By Melino Maka, Tonga Independent News

Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has firmly rejected the idea of China establishing a military base anywhere in the Pacific Islands, underscoring his government’s commitment to regional neutrality and collective sovereignty. Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra on July 2, Rabuka emphasized that while China is a significant global power, its presence in the Pacific must be non-militaristic and respectful of sovereign boundaries.

“We don’t need a military base in the Pacific—certainly not from China,” Rabuka stated, adding that Beijing’s recent demonstration of its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, which overflew Fiji’s territory before landing in international waters, made it clear that China can project power globally without a base in the region.

A Strategic Battleground Between Superpowers

Fiji, like many of its Pacific Island neighbors, sits at a critical juncture between the competing interests of the United States and China. With Washington and Beijing vying for influence in a region long overlooked but now seen as strategically vital, Pacific nations are increasingly caught in the middle of this geopolitical tug-of-war.

Rabuka’s remarks come amid heightened concern about China’s expanding presence in the region—including a security pact with the Solomon Islands and growing Chinese police cooperation with several Pacific governments. While welcoming Chinese development aid and infrastructure investment, Rabuka has drawn a firm line against military cooperation.

“If they want to come, who would welcome them?” he asked pointedly. “Not Fiji.”

The Illusion of Selective Engagement

However, Fiji’s position also highlights a deeper dilemma facing the Pacific: the idea that nations can simply handpick what they want from global powers—economic support without geopolitical entanglement—is becoming increasingly unrealistic.

The problem is that some Pacific countries want to hand-pick their preferred engagement model—welcoming only development projects while rejecting political or military influence. While this may seem ideal in theory, it’s rarely achievable in practice unless those countries go it alone, which is economically and diplomatically challenging.

Fiji, in many ways, is trying to play a dollar-each-way strategy: accepting Chinese infrastructure while affirming traditional security ties with Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. But this balancing act is becoming harder to sustain—especially when one side, the U.S., is not treating the region as a priority.

Is Rabuka’s Strategy Sustainable Under Trump?

This dilemma is compounded by the current reality in Washington. President Donald Trump, now serving his second term, has shown little interest in the Pacific. His administration views global engagement through a narrow transactional lens, and Trump has offered no strategic commitment to the Pacific Islands because he sees no immediate return on investment.

The result is a growing vacuum in U.S. leadership, which China is more than willing to fill—albeit on its own terms. Beijing’s approach is long-term, strategic, and patient. It offers infrastructure, concessional loans, and capacity-building—not always with transparency, but with consistency.

While Rabuka’s Ocean of Peace Treaty seeks to enshrine neutrality and regional unity, its success hinges on whether the Pacific can extract real commitments from all players—especially from a disengaged U.S. administration that remains focused elsewhere.