perhaps from a sense they cannot “rock the submarine” too much, given their ties to the big powers involved. But former Pacific Islands Forum secretary-general :
Pacific leaders were being sidelined in major geopolitical decisions affecting their region and they need to start raising their voices for the sake of their citizens.
While there are obvious advantages that come with strategic alliances, the tangible impacts for Pacific nations remain negligible. As the UN’s Asia and the Pacific states, to be achieved by 2030.
Unless these partnerships are grounded in good faith and genuine sustainable development, the grassroots consequences of geopolitics-as-usual will not change.