As China and the West compete for influence, Pasifika Island nations must defend our sovereignty, preserve our friendships and unite against the greatest threat to our survival.
An intriguing argument has emerged from the war with Iran. Arnaud Bertrand contends that China, by sharply reducing oil imports, inadvertently helped avert global economic catastrophe. US military power disrupted West Asia; China’s economic resilience cushioned the consequences. The claim may be arguable, but the lesson matters for the Pasifika: military superiority no longer guarantees strategic success. Economic resilience, energy independence and capacity to withstand shocks increasingly determine national power.
For the Pasifika, this raises an uncomfortable question: as great powers compete for dominance, whose security are we being asked to protect, and at what cost to our own?
The Pasifika Is Not Anyone’s Chessboard
The contest is familiar. China expands economic, diplomatic and security ties. The US, Australia and Western partners respond with strategic attention, defense cooperation and warnings about Beijing. Each presents its engagement as beneficial. Yet we must distinguish their priorities from ours. Washington views the Pasifika through competition with China. Beijing seeks influence and chances to challenge Western dominance. Canberra sees its immediate national security interests. These concerns are understandable, but they are not necessarily our priorities, nor Vanuatu’s, Samoa, Tonga, Solomon Islands or our wider Pasifika family. We must resist becoming instruments of another country’s calculations. We cannot exchange one dependency for another, or mistake diplomatic attention for respect for our sovereignty.
Friends to All, Subservient to None
Our aspiration to be friends to all and enemies to none is dismissed as naïve. It is not. For small states, constructive relationships with competing powers preserve choices, diversify opportunities and reduce our vulnerability. But friendship must never mean unquestioning accommodation. Chinese investment deserves consideration alongside concerns about debt, transparency and strategic dependency. Equally, security cooperation with Australia, America and traditional partners must serve our interests, not merely historical loyalties. No foreign power should acquire privileged influence over our sovereign decisions or draw us into conflicts unrelated to our security. The test of genuine friendship is whether a powerful partner respects our right to disagree with it.
Our Greatest Security Threat Is Not a Foreign Warship
Here lies the contradiction. Great powers define security through military access, naval deployments, intelligence cooperation and containment. Yet our greatest existential threat is not an invading army. It is climate change. Rising seas threaten ancestral lands. Coastal erosion displaces communities. Intensifying cyclones destroy infrastructure. Ocean warming threatens fisheries, livelihoods and food security. The irony is that the powers competing here are among the world’s largest historical or current emitters. They offer military assistance while emissions driving our insecurity continue. They speak of defending sovereignty while rising seas threaten the territories upon which sovereignty rests. What value is a security guarantee if our islands become uninhabitable? Climate justice is not an add-on to security; it is security.
From Nadi to Istanbul: One Pasifika Voice
With the pre-COP31 meeting in Nadi concluded and delegations preparing for Istanbul, our challenge is clear. Pasifika states should unite under the PIF umbrella, bringing one disciplined regional voice. Fragmented diplomacy is untenable when collective survival is at stake. Governments must insist on meaningful emissions reductions, accessible climate finance, loss-and-damage commitments and accountability from major emitters. China, America, Australia and Europe must hear the same message: Pasifika security cannot be separated from climate justice. Our collective voice carries greater weight than isolated appeals. Istanbul must not become another gathering where the powerful negotiate while small island concerns are drowned out. The Blue Pasifika must speak for itself.
The Sovereignty We Must Defend
The lesson from China’s energy resilience is not to embrace Beijing over Washington. It is that genuine security begins with reducing vulnerability. For the Pasifika, that means renewable energy, climate-resilient infrastructure, stronger institutions and collective diplomatic independence. We should welcome cooperation from every responsible partner, but never surrender our priorities for patronage. The Iran war reminds us that great powers can start conflicts without controlling consequences; small states often bear those consequences without sharing the decisions. We cannot control Washington’s or Beijing’s ambitions. We can determine how we engage. Friends to all, pawns of none.
Ultimately, Pasifika security will not be measured by whose warships patrol our waters, but by whether our children and grandchildren can live with dignity and sovereignty on the lands and oceans of their ancestors.
That is the future worth defending.
