| Sports |
US, China bid to control Pacific
THE US Congress last month received a
30-page report which provided a blunt assessment of Washington’s
strategic interests in South Pacific.
The report, “The Southwest Pacific: US Interests and China’s
Growing Influence”, noted increasing opposition to Australian
government interventions in the region and warned that the
regional hegemony established by the US and its allies in the
aftermath of World War Two was being undermined by China.
It said that various US foreign policy analysts had different
interpretations of Beijing’s objectives in the Pacific.
Some believed that China aimed to “garner influence but not
replace the US as the regional hegemonic power”, while others
argued that “China has devised a comprehensive strategy to take
advantage of waning US interest in the region since the end of
the Cold War”.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), whose foreign affairs,
defence and trade division drafted the report, did not advance
its own interpretation.
Underlying the entire document, however, was the unstated
assumption that Beijing was a potential adversary of the US and
that its growing economic and diplomatic influence represented a
strategic threat, irrespective of the Chinese government’s
immediate intentions.
Authored by Thomas Lum and Bruce Vaughn, specialists in Asian
affairs with the CRS, the report was designed to provide members
and committees of Congress with an overview of the Bush
administration’s agenda in the region.
Earlier this year, the US State Department designated 2007 as
the “Year of the Pacific” and pledged to reverse what it
characterised as US “neglect” of the region since the end of the
Cold War.
Secretary of state Condoleezza Rice hosted a meeting of Pacific
governments in Washington last May and announced a number of new
diplomatic initiatives.
“Although small in total population (approximately eight
million) and relatively low in economic development, the
Southwest Pacific is strategically important,” the document
argued.
“Since World War Two, the United States has sought to prevent
any potential adversary from gaining a strategic posture in the
South Pacific that could be used to challenge the United
States.”
A striking feature of the paper was its frank elaboration of
Washington’s interests.
While sections of the document included pro forma declarations
of US support for democracy, these were jettisoned when it
discussed the key issue of intensifying regional great power
rivalry.
“The Pacific Islands can be divided into four spheres of
influence – American, Australian, New Zealander, and French,”
the report declared, using language reminiscent of 1930s
imperialist diplomacy.
The French sphere of influence was confined to its colonies –
New Caledonia and French Polynesia.
The direct American sphere of influence lay in the North Pacific
Micronesian atolls.
The Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau
were nominally independent but came under Washington’s de facto
control as “freely associated states” (FAS) of the US.
The report described the FAS as a “vast buffer zone” for the
Guam military base, “which serves as the “forward military
bridgehead” from which to launch US operations along the
Asia-Pacific security arc stretching from South Korea and Japan,
through Thailand and the Philippines, to Australia”.
The report paid particular attention to China’s encroachments
into Australian and New Zealand spheres of influence – Melanesia
(Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu) and Polynesia
(Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands) respectively.
The report noted that the US scaled back its presence in these
areas in the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR lessened
their perceived strategic significance.
The last US bilateral development aid programme ended in 1996,
with the closure of USAID’s regional aid mission office in Fiji.
Diplomatic programmes such as the Peace Corps missions were also
scaled back, and a number of embassies in the smaller Pacific
states closed or amalgamated.
“The People’s Republic of China has become a growing force in
the Southwest Pacific as a result, some argue, of a political
vacuum created by US neglect,” the document stated.
“In order to garner political and economic influence in relation
to Taiwan, the US and its allies, as well as to access raw
materials, China has expanded its diplomatic and commercial
presence in the region ... China has opened diplomatic missions
in all Pacific countries with which it has diplomatic relations
and has provided bilateral assistance, embarked on high-profile
regional visits, and hosted lavish receptions in Beijing for
Pacific Island leaders.”
The CRS noted that the “US government has both tacitly and
openly supported Australia’s growing leadership role in the
region” and that Washington “has relied upon Australia and New
Zealand to help promote development and maintain political
stability in the region”.
It went on to warn of increasing opposition to the interventions
carried out by these US proxies.
“Many Pacific Island leaders and citizens reportedly have viewed
Australia’s past and present leadership role and armed presence
in the region with resentment or deep ambivalence,” it noted.
This resentment has been exacerbated by the Howard government’s
increasingly aggressive operations in the region over the past
four years.
In July 2003, Canberra dispatched the Australian-dominated
Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (Ramsi) to take
over the Solomons’ state apparatus.
The neo-colonial operation followed immediately on the heels of
the US-led invasion of Iraq, which marked Washington’s open
repudiation of international law and its resort to military
force to overcome its declining world position relative to its
European and Asian rivals through the seizure of the Middle
East’s energy reserves.
The Howard government joined the “coalition of the willing” in
return for the Bush administration’s backing for its own
operations in the South Pacific.
Canberra viewed the indefinite occupation of the Solomons as a
model for similar interventions in Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and
Vanuatu, among others.
It has responded to regional opposition by further intensifying
Australian pressure and launching reckless and provocative
“regime change” campaigns against recalcitrant governments, most
particularly in Timor Leste and Solomon Islands.
Australian troops have been dispatched to both countries during
the past year, to boost the Howard government’s control.
The CRS report observed that China’s presence in the South
Pacific was making it increasingly difficult for Canberra to
dictate terms to regional governments through threatened
economic sanctions and the manipulation of aid programmes.
“By some accounts, China has become the third-largest source of
foreign aid to the South Pacific, which it largely provides
without the kinds of conditions or performance criteria – some
say heavy handedness – that have engendered resentment among
some Pacific Island countries toward their major benefactor,
Australia,” the document stated.
“According to many observers, financial and other benefits from
Beijing and Taipei may overly influence the behaviour of Pacific
Island leaders who preside over limited budgets or negate the
incentives offered or sanctions imposed by major aid donors such
as Australia.”
Canberra’s response to the ability of the regional ruling elites
to manoeuvre between rival powers has been to send in more
troops.
While the document presented to Congress warned of a potential
backlash against this turn to militarism, no criticisms were
made of the Howard government’s strategy.
Drafted as a briefing, rather than policy paper, the report made
no recommendations.
Its very release, however – in tandem with the US state
department’s declaration of 2007 as the “Year of the Pacific” –
indicates the extent of the Bush administration’s determination
to reassert its hegemony and shut out rival powers, above all
China, in the South Pacific.
The result will be further regional instability and escalating
US-backed political and military interventions by Canberra. –
PNS
 
|
