The race for dominance: Guam and Micronesia caught in shifting balance of power

By Jayvee Vallejera

Guam and the entire Micronesian region are experiencing a shift in the global balance of power, with Pacific countries caught in the midst of shifting dynamics.

Dr. Gonzaga Puas, director of the Pohnpei-based Micronesian Institute of Research and Development, pointed out that this situation is nothing new. The region has long played a role in the colonial thrust of the world's superpowers to assert control over the Micronesian political landscape.

“What we have been experiencing is the change of hands in the geopolitical game in successive centuries. Today is just another phase of superpower competition in Micronesian history,” Puas said in his presentation at the virtual forum titled “Security and Insecurity in Micronesia,” hosted May 27 by the Pacific Center for Island Security, a Guam think tank.

Puas traced this power play back to the first one that emerged between Spain and Germany, followed by World War II (Japan vs. the U.S.), the Cold War (the U.S. vs. the Soviet Union) and this newest iteration:  U.S. vs. China.

Dr. Zac Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, cited changes in global trade dynamics as a contributing factor. “The world is incredibly complex now. You have really big changes in trade patterns over recent years and often big differences between individual countries. So this is very different from the old dynamics, where maybe the U.S. was the dominant trade partner of most countries. Now it’s shifting rapidly, and it’s already shifted in much of the world,” Cooper said.

So much change comes with confusion, and Cooper said the Indo-Pacific, in so many ways, is the most confused of all regions. Some countries and territories still rely on the European Union, others depend on China, and still others have a fair amount of trade with the United States.

Cooper ascribed the rebalancing of powers in the region to the “prioritization of the Indo-Pacific,” when the first Trump administration called for a new era of great power competition, focusing on the “China challenge.”

“It’s not 100-percent clear what the president wants to do in terms of the ‘China challenge,’ but it is clear that his administration wants to focus on the Indo-Pacific,” he said, citing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s recent statement about homeland defense and the Indo-Pacific being the U.S. government’s top priority.

However, Cooper is not optimistic that refocusing on the “China challenge” will bring more money to Micronesia. Cooper noted that the U.S. underinvests in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. “If you were to look back to either the Biden administration or the Trump administration, you’d see a lot of words [about] how important Southeast Asia and the Pacific islands are, but then you pretty consistently see the U.S. under-deliver on the promises that it has made,” he added.

Cooper said the world is entering an era of multipolarity, characterized by increasing fragmentation not only in trade, but also in global security dynamics, which focus more on aligned goals and interests rather than traditional alliances.

Dr. Van Jackson, a senior lecturer at Victoria University in Wellington, sees what he describes as Micronesia’s “sovereignty deficit” as a source of insecurity in the region. “In the case of Guam and the CNMI, they are straightforwardly denied self-determination, so they don’t get to exercise sovereignty, but they are also not full equals in the U.S. federal system,” he said.

This is also true for the freely associated states that are linked to the United States through the Compacts of Free Association. Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands may be “independent,” but they still concede partial sovereignty to the U.S. in terms of defense and foreign policy, Jackson said.

What can be done then to protect Micronesia and its interests? Jackson said the best-case scenario would be to end the China-U.S. rivalry, but this is probably beyond the Pacific island region's control. 

“It’s fine to oppose a Chinese sphere of influence, but if you support a U.S. sphere of influence, you are just accelerating China’s bid for a sphere of its own,” Jackson said. “You can have sound reasons for supporting a U.S. sphere of influence. That doesn’t mean the consequences won’t come to visit you. You will be accelerating China’s bid for a sphere of influence of its own. And that’s what’s playing out right now.”

Jackson said Washington’s desire to take exclusive control of Micronesia is not in the best interest of the U.S. because it would throw off the balance of power. The lack of strategic autonomy in Micronesia prevents the Blue Pacific from being a stabilizing buffer between the U.S. and China, he added.

Jackson said the compacts, the rapid militarization of Guam and increased defense spending in the region all limit Micronesia’s ability to maneuver and become a strategic actor.

Jackson suggested that Micronesia negotiate with the U.S. as a bloc, if possible, advertise the work of Guam’s Decolonization Commission, give island politicians leverage in making demands of outside powers and crack down on political corruption and foreign bribery. “There are other things that would be beneficial to do, but none of this matters very much if the region is part of an exclusionary hierarchy,” he added.

Dr. Ankit Panda, a Stanton senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said there is a growing risk of U.S.-China confrontation, driven by Beijing’s threats over Taiwan, and nuclear power makes this state of affairs even more dangerous.

After testing its nuclear bomb in 1964, China receded from the nuclear arms race, keeping a “lean but effective” nuclear force. However, Panda said, that changed about five to seven years ago, when China decided to grow its nuclear arsenal. From about 200 warheads, China now intends to produce 1,500 warheads by 2035, as per U.S. assessment.

As a result, other countries in the region, such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and Taiwan, are also beefing up their respective non-nuclear armaments, turning this part of the world into a danger zone. That North Korea is also being hawkish adds to the volatile situation.

Panda said that Micronesia is viewed in Beijing and Washington as a fulcrum point in the contested Indo-Pacific region, with Guam at the center of the United States’ expeditionary conventional operations. “There are aspirations to make Guam’s airspace the most densely defended airspace against long-range missile threats,” he said.

Micronesia should not be just sitting ducks in this global power play. Key to shifting the narrative will require both short-term and long-term actions, Panda said, particularly since both Beijing and Washington are poorly informed about Micronesia as a subregion.

For a short-term solution, he recommended raising awareness about Micronesia through forums, opinion pages and other forms of mass media. For the longer term, he recommended raising the profile of regional issues during legislative hearings, talks about civil defense, as well as intra-regional dialogues on the implications of war and nuclear risks.

Dr. Denghua Zhang, a senior fellow at the Australian National University, said China is here to stay, focusing on infrastructure projects and becoming more active in sharing its governance experience with Pacific states. He said China will continue its attempts to expand police cooperation with Pacific states. Though still limited, China’s military ambition is likely to grow, Zhang said.

Subscribe to

our digital

monthly edition