Vulnerable Pacific Island states should have the freedom to keep their options open rather than being locked into collective defence alliances that are erroneously based on containing China.

Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Wong have been making well publicised trips to Pacific Island neighbours. Humming Rodgers and Hammerstein’s captivating hit, Some Enchanting Evening, they “promise to listen”, disavow any ulterior leadership motive and celebrate Australia’s “Pacific family”. They say they very much respect the sovereign independence of all Pacific states.

Does a less inspired strategic motive lurk here? Albanese and Wong are bundling “comprehensive” agreements and promoting new alliance commitments that require the Pacific Islands to accept exclusive, if not compromising, consultation and security and policing guarantees, while emphasising Australia’s pressing “material security interests”.

Meanwhile, the media gets hysterical about the single test launch of a Chinese ballistic missile in the Pacific. The US has 3,700 nuclear warheads, China 600 to 620, only 34 of which are deployed. Who has the overwhelming margin of force? How many tests has the US carried out near the Marshall Islands? On 10 July, senior ABC political presenter Patricia Karvelas highlighted Australia’s new Fiji treaty as a “landmark treaty” in light of “China’s militarisation” and Australia’s urgent need “to muscle up” against China.

Labor disappeared “Morrison’s arc of alliances”, but retained the AUKUS, the QUAD and the number one priority to contain China. It is now nursing containment 2.0 – the US has been growing the “three island chains” against China since 1951. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has responded........

© Pearls and Irritations