Canada announces retaliatory tariffs as trade talks with US collapse

SUVA: A Chinese ballistic-missile test in the Pacific has exposed a growing dilemma for the region’s small island nations: how can they preserve their vision of an “Ocean of Peace” while increasingly finding themselves caught between the military ambitions of major powers? China’s July missile launch, its first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, has intensified concerns about the region’s rapid militarisation. The test came just hours after Fiji signed a major defence agreement with Australia, its first-ever military alliance. The timing highlighted the competing security interests shaping the Pacific, where the United States and China are increasingly contesting influence. Yet despite widespread concern among Pacific leaders, the region failed to agree on a joint statement condemning the Chinese missile test during a meeting of foreign ministers in Suva last week. Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko described the launch as “totally inappropriate”, saying that while China remained a close friend and partner of Papua New Guinea, the missile test was not helpful. Beijing had informed Papua New Guinea about the launch beforehand, Tkatchenko said, but did not provide details about where the missile would land. China defended the exercise at the time. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said the test had been conducted safely and urged other countries not to “over-interpret” the event. Pacific caught between major powers The missile launch was the latest in a series of military developments that have transformed the Pacific into an increasingly contested strategic space. Chinese naval deployments and live-fire exercises, including drills in the Tasman Sea, have become more visible. At the same time, US allies have expanded military exercises around Guam and Hawaii, while Washington maintains major military facilities and forces across Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands. For Pacific island governments, the growing military activity creates an uncomfortable contradiction. Many have repeatedly insisted that their region should not become another battleground for global power competition. In September 2025, Pacific leaders endorsed the Ocean of Peace Declaration, pledging to protect the region and strengthen international peace and security. The initiative was intended to put Pacific countries themselves at the centre of discussions about their security rather than allowing outside powers to define the region’s strategic priorities. David Peebles of the Australian National University’s Pacific Security College said Pacific nations had historically resisted security agendas imposed by larger countries. But the growing number of defence agreements is now testing that principle. Defence deals bring benefits — and fears For some Pacific governments, security partnerships offer practical advantages. They can provide surveillance against illegal fishing, disaster-response capabilities, policing assistance, military equipment and training. Australia’s new defence agreement with Fiji, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance, reflects that approach. But critics fear that a growing network of bilateral security arrangements could gradually draw Pacific nations deeper into the strategic competition between China and the United States. Tuvalu’s permanent foreign secretary, Pasuna Tuaga, speaking in a personal capacity, expressed concern over increasing militarisation, including security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, Britain and the United States. The concern is not simply about military exercises or missiles. Pacific governments also worry that agreements could eventually influence how their territory, waters and critical infrastructure are used. Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the Suva talks, stressed that the region’s security agenda must remain “conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific”. Yet achieving that unity is becoming increasingly difficult. China divides Pacific consensus The failure to produce a common statement on China’s missile test revealed just how sharply interests differ among Pacific nations. Officials familiar with the discussions said Kiribati and Nauru did not support the wording of a proposed statement. Both countries have strengthened relations with Beijing after switching diplomatic recognition away from Taiwan. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters attributed the failure to reach consensus to foreign influence, although he did not identify any country. The disagreement reflects a broader challenge. Some Pacific governments, particularly those closer to longstanding US military facilities, favour stronger security ties with Washington and its allies. Others remain cautious about becoming involved in military competition between major powers and maintain close economic or diplomatic relations with Beijing. Fiji faces a difficult balancing act Fiji is now at the centre of this debate. The country signed its defence agreement with Australia and participated for the first time in the US-led RIMPAC military exercises last month. At the same time, Fiji has publicly supported the vision of a peaceful Pacific free from major-power confrontation. Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka acknowledged the tension, saying Pacific nations wanted to be free from “all these war-making paraphernalia” while recognising that some security capabilities were necessary to protect them. For Pacific leaders, the challenge is increasingly about finding the right balance. The region does not want to choose sides in a rivalry between Washington and Beijing. But as military exercises expand, defence agreements multiply and missiles are tested in Pacific waters, remaining completely outside that rivalry is becoming harder. The issue is expected to return to the spotlight when Pacific leaders gather in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum summit. The missile test may have lasted only moments, but its political impact could linger far longer — forcing Pacific nations to confront whether their dream of an “Ocean of Peace” can survive amid an increasingly militarised region.