Ben Morgan’s Pacific Update: Shangri-La Dialogue

Asia’s largest annual security conference the Shangri-La Dialogue, is currently underway in Singapore. An international conference organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and is attended by a wide range of academics, world leaders and strategists.

The conference started on 30 May and finishes on 1 June, and is already notable for its smaller than usual Chinese representation. This year, China sent a delegation of academics rather than its top defence official, Admiral Dong. The Shangri-La Dialogue is often an opportunity for sideline, bilateral discussions, for instance last year US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin met his Chinese counterpart, Chinese Defence Minister Dong at the event. The absence of Chinese officials means this years discussion will be more limited.

French president Emmanuel Macron, the key note speaker, started the conference discussing the need for closer security links between Europe and Asia. Macron’s speech noted that Sino-American conflict is the defining global security issue, and that a sensible global response is for countries with shared principles to strengthen collective security and economic arrangements. Deutsche Welle reporting that the speech was “… laced with calls for European and Asian countries to form an alliance against what he described as “spheres of coercion” sought by some major powers — a veiled reference to China and Russia.”

Macron’s speech is a pragmatic response to increasing global tensions, exacerbated by currently chaotic US trade and foreign policy. The Guardian reporting that “Macron’s pointed speech said France was and would remain a friend and ally of the US, but it did not want to be dependent, or affected “by the decisions of a single person.”

Essentially, his argument is that instead of allowing the international order to sink back into a bi-polar, Cold War, countries that believe in free-trade and the international rules-based order need to re-double their commitment to a collective approach. Specifically, this is a response to authoritarian trends in China – and now the US. In which foreign policy is currently unpredictable and appears to be led solely by the president, often without reference to expert advice

On Monday, US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth will speak, and it will be interesting to see how he responds.

Australia continues to integrate Melanesian militaries with its land force

Regular readers will be familiar with the Australian Army’s increasing integration of Melanesian forces into its activities. For example, the exchange of Solomon Island and Fijian senior officers into deputy brigade commander roles, and rotations of Australian soldiers to Melanesian countries on exercise.

This month the Australian Defence Force reported that it will be hosting a Fijian rifle company for five months, within 7 Brigade, based in Brisbane. This is the largest contingent of Fijian soldiers to rotate into Australia, and the company will participate in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2025 and Exercise Coral Warrior 2025 later this year.

This rotation is noteworthy because it is part of a larger trend, Australia operating more closely with Melanesian forces. A trend is driven by Australia’s desire to block Chinese influence in Melanesian security forces, and by an understanding that future conflict in Melanesia, or further afield will require more soldiers than Australia can provide.

A way for Australia to increase the available pool of well-trained soldiers is to build relationships with smaller neighbours, upskill their soldiers and increase integration with Australian formations. Then if a conflict arises, these soldiers can more easily work with Australian units providing an additional pool of manpower.

Potential impact of the proposed US anti-missile defence system

President Trump recently started to discuss developing a US missile defence network, titled ‘Golden Dome.’ The aim is to protect the American homeland from missile attack, an idea with a range of potential implications for Pacific security discussions.

The Golden Dome project looks set to spark a similar debate. North Korean foreign ministry officials recently stating that it could start “a global nuclear and space arms race.” China is also concerned, with officials stating last week that the nation is “seriously concerned” about the plan that China believes has “strong offensive implications.”

Why does a defensive, anti-missile system worry these countries?

North Korea and China are both nuclear armed, and their security is related to this capability. Specifically, they deter attack by using the threat of a nuclear counter-strike. This is called the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), or that any potential attacker is deterred from attacking because it knows it will be destroyed.

China, North Korea and Russia are concerned about Golden Dome because it could undermine their ability to deter US-led military action. Additionally, this programme increases strategic uncertainty because no one really knows if a system like this is affordable.

During the Cold War, President Reagan, started a similar programme, the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), known as ‘Star Wars.’ Reagan’s system was never implemented, but the Soviet Union was forced to compete, draining resources from an already stretched economy.

Essentially, SDI created a level of fear and uncertainty in the Soviet Union, and Russian academic Andrei Kokoshin’s paper “Asymmetric Response versus the Strategic Defense Initiative” describes the contemporary situation as follows, “The SDI as proposed by President Reagan evoked not simply a negative reaction from a substantial part of the Soviet leadership (as it well deserved) but a rather nervous and almost hysterical one.”

Kokoshin’s paper questions the validity of this political response, noting Soviet expert opinion on the potential of the SDI was divided, saying that “A number of Soviet specialists (including military experts) were saying off the record that the SDI was a lot of bluff, but few dared say that loud and clear even at conferences on the problem that were held behind closed doors.”

Strategists in China, Russia and North Korea, will all be engaged in similar discussions trying to figure out if Golden Dome will work, or if it is a strategic deception, an American maskirovka.

Golden Dome’s potential is impossible to calculate, creating instability

The Golden Dome proposal inherently creates instability because no one knows if its goals can be achieved. On one hand, technology is advancing rapidly and supporters point to the success of Israel’s missile defence system, ‘Iron Dome,’ that successfully intercepts roughly 90% of missiles and drones fired at the country.

However, Iron Dome is enormously expensive and covers a relatively small area. For example, Israel covers roughly 22,000 square kms of land compared to America’s 9.8 million square km. Additionally, Iron Dome can intercept ballistic missiles but has not been tested against the new hypersonic ballistic missiles.

The US budget includes initial funding of US$ 25 billion, but government estimates envisage that the final price tag will be twenty times higher. It is an enormous investment in new technology, that may or may not work as hypersonic missiles and other technology becomes more prevalent. Further, Pentagon statements are cautious with key components only just starting to ready for testing and demonstration from 2028.

This leaves US adversaries guessing, wondering if the system will be successful. And, how it will influence American policy in the Pacific.

Potential impacts in the Pacific

At strategic-level, the potential impacts of Golden Dome on nuclear deterrence are well-understood. The Cold War SDI programme provides an excellent case study, like the Soviet Union, any nuclear armed opponent of the US will be looking at measures to defeat the system. Some options will be direct counters, for instance faster or more stealthy missiles.

However, it is also likely that indirect, or asymmetric options will also be investigated. For example, biological weapons spring to mind, deterrence is based in the principle of MAD. And, a credible biological threat could serve the same purpose as nuclear weapons for deterring an opponent. Successful introduction of Golden Dome will incentivise asymmetric responses and the US needs to invest in intelligence, and counter measures.

At operational and tactical-level any future armed conflict in the Pacific is going to be about ‘area-denial,’ using long-range missiles to deny an opponent the ability to manoeuvre in certain areas. China already has a sophisticated system of accurate long-range missiles that are specifically designed to keep US and allied fleets well outside its potential areas of operations. The East and South China Seas are now both likely to be untenable for US carrier task groups.

The US response is to develop its own land-based system of area denial that can limit Chinese manoeuvre in these areas. Long-range US missiles based in the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan can blockade China’s coast, and are easily dispersed and hidden making Chinese counter-strikes difficult. Looking ahead, if Golden Dome works it could be offered to countries like Korea and Japan protecting land-based missiles deployed in these countries.

This situation could accelerate a Chinese decision to invade Taiwan, while its nuclear deterrent is still available and before US area-denial missiles are deployed, and protected in places like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Golden Dome will evolve to become an important consideration in Pacific security discussions.

Melanesian update

A regular update on the Pacific’s least reported trouble spot; Melanesia.

Fijian officials charged with drug smuggling

Fijian officials including two police officers, and a senior customs official were charged this week with attempting to smuggle four kilogrammes of methamphetamine into the country. Fijian law enforcement agencies allege that these officials were part of a seven-person smuggling gang.

A joint-task force from the Fiji Police and Fiji Revenue and Customs Service seized the drugs at Nadi Airport, and then arrested the alleged smugglers.

This case includes some interesting insights about the drug trade in small Pacific states, that are struggling to stop a developing drug super highway that trafficks drugs from South American and Asia to extremely profitable markets in Australia and New Zealand.

The first point is that the two police officers are reported to be members of Fiji’s Counter Narcotic’s Bureau, the country’s specialist drug enforcement organisation. This is indicative of a key problem, the small size of most Pacific nations being targeted. The Fiji economy is small, and the institutions of state are often not well-funded. State sector pay is relatively low and this makes it easier for drug traffickers to corrupt key officials.

The second noteworthy point is related; small nations have small police forces. For example, the Fiji Police’s most recent publicly available report (2017-18 – available on the Fiji Police website) records a strength of just over 4,000 officers, of which approx. 3,000 are full-time regular officers and approx. 300 are senior officers. This means the loss of only few officers makes a big difference, and likewise that the influence of ‘bad apples’ is likely to be higher than in a larger force.

Currently, the financial resources of some of the biggest business on Earth is being directed at the Pacific, and small nations within the region need support from larger nations to counter the drug trade.

Allegations of foreign political influence in Solomon Islands

On 11 May, Daniel Waneoroa the Minister for Rural Development announced that he was withdrawing from involvement in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC). A global alliance of politicians from 27 countries that discusses Chinese trade, security and human-rights issues.

Last week, an anti-corruption organisation, Transparency Solomon Islands alleged that Waneoroa withdrew because of public pressure, that was the result of Chinese influence on local media.

Ruth Liloqula, Chief Executive of Transparency Solomon Islands spoke to media. She discussed a Solomon Islands government statement describing the withdrawal as a gesture that demonstrated unity and the Solomon Islands commitment to the ‘One China’ policy. Liloqula also alleged donations of equipment by China’s government to the Solomon Star, an important local newspaper.

The allegations are unproven and China’s embassy in Solomon Islands has not commented.

Additionally, the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands is currently battling ‘no – confidence’ motions in parliament initiated by the former Prime Minister, who had close relationship with China. A situation in which political tensions are higher than normal.

This activity indicates the level of concern in Pacific nations about foreign interference. The Pacific is becoming more important geo-politically, and with that importance comes political interference and China, the US and a myriad of other nations are now very interested in the Pacific. Investment in political influence follows that interest and now more than ever good governance and transparency need to be supported across the Pacific.