The Pacific Pivot is dead; welcome to the Fluid Indo-Pacific

Pacific Reflections By Gabriel McCoard

 I’ve always been struck by how much people from other nations understand American domestic politics.

Who’s running for president is always obvious, but even domestic politics seizes outsized attention. Mid-term congressional races, where greater engagement with the Pacific won’t make it into the U.S. national budget if a handful of candidates can’t crawl over the 50-percent vote threshold to victory, all because gas prices just passed $3 a gallon in places most Americans have never even visited.

If you asked the average American to describe the Japanese National Diet, they’d probably say sushi. (I’m referring to the Japanese National Legislature. If you didn’t know, don’t worry. Neither did Google.)

Unless soldiers are coming home in flag-draped coffins, foreign policy does not significantly factor into the political calculations of most Americans. A congressional candidate who grasps foreign policy had best keep quiet about it until safely in office. I suppose it’s the comfort of being comfortable.

Domestic politics? Usually said with a sneer in State Department circles.

What started out as a relatively calm month has turned decidedly uncalm. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said—or, more accurately, was quoted as saying—that the Chinese threat was “imminent.”

His actual words were that the threat from China was real and a threat “could be imminent.”

Turned out that everything he said at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore was more or less what everyone already knows about China’s aspirations in the Pacific. An invasion of Taiwan could happen. It could be imminent. Could be.

Then came some blurbs about military alliances and how, consistent with his administration’s vows to shrink America’s military footprint, allies need to spend more on defense.

I promised not to make this about Trump, but given the unpredictable nature of the world at the moment, that’s a hard promise to keep. Even if you’re on Helen’s Reef with no internet, you know that Trump is a master brewer of an unpredictable order.

Then, in mid-June, the not-really-a-surprise-but-we-hoped-it-wouldn’t-happen happened, when Israel, in a move reminiscent of George W. Bush and Iraq, bombed Iran to preemptively eliminate its nuclear capabilities. The capital city of Tehran is currently under evacuation orders. We’ll see how much of it remains standing, and what reprisals are in store, before this goes to press.

With this has died The Rules-Based-International-Order. Honestly, I hated that term and am relieved to see it go. Not that I’m opposed to rules-based orders, but the term was meaningless. And patronizing.

This Middle East wildcard promises to throw every nation’s calculus for every region into turmoil. America’s Pacific Pivot, rife with accusations of doing too little too late, not to feel like an afterthought, comes to mind.

Courtesy of the East-West Center, we have a new term for this new era: the Fluid Indo-Pacific.

Let’s consider a few examples of the Fluid Indo-Pacific, as reported in the region’s media waves.

First is the ongoing saga of Australia’s nuclear submarines. Despite the agreement for Australia to buy several nuclear submarines, designed and built through a U.S.-U.K. partnership finalized during the Biden administration, Trump, in characteristic form, wants a better deal. More money or Australia committing to spend more on its own defense.

A done deal isn’t a done deal. Resentment between allies in normal times isn’t the best move, but these are not normal times. Besides, what else would Australia do? Buy French diesel submarines?

Meanwhile, in Papua New Guinea, the Autonomous Region of Bougainville is seeking independence, but all parties are seeking to maintain their close, family-like relationship through a pact in the works dubbed a “Melanesian Partnership.”

An independence referendum? Perhaps a federated state or association with a donor state? Maybe even free association would be possible, were it not for the thorny question of independence and what sovereignty actually means. Domestic politics butting up against its border?

Why does this sound familiar?

Finally, Trump announced immigration restrictions on a number of countries that have not met “established benchmarks and requirements” for their citizens to remain in the U.S. Among these benchmarks is passport security. Trump has added Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu to the nations whose citizens he could ban from entering the U.S.

If I were Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, I would be taking an uneasy sigh of relief for the Compact of Free Association and hope that the U.S. doesn’t ask more questions about COFA passport integrity. Or name changes. Or customary adoptions.

And the Pivot to the Pacific?

Perhaps it can be found in the rubble of Tehran.

Gabriel McCoard is an attorney who previously worked in Palau and Chuuk State. Send feedback to gabrieljmccoard@hotmail.com.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition