It is often said that the first settlers of the Pacific journeyed eastward from Southeast Asia, establishing enduring ties of kinship, knowledge, and stewardship across the ocean. Thousands of years later, Pacific nations are navigating a different kind of voyage – charting their path through an increasingly contested geopolitical landscape. Ironically, helming the vaka “West” from the middle of the Pacific would make landfall in the East – both geographically and strategically.
Pacific nations today are grappling with how to safeguard the region amid an increasingly assertive geopolitical landscape, the existential threat of climate change and sea level rise, and an escalating trade war among a host of other transboundary factors.
Balancing this diplomatic tightrope is becoming ever more difficult with traditional “Western” partners, whose intentions are anchored in maintaining a liberal rules-based order underpinned by strategic denial.
For vulnerable Pacific nations, the counterbalance has always been hedging their bets in the international rules-based order founded on the United Nations Charter irrespective of its shortcomings. But as the multilateral system erodes under the weight of geopolitics, there is an urgent need to find an alternative counterbalance.
At the heart of the Blue Pacific narrative as endorsed by Pacific Island Forum (PIF) Leaders in 2017 – espoused through the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent – is the reaffirmation of PIF members’ commitment to work together. The Pacific countries are betting on themselves. But this requires, first, moving beyond the rhetoric to defining and securing the Blue Pacific Continent through the articulation of a Pacific rules-based order. Unlike existing framings of a rules-based order motivated by geopolitics, this Pacific-centric frame is rooted in shared values, voluntary adherence, and reciprocity – reinforcing mutual recognition rather than coercive compliance.
Second, securing the Blue Pacific Continent implies also taking steps to actively secure one’s neighborhood – which from a strategic perspective means nestling the Blue Pacific Continent within the Indo-Pacific, or the “Pacific-Indo” (from a Pacific vantage point). This entails identifying and then cooperating inter-regionally with nations who share a similar “friends to all, enemies to none” philosophy (or what we term “like-valued” nations).
Many Southeast Asian countries pursue strategic hedging (to varying degrees) by embracing the values of strategic autonomy, neutrality, non-interference, respect for sovereignty, rules-based cooperation over competition, and strategic independence. They carry a colonial legacy and face development challenges akin to the Pacific. Like the 2050 Strategy, the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific is not built on military alliances or strategic denial but on a development vision of prosperity. In this respect, Pacific nations have more in common with the ASEAN-sphere than the geopolitical interests of the Anglosphere.
If Pacific nations are serious about reclaiming their sovereignty and working together to protect their shared interests and address their shared challenges, they must accept this reality: they cannot do it alone, but they cannot afford to pick sides. The region’s path to self-determination lies not in deepening old dependencies or succumbing to security motivated enticements, but in building new coalitions with those who are also in the middle of the geopolitics because of their very geography.
That does not mean abandoning traditional partners; it means rebalancing by forging new relationships. Pacific nations have traditionally danced to the tune set by traditional partners – whose underlying strategic imperatives in the Pacific are shaped by the China threat narrative rather than a genuine desire to address the region’s most pressing needs: climate action, economic resilience, and social protection.
As Dr. Transform Aqorau recently observed, “The development needs of our people cannot always be met by our traditional donors… Pacific Island governments have matured and have more choices to make regarding who they have partnerships with.”
The strategic, economic, and diplomatic benefits of ASEAN and the PIF strengthening mutually beneficial and shared rules in economic, environmental, people-to-people, and multilateral cooperation is profound.
ASEAN’s economies are among the fastest growing in the world. Partnering with Southeast Asia allows Pacific nations to diversify economic ties, opening doors to new markets and a wider range of trade and investment opportunities. The Pacific Islands, spread across vast oceanic territories, are critical for the security of Southeast Asia. In addition to their maritime resources, the Blue Pacific is a crucial part of the global maritime trade network.
The PIF and ASEAN entered a high-level political cooperation agreement in 2023, but this cooperation needs to be nurtured quickly. If Pacific nations truly assert their sovereignty, they must diversify their partnerships and break free from the historical dependencies that have shaped their relationships. While these relationships have provided much-needed aid and support, they often embed further economic, security and political dependence.
Both the PIF and the ASEAN are not without their challenges. Internally, their member-states have many differences, meaning progress often comes as a slow, frustrating burn. But these shared limitations too highlight the value of strategic cooperation among regions that prioritize consensus building and strategic autonomy over strategic denial. At a time when international institutions are failing to deliver justice – on climate finance and sustainable development, to name just a few areas – the majority of “like-valued” nations in the Indian and Pacific Oceans must rely on each other.
There are other partners and regions around the world whom the Pacific should look to engage. But ASEAN provides the starting point, as – like the PIF – it is geographically at the center of intensifying geopolitical competition.
The Pacific is at a cliff edge. It cannot face these challenges by standing alone, or by tying its fate to distant capitals with shifting priorities. It must build coalitions closer to home that are based on common strategic values and a common set of rules that are not driven by power or denial.