A few days ago, the United States signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with the Pacific island nation Papua New Guinea, expanding the US military presence in the country and triggering a number of large-scale protests and marches in Papua New Guinea.
Although Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who replaced US President Joe Biden, claimed that the agreement "has nothing to do with any country", Western media generally believe that the move is aimed at "countering China's influence in the Pacific."
With the extension of the Belt and Road Initiative to the south, China's cooperation with Pacific island countries has become closer and the scope of cooperation has been expanded. Western countries, led by the United States and Australia, are increasingly uneasy about this.
What concerns does China's expanding influence in the South Pacific region raise concerns for the United States and Australia? What information does the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea reveal when he says that Papua New Guinea will not be used as a base for waging war? The United States, Australia and other countries have been deeply engaged in the South Pacific for many years, and what is the difference between the cooperation projects jointly carried out by China and these Pacific island countries in recent years compared with their projects?
Focusing on related topics, Observer.com interviewed Chen Xiaochen, deputy director of the Institute of National and Regional Studies of the School of Foreign Languages of East China Normal University and executive deputy director of the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies of East China Normal University.
Geopolitical games
Observer Network: Recently, a news about the South Pacific island country of Papua New Guinea has attracted the attention of Chinese netizens - China has assisted Papua New Guinea in building roads and infrastructure construction, while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has walked this road and signed the Defense Cooperation Agreement with the PNG government, which allows the United States to expand its military presence in the country. Seeing that many netizens were indignant about this, saying that this is "China planting trees, the United States picking peaches".
Since the establishment of diplomatic relations in the 70s of the 20th century, China has provided economic and technical assistance to Pacific island countries without any political conditions, carried out more than 100 aid projects and provided more than 200 batches of material assistance. Many island countries choose economic and trade cooperation with China, and rely on the United States or Australia and New Zealand for military defense. What do you think of their choice?
Chen Xiaochen: Not only Pacific island countries, but also many countries along the "Belt and Road" will carry out economic and trade cooperation with China while strengthening defense cooperation with the United States. The phrase "China plants trees, the United States picks peaches" is very interesting, but I think it is definitely incorrect, and it may be more appropriate to describe it with another saying, that is, "planting melons gets melons, planting beans gets beans".
In other words, China has planted the seeds of economic and trade cooperation, infrastructure construction, people-to-people bonds, etc., and harvested the continuous improvement of cooperation with Pacific island countries. And the United States, since World War I, and even since the Spanish-American War (1898), has viewed the value of this region from a geopolitical perspective, with the clear purpose of advancing a military presence in the region - ignoring the region when it deems it safe; When it believes that another power has emerged in the region to challenge its power, it strengthens its military presence on the islands. The seeds of a strengthened military presence were planted here by the United States, and judging by the opposition to the Defence Cooperation Agreement in Papua New Guinea, the fruit of military intervention was naturally reaped.
In other words, the trees planted in China, we and the people of the South Pacific island countries jointly pick the fruit; And the United States planted its own tree and picked its own fruit.
Mason Hagen, Papua New Guinea, 22-23 May, anti-US-PNG security agreement protest (Photo/Courier Post)
Observer Network: PNG Prime Minister James Marape told the media that Papua New Guinea will not be used as a base for waging war. In fact, this statement also exists in some other overseas military bases in the United States, such as the Philippines. But even if it says so, everyone will question whether the United States will be able to stop it if it really comes to a tense moment, and the United States wants to forcibly launch offensive military operations (against China) from here. What do you think?
Chen Xiaochen: I think we can look at this issue from two aspects.
On the one hand, since the end of World War II, the South Pacific region has been the sphere of influence of the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, and these island countries are located within the three spheres of influence, and in fact, there is no better choice - or, so to speak, they do not choose the United States and Australia as defense cooperation objects, but have no choice.
Solomon Islands is a good example. Last year, Solomon Islands added security cooperation with China to focus on police enforcement, building on decades of defense cooperation with Australia, a move that has raised concerns in the United States, Australia and other Western countries. Then-Australian Prime Minister Morrison said very bluntly and defiantly, saying that if China established a military base in the Solomon Islands, it would violate Australia's "red line".
Therefore, the geopolitics of the South Pacific region is actually a continuation of the international order of the entire Pacific region after World War II, based on the Pacific Security Treaty (Australia-New Zealand-US Alliance Treaty) signed in 1951, and there is also a secret treaty under this treaty, namely the Radford-Collins Agreement.
The agreement generally defines the three countries of the North Pacific today, namely Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, which are located in the South Pacific region north of the equator, as the sphere of influence of the United States; The four Melanesian countries in the southwest Pacific, that is, south of the equator, namely Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji, are placed under the "jurisdiction" of Australia; The island nations of the southeast Pacific, such as Tonga, Samoa, and the Cook Islands, were originally assigned to Britain and New Zealand, but after the British withdrew from the region, they effectively became New Zealand's sphere of influence.
Although New Zealand later withdrew from the ANZ alliance due to its "denuclearization" policy, the legal effect of the Radford-Collins Agreement still exists today. The essence of this agreement is that the United States is behind the scenes, with Australia and New Zealand controlling the order in the region.
Infographic
Today, the situation in the entire South Pacific region has changed a lot. One of the reasons why the United States has personally ended up and moved from behind the scenes to the front of the stage is that Australia can no longer undertake to maintain order in the region, especially the four Melanesian countries - among the Pacific island countries, the most important international status is the southwest Pacific region, where the four Melanesian countries are located. To put it bluntly, Australia, the "acting police chief" of the United States, is now beginning to be unable to effectively control the order in the region, so the United States has to personally end the battle.
That's why the U.S. is pushing for maritime security cooperation agreements with several Pacific island countries, especially shiprider agreements. This is also the logic behind the United States advancing the Defense Cooperation Agreement with Papua New Guinea.
On the other hand, PNG itself does not want to be drawn into the competition game between the United States and other powers.
Papua New Guinea is the largest island nation in the South Pacific – the largest, most populous and influential, and its international status has risen rapidly in recent years, so it has its own agenda. In fact, the United States and Papua New Guinea signed the "Defense Cooperation Agreement" this time, the negotiation process did not go smoothly, Papua New Guinea is not willing to sign such an overly militarized agreement, so the agreement was delayed until this year, and many reservations were made in the specific provisions.
Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Marape said the agreement is not offensive, does not target a third party, and does not rule out the possibility of cooperation with a third party. From the analysis point of view, this should indeed be an expression of the true will of Papua New Guinea. In fact, in January this year, then Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Takachenko also said that this agreement is the will of the United States, and the United States hopes to show its influence in this region - the implication is that the signing of the agreement is promoted by the United States, not by our initiative in Papua New Guinea.
In general, although Papua New Guinea is regarded as the big brother by other island countries in this region, its national strength is incomparable with the United States, and it is not at all in the same magnitude, and in international politics, what big countries want to do, small countries do not have much ability and means to change. Papua New Guinea declared that Papua New Guinea will neither be used as a base for waging war, nor will it deploy offensive equipment and weapons, and I think that if this statement can be translated into some specific provisions, it can also constitute certain restrictions on the military power of the United States in the region, including both moral constraints and practical constraints.
Observer: Speaking of military cooperation, when China signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands last year, I saw that domestic public opinion was very excited, thinking that we had finally entered the "backyard" of the United States and Australia; At present, it is completely different from the military actions envisaged by many people. Can you analyze and summarize the strategic significance of cooperation with South Pacific island countries?
Chen Xiaochen: It has been the first anniversary of the signing of the security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands. To be fair and objective, Westerners, led by the United States and Australia, are more sensitive than we are to the strategic values of the region, especially military and geopolitical values.
The United States and Australia have fought and shed blood in today's Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, and they know better what it means to Guadalcanal (the main island where the capital of the Solomon Islands is located), New Guinea, and Rabaul. Like Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, in addition to the existing value, considering the location of the deep-water port, the future potential is also huge. In addition to the United States and Australia, Japan has also included the South Pacific region in the list of expansion targets, and spent a lot of troops to fight for the South Pacific in World War II, and then withdrew and then returned, and is also increasing its diplomatic offensive in this region.
Another reason why the United States and Australia are so nervous is that we have signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands that focuses on policing and law enforcement, and the reason why the United States and Australia are so nervous is that they still view China with a Cold War mentality or even a war mentality, and the United States still looks at it according to its own logic, "treating others with itself."
You know, the United States itself annexed the originally independent Hawaiian Kingdom step by step: first carried out economic and trade cooperation, built ports for the Hawaiian Kingdom, and spread the so-called advanced Western culture to the Hawaiian Kingdom; and then slowly and step by step encroaching on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom; Finally, the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom was eliminated and the annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom was completed. Now the United States is "treating others by itself" and is very afraid that China will do something to the Pacific island countries similar to what the United States did to the Hawaiian kingdom in the past.
In addition, if we look at the map, we can clearly see that the South Pacific region is located in a vast area extending from the "second island chain" to the "third island chain", and as Sino-US competition intensifies and the Taiwan Strait issue becomes more sensitive, the United States and Australia will naturally be more vigilant about China's military elements there.
And China's signing of the police and security cooperation agreement with the Solomon Islands is actually in response to the strong demand of the Solomon Islands - not a general demand, but a strong demand.
The unrest in Solomon Islands on November 24, 2021 proved that security forces on the Solomon Islands were severely inadequate to support the central government in the Solomon Islands to maintain law and order in the country. In fact, in the entire South Pacific region, only three countries, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Tonga, have regular armies, Vanuatu has a paramilitary organization, and other countries have only police. This is the case in Solomon Islands, where there is no army, only police, and police training is grossly inadequate.
According to some former government officials in the Solomon Islands, a small Australian army was stationed on the island at that time, but the Australian army refused to protect the interests of many places, including Chinatown. In other words, there were significant deficiencies in the security forces in the maintenance of law and order, both inside and outside Solomon Islands.
In the aftermath of the riots, Solomon Islands sought cooperation from several countries, including Papua New Guinea and Fiji, but the two countries also had very limited military strength, sending only 20 and 40 troops respectively. China and Pacific island countries have had cooperation in policing before, and there is a certain good foundation for cooperation, so even if Solomon Islands has not established diplomatic relations with China for a long time, they have seen that this is a reliable partner that can really protect them; Cooperation with China is also conducive to promoting security and diplomatic diversification in the Solomon Islands and even the Pacific island countries – indeed, in recent years, these island countries have also been "looking north" in the hope of obtaining new partners from Asian countries.
Frankly speaking, the local level of security maintenance in the Solomon Islands is indeed relatively low, and the training process is difficult, and many even need to be trained from scratch; After a period of training, a police force capable of performing policing tasks was initially established. Solomon Islands Prime Minister Sogavare was particularly pleased, saying "now I feel safer."
In 2022, the Solomon Islands Police Force completed a 30-day police skills training at the Fujian Police College in China. The picture shows the training site. (Photo: Chinese Embassy in Solomon Islands)
This choice also reflects the fact that China has always followed the right path in the South Pacific region, always respected small countries diplomatically, and abided by the principle of equality of all countries, large and small, rather than just talking about the so-called equality.
Both Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands fear being drawn into great power geopolitical competition. China's adherence to the right path and the establishment of cooperation through economic and trade cooperation, infrastructure assistance, and people-to-people ties will also help to allay the worries of these island countries.
·“ Competitive assistance"
Observer: With the advancement of the "One Belt, One Road" strategy, China has greatly increased its assistance to South Pacific island countries in recent years, especially economic aid; At the same time, the United States, Australia and other countries have also proposed to further increase various types of assistance to island countries in the region. What are the corresponding problems caused by "competitive assistance" from all parties?
Chen Xiaochen: The concept of competitive aid has been widely used in public opinion, mainly for the United States and Australia, which often regard aid as a kind of competition. For the South Pacific region, the United States has also led the formation of the "Blue Pacific Partnership" composed of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Japan, and has also encouraged Canada, South Korea, India and other countries to join in to improve the voice of its own side.
In terms of aid stocks to the South Pacific, Australia, the United States, New Zealand and even Japan have historically accumulated stocks higher than China's. However, China's aid increase in recent years has been rapid. At present, China's annual aid is still far less than Australia's, but it has surpassed the United States, Japan and even New Zealand in some estimates, and ranks second in annual new flows.
In addition, China's aid has received a relatively good response on the ground. China has not only brought aid to the local area, but also mutually beneficial economic and trade cooperation and business investment, which has made China's influence in the local area continue to expand.
Western countries such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand are quite worried about this. In order to offset the influence of Chinese aid, they have worked to increase aid and improve its quality, even using inferior means such as public opinion warfare. Not only are these countries less upright on the aid track, but they are also competing viciously on other tracks, reflecting their anxiety vis-à-vis China.
Chinese aid volunteers teach local students Chinese Pinyin in the Cook Islands (Photo courtesy of the author)
Observer.com: In terms of the implementation of local aid, what are the differences between China's assistance and those of the United States and Australia? Horizontal comparison, what are the differences in their respective emphases?
Chen Xiaochen: Aid from different countries does have their own characteristics.
In terms of domains, China is characterized by infrastructure, which is critical for island nations – which are geographically dispersed and therefore need infrastructure to be interconnected.
The United States and Australia focus on "soft" areas. For small countries, perfecting the functions of government is particularly important, and Western countries have a long tradition in this area. They provide institutionalized training and education to these island nations, including scholarships for local students and encouragement to study in Western countries, thereby influencing the values of local people, especially young elites.
In terms of practice, aid from the United States and Australia is often conditional, usually in a "package" approach, that is, linking or even tying aid to other policies.
The "Free Association Agreement" just renewed between the United States and several Pacific island countries is a typical representative of this "package agreement": the United States gives economic assistance to the country, allowing the country's people to enjoy preferential treatment and certain US citizenship; Accordingly, the country must guarantee the presence of U.S. military power here and exclude the military use of its territory and territorial waters by third parties.
Many Western agreements reflect this "binding" intention, while China's aid often comes without any political conditions, in stark contrast to the two sides' approach.
In terms of follow-up influence, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Japan pay more attention to image packaging, while China is much more low-key. For example, even if the United States, Australia and New Zealand and Japan have only done a small aid project, they will paint the packaging with large "Australian Aid", "USAID" and other logos, for fear that the local people will not know who the donor is. It does, however, bring more follow-on value to aid providers.
Australia supports Samoa project
However, China has long had serious deficiencies in the image logo of foreign aid, and even the situation of "only doing but not saying", which has only improved in recent years, and now the "China Aid" logo has been relatively formalized, but the follow-up influence of aid projects needs to be further strengthened.
China Assists Construction of Apia Park Stadium in Samoa (Photo by the author, November 2017)
China Aided Construction of Farewao Primary School in Samoa (Photo by the author, August 2018)
Observer: You just mentioned that China's aid focuses on infrastructure in the field, and it is understood that the infrastructure of South Pacific island countries is weak, from venues and roads to electricity and networks. What are the main factors we consider when determining what projects to assist?
Chen Xiaochen: When we provide assistance, we first consider the needs of island countries: first, the transportation of island countries is extremely inconvenient, so it is urgent to improve the level of interoperability; Second, island countries are extremely vulnerable to climate change and urgently need to find ways to cope with it; Third, the Internet access in island countries is difficult, expensive and slow.
I did research in island countries for several years before the epidemic, and I felt the third point very deeply. Many areas of the island country are still using 2G and 2.5G networks, and communication with the world is extremely inconvenient, which restricts the ability of the people of the island country to obtain information, and then hinders the development of the island country. Therefore, island countries not only need infrastructure connectivity, but also digital connectivity and promote the development of the digital economy, so as not to be left behind by the trend of the digital era. China often says "sustainable development" and "no one can be left behind", but this is also the demand of Pacific island countries.
In addition to considering the needs of the island countries, a comprehensive assessment is also important – not that China will provide what the island countries want China to do. One of the long-standing principles of integrated assessments is "long-term sustainability", which is a key consideration in aid.
I would also like to point out that China-Pacific island countries are very rich in cooperation, and aid is only one of them, including mutually beneficial economic and trade cooperation, local investment and entrepreneurship, youth cooperation, women's cooperation and so on.
Observer Network: In terms of trends, can we conclude that in recent years, our aid and cooperation projects have become more and more "grounded", and more and more consideration is given to the benefit rate of local ordinary people?
Chen Xiaochen: I think you can say that. In recent years, the mainland has made great progress in image display and post-operation, improving the compatibility of the project with local social development, so that it can benefit more local people.
Of course, this area is still our shortcoming. In order for the people of the island countries to truly see and feel the cooperation between China and the Pacific island countries, we need to make further efforts.
Observer Network: China's "Belt and Road" cooperation with island countries, including the "people-to-people bond", you just mentioned. In a speech in 2016, you said, "The biggest problem with cooperation between China and the South Pacific is that we know too little about each other." Seven years on, has that changed?
Chen Xiaochen: In general, the situation has improved in recent years, and China and the Pacific no longer "lack understanding", but still "lack sufficient understanding", and need to be further improved.
Observer.com: "Enough to know", how is this "enough" defined? In reality, there is a general lack of understanding of the region that is thousands of miles away from them and has infrequent daily contact, which is actually a normal situation, both for the South Pacific region and for Africa.
Chen Xiaochen: I have done research on China-Pacific cooperation and research in Africa, and I have found a common problem, that is, the communication and understanding between China and Africa and Pacific island countries in the "soft" field seems to be unable to catch up with the cooperation process between the two sides in the field of "hardware" - cooperation in "hardware" is in the lead, but "soft" mutual understanding is delayed.
But Pacific island nations have one characteristic that sets Africa apart: they have some degree of kinship with China. A growing body of anthropological research shows that China and the Pacific have been interacting with each other for thousands of years. With the development of the "21st Century Maritime Silk Road" in the South Pacific, China and Pacific island countries should uphold the awareness of "belonging to the same Pacific Ocean", enhance their understanding of each other through various channels such as the media of the two sides, narrow the distance with each other, and connect cultures and people-to-people.
Observer Network: In terms of "cultural connection and people-to-people connection" with the local area, is the most crucial step to break down the ideological barriers that have been shaped by Western countries such as the United States and Australia for a long time? After all, historically, Western countries have been the suzerainty of these island nations; At present, many areas of these island countries are still under their control.
Chen Xiaochen: Yes, the ideological barriers created by the West are not only obstacles to mutual understanding between China and the Pacific island countries, but can even be said to be a counterforce. To break down this barrier, it is still necessary to "follow the right path". The West has responded to China in the following ways, but China cannot fall to the same point as them, and we should not and do not disdain to adopt such measures.
As for the specific methods of cracking, I believe that on-site visits by China and the Pacific are very important. The so-called "seeing is believing", the situation witnessed with one's own eyes has a strong ability to deconstruct. If you let the people of Pacific island countries visit China, they will be able to see for themselves that China is not what the Western media advertise at all, and that the stereotypes long created by the Western media will fall apart.
In recent years, due to various factors, such visit projects have been much rarer. I look forward to the recovery of these programs, and I hope that more Chinese will visit or travel to the South Pacific to see for themselves what Pacific island countries are like.
Perhaps the power of the real world is not as immediate as the power of disinformation, but the "stamina" of the former is great.
The author conducted research on the Centre for Maritime Training and Marine and Environmental Studies at the National University of Samoa, which China assisted in the establishment of the National University of Samoa
Observer: The last question, which has also arisen in some other "Belt and Road" countries, is that if China provides economic and technical assistance, especially gratuitous aid, does it need to worry about the mentality of "Shengmien, fighting rice hatred" in the local society?
Chen Xiaochen: Indeed, the challenges you mentioned are not non-existent. For example, during the epidemic, many projects were forced to be suspended, and some projects even suffered some losses due to tropical high temperature and humidity, and difficult maintenance environments, but China and the Pacific have jointly overcome the difficulties. Facts have proved that the so-called "Shengmien, doumi feud" problem can be overcome.
In fact, in my opinion, first, China's aid to Pacific island countries is not only much lower than Australia's in increment, but only slightly higher than that of the United States, Japan and New Zealand; In terms of stock, it is far less than the West, which regards Pacific island countries as its "own backyard". Therefore, at present, there is no "doumien" problem between China and the Pacific.
Second, when providing assistance to island countries, China will take into account the needs of island countries on the one hand, and conduct comprehensive assessments based on the principle of "long-term sustainability" on the other hand. In general, the two sides still "meet each other".
This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer.com, the content of the article is purely the author's personal opinion, does not represent the platform's views, unauthorized reproduction, otherwise legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow the observer network WeChat guanchacn and read interesting articles every day.