washington — U.S. engagement with a string of Pacific Island nations must continue, regardless of which party wins the White House, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation said in a newly published report.
The islands, situated between Hawaii and Australia, are the latest front of competition between Washington and Beijing.
In the 45-page report, Andrew Harding, a research assistant in the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, argues that it’s time to make the case to taxpayers and Washington policymakers that investing in the Pacific Islands is money well-spent because it “counters Chinese ambitions” and denies Beijing a foothold “that can threaten U.S. national security interests and complicate possible future military operations in Asia.”
That argument appears convincing to some China hawks in the Republican Party.
Alexander Velez-Green, former national security adviser to Republican Senator Josh Hawley, called the report “a compelling vision,” telling VOA in a statement, “The Pacific Islands are key terrain in America’s efforts to balance power against China.”
Likewise, former Asia adviser in the Trump administration Alexander Gray said the Heritage report would benefit “whoever is president in January 2025.”
“I expect a Trump 2.0 would only expand on this important work,” Gray wrote in response to VOA’s emailed questions.
The Heritage Foundation now employs many former Trump administration officials. Last year it released Project 2025, a controversial series of proposals to staff and shape policy for a second Trump White House. Former President Donald Trump has sought to distance himself from the effort, even as his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, claims it defines his policies.
John Hennessey-Niland, who served as U.S. ambassador to Palau from 2020 to 2022, argues that Harding’s message may convince policymakers in Washington but addresses only one of the region’s problems.
“The Pacific Islands are concerned about PRC interference and coercion, but it is not the only threat they face. Other concerns include climate and their own capacity to provide for their people,” Hennessey-Niland told VOA via a statement, using the abbreviation for the People’s Republic of China.
Kathryn Paik agrees. She served as director for the Pacific and Southeast Asia at the National Security Council under President Joe Biden and now works as a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“Making U.S. Pacific engagement ‘all about China’ neglects precisely what can enable the U.S.-Pacific relationship to grow deeper than anything China could ever hope to have — our history, our culture and our shared values,” she told VOA in response to emailed questions.
Harding said he is just saying the quiet part out loud.
“America’s primary driver is U.S.-China competition and the threats that it poses to America’s national interests and the security of its people,” he told VOA Tuesday in an interview.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has traveled to the Pacific Islands to meet one on one with the leaders of Fiji and Papua New Guinea. He also has hosted numerous other Pacific Islands heads of state in Beijing.
In contrast, the White House has only held joint meetings with Pacific Islands leaders, and Biden has not traveled to the nations.
The Chinese Embassy in Washington did not respond to VOA’s request for comment.
While analysts differ over the report’s rationale for deeper engagement in the Pacific, they say many of the 31 policy recommendations have bipartisan appeal, including appointing a special envoy for the Pacific Islands, creating more positions at key departments to oversee outreach and planning a presidential visit to a Pacific Islands state.
Greg Brown, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the appointment of a special envoy is vital to sustained U.S. engagement.
He said the real challenge is convincing the 535 members of the U.S. Congress to increase foreign assistance to the Pacific Islands when few American voters even know where they are, much less why they’re important to U.S. national security.
“Anything requiring funding from Congress will be a chore — not because the demands are large or fiscal-burden heavy, but because members and staffs need constant reminders why securing U.S. interests in this region are imperative,” Brown told VOA in an interview.
He added that the special envoy should be a “heavyweight appointment … with the ear of the president” and the “diplomatic skill to navigate and drive changes” across Washington.
…