China’s role in the region is a constant pressure in one direction. New Zealand andAustralian policies towards the region have been naive at best, and the situation wasworsened by U.S. State Department following Canberra and Wellington’s lead.
Cleo Paskal
Washington, D.C.
This past week flights were diverted between Australia and New Zealand to avoid Chinesemilitary live fire exercises, three Chinese military ships sailed within 277 kilometres ofSydney, and the Cook Islands and China agreed an “Action Plan 2025-2030 for theComprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Cook Islands and the People’s Republic ofChina”.
None of this was a surprise. China’s goals in the region were made clear in its “China PacificIslands Common Development Vision” (and supporting “Five Year Plan”) documents.
The goals are barely post-colonial and aim to undermine Pacific Islands’ sovereignty, thenbring them under Beijing’s control. This is an essential step to, at the least, neutralizeAustralia and New Zealand.
China’s role in the region is a constant pressure in one direction. The question is, how torespond?
I can tell you how not to respond: the way it’s been done until now. New Zealand andAustralian policies towards the region have been naive at best, and the situation wasworsened by U.S. State Department following Canberra and Wellington’s lead.
A foundational issue is “what is a country” and, by extension, who has the right to signnation-to-nation strategic agreements. The Pacific Islands region has a wide range of politicalarrangements, including the fitful French colony of New Caledonia and the independentcountries in Free Association with the United States (Palau, Federated States of Micronesiaand Marshall Islands).
Increasingly many of the hard-fought battles of the decolonisation period have been forgotten and undermined as the meaning of sovereignty is blurred.
SOVEREIGNTY BY PRESS RELEASE
For example, the Cook Islands is in “Free Association” with New Zealand. Cook Islandersare New Zealand citizens, use New Zealand passports and the New Zealand dollar. Close to100,000 Cook Islanders live in New Zealand. Around 17,000 live in the Cook Islands.According to the non-binding 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration, the Cook Islands issupposed to “work together and consult” with New Zealand on defence and national securitymatters of mutual interest.
Given all that, is it an independent country? Yes, according
SIGNING AWAY SOVEREIGNTY WITHOUT DEBATE
Meanwhile, Australia has signed deals with Tuvalu (2024) and Nauru (2024) that seriouslyweaken national sovereignty. The Tuvalu deal, for example, reads: “Tuvalu will mutuallyagree with Australia any partnership, arrangement or engagement with any other State orentity on security and defence-related matters in Tuvalu.”
The Nauru one goes further: “Nauru shall mutually agree with Australia any partnership,arrangement or engagement with any other State or entity on matters relating to Nauru’ssecurity including maritime security, defence, policing, border protection and cyber securitysectors, and Nauru’s critical infrastructure concerning banking and telecommunications.”
Is Nauru now less or more independent than Cook Islands?
A critical aspect of this is the deals were done through government-to-government treatiesthat were not publicly debated before signing, and weren’t ratified by referenda (by contrast,the U.S. Compacts with Palau, Marshalls and Micronesia were widely debated and thenratified by referenda).
WHO GETS A SEAT AT THE TABLE
This confusion over sovereignty can be seen at the Pacific Islands Forum, which calls itselfthe region’s “premier political and economic policy organisation”. Given the policy aspect,membership was originally generally confined to sovereign countries and self-governingterritories—places that had the authority to make foreign policy.
Though now its Members includes Niue (population 1,700) and French colonies NewCaledonia and French Polynesia. Recently American territories Guam and American Samoabecame Associate Members.
One of the world experts on sovereignty in the region, Howard Hills, was legal counsel forpolitical status affairs in Carter, Reagan, Trump and Biden administrations. In an interviewwith The Sunday Guardian, he explained the implications.
“In the post-World War II era of decolonization, diplomatic bureaucrats and self-aggrandizingacademics have been dispensing relativistic theories about traditional nation-state sovereigntybeing an anachronism impeding historically dependent peoples seeking greater self-determination. But the Atlantic Charter and U.N. Charter do not promise the benefits ofnation state status without the disciplines and the responsibilities that come with separatesovereignty, natality and citizenship.
“Real self-determination requires real political will by peoples aspiring to emerge fromdependency to make real choices between real political status options recognized andtherefore sustainable and enforceable under international law. Pretending sovereignty hasbeen attained when the test of real nationhood based on the right in independence is not metis a form of condescending neo-colonialism the State Department and French diplomaticelites refer to as ‘wink and nod’ decolonization.
“The State Department was asleep at the wheel as France and then New Zealand manipulatedpolitical status principles under U.N. Resolution 2625 to move non-self-governing Pacificterritories along the path from observer toward associate and full membership in PIF.
“U.S. announcement of an intention to recognize [Cook Islands as an independent country]was opposed by regional experts as an abandonment of minimal criteria for recognition of sovereignty, and predicted a loss of reciprocity and continuity needed for a legitimate andorderly decolonization process. Under pressure to add fluff to implementation of the PacificSummit Declaration, the State Department ignored real re-engagement in the region to stopthe Chinese diplomatic, economic and security intrusions, and instead engaged in diplomatictokenism by surrendering to Guam’s demand for associate membership in PIF.”
This approach to sovereignty has created openings that China has exploited.
NZ AND AUSTRLIA PUT ‘THEIR MAN’ IN AT THE PIF
Apart from feeding the confusion over sovereignty, the PIF is also tied directly into the issueof Cook Islands leadership and China. In late 2020/early 2021, the position of SecretaryGeneral (SG) of the PIF was up for election by PIF members states. The two leadingcandidates were Gerald Zackios (Marshall Islands Ambassador to the U.S.) and Cook IslandsPrime Minister Henry Puna.
The SG position was supposed to rotate by region (Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia). It was Micronesia’s turn. Marshall Islands is in Micronesia. So, by the PIF’s own customs, it should have gone to Zackios.
But that would mean the SG position would go to a country that recognizes Taiwan and a man who is well known and liked in DC. Sounds like a good thing for a free and open Indo-Pacific, right? Not to Canberra and Wellington. It came down to a one vote difference and Canberra and Wellington voted for Puna. Puna won.
Possibly Canberra and Wellington thought they were being clever—not annoying Beijing, limiting U.S. engagement in the PIF (Zackios had a direct line into some key people in DC) and so not undermining their own position while putting in a man they thought they could “control” (there had been accusations of corruption again Puna, which he denied).
The result was the five Micronesian countries left the PIF.
They needed to be strong-armed by State to rejoin—though one can’t be sure it reallybenefited anyone, except ultimately China. China has increasing influence in PIF as it flipsmore PIF members from Taiwan to China—and uses the PIF to add pressure on those thatstill recognize Taiwan. It also uses the PIF to legitimize the “independence” of places likeCook that it then leverages into partnerships.
The next PIF meeting is in Solomons—which is heavily PRC-influenced—and there will beextreme pressure on the three remaining countries that recognize Taiwan (Tuvalu, Marshalls,Palau) at that meeting. At the last PIF meeting, agreed Taiwan language was removed afterpressure from China. And it was the current Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, Mark Brownwho was caught on a hot mic reassuring the Chinese representative that “we’ll remove it”.
It’s worth noting Australia and New Zealand are also members of PIF. Doesn’t look like theyfought to retain the language. Canberra and Wellington consistently make choices that showunwillingness to seriously displease Beijing. Is Beijing afraid of Canberra or Wellington?Given the recent naval activity, doesn’t look like it.
HOW DID ALL THIS FACILITATE THE CHINA–COOK ISLANDS DEAL?
The U.S. helped the Cooks claim that it had the right to do a deal with China by declaring itan independent country.
Australia set up the precedent for a government to by-pass the will of the people and signaway sovereignty without debate. Note China didn’t object much to the Australia–Tuvalu/Nauru deals. Beijing must have been delighted at the precedence.
New Zealand and Australia backed a controversial Cook Islands Prime Minister over a well-respected candidate from a country that recognizes Taiwan for the leadership of the PIF. Itopened the way for the Prime Minister’s equally controversial former Deputy to becomeCooks Prime Minister.
So, a known opportunistic politician was told by the U.S. his country was independent, andAustralia legitimized independent countries signing away sovereignty without public debate.And we’ve known for years what China wants. What did they think would happen?
WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED?
1. Resist making a decision to populate a quick feel-good press release if it’s not informed by legal realities and supported by a viable long-term strategy.
2. Do all the things democracies are supposed to do (and that are supposed to differentiate them from the PRC): be transparent, consult with the populations, require referenda for major changes in strategic alliances.
3. Prosecute corrupt people, giving hope and maneuvering space to the honest people who will fight off the PRC better than any outsiders can. Sure, honest people who love their nations will be harder to “manage” by Canberra and Wellington, but that’s because they will be protecting their sovereignty from all—including the PRC. They will voluntarily support and fight for a free and open Indo-Pacific. No “management” required on that most crucial front.
4. If you aren’t Australia or New Zealand, don’t just follow Canberra and Wellington’s lead or accept their narrative about how they know the region so much better than anyone else. If they are so smart, why did the Cooks (and Solomons, etc.) sign strategic deals with China, why have three Pacific Island Countries abandoned Taiwan since 2019, and why are there PLA Navy live fire exercises diverting flights between Australia to New Zealand? Better to work directly with the countries, and people, who do know the region best, and who are most likely to fight to keep it free—the Pacific Islanders.
It’s not complicated. Basically, don’t copy the PRC playbook—Beijing will always be better at it than you will. And Beijing will just ride your draft until it’s time to overtake you. And get one step close to accomplishing its “Vision”.
* Cleo Paskal is Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies and columnist with The Sunday Guardian.