Pacific Regional Security Hub
Macmillan Brown For Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury
Chinese posturing and Trumpmania: Impact on the Pacific?
The Pacific is now going through a period of unprecedented uncertainty, surpassing even the turbulence of the Cold War era. Back then, countries at least knew which ideological camp they belonged to.
Now, there’s been a major, messy shift in the geopolitical landscape. Under Trump, the US’s new foreign policy direction is an erratic and contradictory mix of anti-globalism, strategic retreat, transactional diplomacy, predator corporatism, and imperial land grabbing.
A direct consequence of all these unravelling developments is the diminishing US strategic and military “presence” around the globe. In the Pacific, this has emboldened China to intensify its regional influence, sensing an opportunity to assert dominance without significant opposition.
by Steven Ratuva
China’s expanding influence in the Pacific
One immediate outcome is China’s increasing assertiveness in the region. Their recent sabre-rattling, in the form of military exercises near Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan — on top of its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) tests in the region — send a clear signal: China is positioning itself as the dominant force. There’s a new boss in town. In particular, Beijing appears to be testing Australia’s ability to respond, given its vocal opposition to China’s deals with Pacific nations, such as the security deal with the Solomon Islands. Until now, Australia could rely on unwavering US support (and military might) to counter China’s influence. However, with Washington in retreat, Beijing is adopting a more aggressive stance, posturing like a schoolyard bully daring smaller, weaker states to challenge its authority. Australia and New Zealand initially downplayed China’s actions, saying there’d been no breach of international law. But beneath this veneer of diplomacy, there is a palpable sense of anxiety and a rush toward military build-up. The stage is set for another arms race, reminiscent of the Cold War, threatening to further militarize the Pacific and heighten tensions in the region.
With the US in retreat, Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) will increasingly become targets of economic and political manoeuvring. While China is deepening its economic entanglements with the region, Australia and New Zealand are scrambling to assert regional influence — this time without US backing. This shift will require more creative and innovative diplomatic approaches to engage Pacific nations, many of which are already deeply intertwined with China’s economic tentacles through development policies and diplomatic relations. Complicating matters further, Trump’s erratic leadership has cast uncertainty over regional agreements such as AUKUS, which has been touted as a key pillar in countering Chinese expansion. If Trump abandons the nuclear submarine deal under AUKUS, as many fear, the ramifications for Australia’s economy will be significant, given the billions invested and the queue of institutions such as universities, corporations and other contractors that have committed themselves to the massive project. Trump’s recent imposition of tariffs on Australian goods is part of a pattern of toxic transactional behaviour that could strain alliances further. So, it seems that China is testing the resilience of alliances, such as the QUAD (US, Japan, India and Australia) and AUKUS (Australia, UK, US). The common thread in both these agreements is Australia and the US — and with the US increasingly disengaged, Australia will be left in a vulnerable position. Meanwhile, New Zealand may find that its relatively independent foreign policy stance puts it in a stronger negotiating position with China, compared to its allies. Impact on Pacific communities Trump’s policies have also caused turmoil for Pacific communities connected to the US. With the withdrawal of USAID, many Pacific students in Hawai‘i and the US mainland have lost their scholarships, suddenly becoming “illegal aliens” overnight because of the connection between their scholarships and student visas. Pacific people working in academia, public service and US-funded projects have lost their jobs, and many of those now considered “undocumented” are expected to return home. This will see a sharp reduction in remittances, directly affecting community income and wellbeing in the islands. The abrupt closure of USAID offices in Suva and Port Moresby has further weakened US soft power in the Pacific. Many vital projects in health, climate change, education, governance have been scrapped. USAID, like the Peace Corps (both of which were formed in 1961) played a soft power role for the US during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet empire, the USAID offices in the Pacific closed down. Later, in 2024, as China’s influence increased, the regional office was reopened in Suva. The absence of USAID will no doubt provide more space for the already bourgeoning Chinese “soft power” incursion in Oceania. Another consequence of Washington’s strategic retreat from the region is a potential shift in Pacific nations’ voting patterns in the UN. Over the years, many Pacific countries voted with the US on critical issues, including resolutions regarding Palestine and Israel. However, growing disillusionment — exacerbated by unmet promises, like the unfulfilled US$800 million commitment by President Biden under the 2022 US-Pacific Partnership — may push Pacific nations to reconsider their alliances. This growing disaffection will be deepened by Trump’s near-total lack of interest in the Pacific — so far. A path forward for the Pacific But all is not lost. For Pacific people, this swirling vortex of confusion could garner opportunities. There are a number of things that we can do to seize this moment. The proposed review of the regional architecture must prioritise innovation, resilience and sustainability to respond to the changing security dynamics in the region. This must involve closer connections and collaboration around a common security interest— one defined and operationalised by Pacific Island peoples, rather than external powers. As part of this, Pacific nations must strengthen their capacity to engage with bigger powers — including China, Australia, New Zealand, and emerging Asian and European powers — on their own terms. Both China and the “western” countries are competing for the hearts and minds of Pacific leaders and people. We need to engage smartly and strategically to navigate these complex waters — and this is where diplomacy, security and political economy training for emerging Pacific leaders will be vital. Fostering a stronger regional bloc — with Australia and New Zealand offering freer access to Pacific citizens — could also prevent China from co-opting individual countries through bilateral deals. Ultimately, while Trump’s influence is disruptive, it’s also temporary. The Pacific has weathered storms before, and with strategic foresight and unity, it can chart a path forward on its own terms.
One immediate outcome is China’s increasing assertiveness in the region. Their recent sabre-rattling, in the form of military exercises near Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan — on top of its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) tests in the region — send a clear signal: China is positioning itself as the dominant force. There’s a new boss in town. In particular, Beijing appears to be testing Australia’s ability to respond, given its vocal opposition to China’s deals with Pacific nations, such as the security deal with the Solomon Islands. Until now, Australia could rely on unwavering US support (and military might) to counter China’s influence. However, with Washington in retreat, Beijing is adopting a more aggressive stance, posturing like a schoolyard bully daring smaller, weaker states to challenge its authority. Australia and New Zealand initially downplayed China’s actions, saying there’d been no breach of international law. But beneath this veneer of diplomacy, there is a palpable sense of anxiety and a rush toward military build-up. The stage is set for another arms race, reminiscent of the Cold War, threatening to further militarize the Pacific and heighten tensions in the region.
With the US in retreat, Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) will increasingly become targets of economic and political manoeuvring. While China is deepening its economic entanglements with the region, Australia and New Zealand are scrambling to assert regional influence — this time without US backing. This shift will require more creative and innovative diplomatic approaches to engage Pacific nations, many of which are already deeply intertwined with China’s economic tentacles through development policies and diplomatic relations. Complicating matters further, Trump’s erratic leadership has cast uncertainty over regional agreements such as AUKUS, which has been touted as a key pillar in countering Chinese expansion. If Trump abandons the nuclear submarine deal under AUKUS, as many fear, the ramifications for Australia’s economy will be significant, given the billions invested and the queue of institutions such as universities, corporations and other contractors that have committed themselves to the massive project. Trump’s recent imposition of tariffs on Australian goods is part of a pattern of toxic transactional behaviour that could strain alliances further. So, it seems that China is testing the resilience of alliances, such as the QUAD (US, Japan, India and Australia) and AUKUS (Australia, UK, US). The common thread in both these agreements is Australia and the US — and with the US increasingly disengaged, Australia will be left in a vulnerable position. Meanwhile, New Zealand may find that its relatively independent foreign policy stance puts it in a stronger negotiating position with China, compared to its allies. Impact on Pacific communities Trump’s policies have also caused turmoil for Pacific communities connected to the US. With the withdrawal of USAID, many Pacific students in Hawai‘i and the US mainland have lost their scholarships, suddenly becoming “illegal aliens” overnight because of the connection between their scholarships and student visas. Pacific people working in academia, public service and US-funded projects have lost their jobs, and many of those now considered “undocumented” are expected to return home. This will see a sharp reduction in remittances, directly affecting community income and wellbeing in the islands. The abrupt closure of USAID offices in Suva and Port Moresby has further weakened US soft power in the Pacific. Many vital projects in health, climate change, education, governance have been scrapped. USAID, like the Peace Corps (both of which were formed in 1961) played a soft power role for the US during the Cold War against the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet empire, the USAID offices in the Pacific closed down. Later, in 2024, as China’s influence increased, the regional office was reopened in Suva. The absence of USAID will no doubt provide more space for the already bourgeoning Chinese “soft power” incursion in Oceania. Another consequence of Washington’s strategic retreat from the region is a potential shift in Pacific nations’ voting patterns in the UN. Over the years, many Pacific countries voted with the US on critical issues, including resolutions regarding Palestine and Israel. However, growing disillusionment — exacerbated by unmet promises, like the unfulfilled US$800 million commitment by President Biden under the 2022 US-Pacific Partnership — may push Pacific nations to reconsider their alliances. This growing disaffection will be deepened by Trump’s near-total lack of interest in the Pacific — so far. A path forward for the Pacific But all is not lost. For Pacific people, this swirling vortex of confusion could garner opportunities. There are a number of things that we can do to seize this moment. The proposed review of the regional architecture must prioritise innovation, resilience and sustainability to respond to the changing security dynamics in the region. This must involve closer connections and collaboration around a common security interest— one defined and operationalised by Pacific Island peoples, rather than external powers. As part of this, Pacific nations must strengthen their capacity to engage with bigger powers — including China, Australia, New Zealand, and emerging Asian and European powers — on their own terms. Both China and the “western” countries are competing for the hearts and minds of Pacific leaders and people. We need to engage smartly and strategically to navigate these complex waters — and this is where diplomacy, security and political economy training for emerging Pacific leaders will be vital. Fostering a stronger regional bloc — with Australia and New Zealand offering freer access to Pacific citizens — could also prevent China from co-opting individual countries through bilateral deals. Ultimately, while Trump’s influence is disruptive, it’s also temporary. The Pacific has weathered storms before, and with strategic foresight and unity, it can chart a path forward on its own terms.