Ben Morgan’s Pacific Update – Trump administration decisions likely to weaken US influence in the Pacific

Recently the Trump administration made several decisions that will weaken America’s relationship with its Pacific allies and partners. The first, earlier in August, involved President Trump shortening Exercise Ulchi Freedom Shield. A joint US-South Korea exercise involving approx. 18,000 soldiers. The president ordered the exercise to finish a week earlier than expected.

Trump stated that he is “not happy” with a costly exercise that is hostile towards Pyongyang because he has a “very good relationship” with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. The Guardian reported that “A Pentagon official later confirmed the US ⁠military was “substantially” reducing joint ⁠exercises with South ⁠Korea.” The BBC reported that “Trump said he was unhappy with South Korea’s refusal to join him in his war in Iran but he also has been unhappy with it as a trading partner.”

Exercise SSangyong, another large US-Korean exercise was also recently cancelled. Aljazeera reported that South Korean officials stated “The US Marine Corps formally notified our forces in June that its ability to deploy forces during this year’s Ssangyong exercise would be constrained due to the situation in the Middle East.” 

Unfortunately, the cancelation of Exercise SSangyong coincides with the withdrawal of America’s only aircraft carrier in the North West Pacific, USS George Washington. It left to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln near Iran.  The carrier’s withdrawal and the cancellation of Exercise SSangyong are indicators of the impact the Iran War is having on US military capacity.  

The inability to defeat Iran, widely reported morale issues on USS Abraham Lincoln, a US destroyer recently breaking down in the South China Sea,  and the cancellation Exercise SSangyong are all indications that America’s military is stretched thin. A cause for concern in countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines that rely on US military power underpinning their collective security arrangements. 

However, a bigger issue is the loss of confidence in Trump’s willingness to support legal and moral issues like; freedom of navigation, the sovereignty of smaller states or democratic government. Ideals that the US has traditionally protected and are being challenged in the South China Sea and Taiwan.   

History tells us that deterrence; or the resolve and capability to meet force with force stops diplomatic competition escalating into military confrontation.  For example, NATO’s military power preserved the integrity of Western Europe’s borders for four decades. The US committed enormous resources to help NATO’s member states secure their boundaries and the social and economic benefits of that investment are huge. The US, Europe and the world have experienced a long period of peace, stability and economic prosperity. 

Today’s world is more fractured but in terms of the Pacific, competition is essentially binary.  The region’s capitalist liberal democracies compete with a smaller group of authoritarian states.  Currently, both blocs are locked in intense non-military competition.  For example, China asserts its ownership over islands and parts of the South China Sea. Claims contested by the US and its local allies. The US-led coalition aims to maintain freedom of navigation through the important sea lane and is concerned that if China is successful with its claims that are not supported by international courts other territories might be claimed later. 

Traditionally, the US led these nations and provided guaranteed military support but since taking office, Trump has made several policy decisions that undermine confidence in American leadership. This trend started in 2025 when America imposed heavy economic tariffs on friendly countries and continued with the US 2025 National Security Strategy and the 2026 National Defence Strategy that describe a new approach to alliances and partnerships. 

The two strategies outline a new approach to foreign policy based on a set of principles that ‘put America first.’ Its supporters might describe these ideas as ‘pragmatic’ or ‘realistic’ but they could also be summarised as follows:   

• Mercantilism. Rejecting the position that global ‘free trade’ is a basis for all nations to prosper and that instead America should focus on how to maximise the economic benefits of security relationships. 
• Bilateralism.  A rejection of multilateralism and international institutions in favour of bilateral relationships that maximise the bargaining power of the larger partner – the US. 
• Might is right.  A belief that philosophical concepts like ‘international law’ are unrealistic. Trump’s US is unwilling to accept the cost of enforcing international laws or protecting the sovereignty of smaller nations. Instead these documents abandon universal, international principles of law and justice for an older ideology that could be termed – ‘might is right.’

However, in practice relationships between states are built on trust and confidence. The unsuccessful intervention in Iran weakens the US and forces reductions in its North West Pacific commitments.  This situation reduces confidence in the US’s ability to support its allies that are trying to deter China from using military force to achieve its objectives.  The impact of America’s military over-extension is exaggerated by the Trump administration’s foreign policy that treats allies and partners poorly, undermining trust. 

By ham-fistedly ‘putting America first’ the Trump administration damages long-standing relationships and weakens collective security arrangements.  An especially risky policy when the US military is over-extended by its poorly planned intervention in Iran. 

Russia flexes its muscles in the Pacific

Putin visits the Kuril Island and Russia conducts missile live-firing exercises

The Kuril Islands are a string of small islands to the north of Japan. The islands were seized by the Soviet Union at the end of World War Two and are now claimed by both Russia and Japan. In early August, the Russian Pacific Fleet conducted a large exercise in the Seas of Japan and Okhotsk and in the North Pacific. The exercise involved 60 surface ships, submarines, support vessels and about 30 aircraft, helicopters, and drones.

Russia’s President Putin visited the Kuril Islands during the exercise.  A visit that was protested by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi who said that the visit was “absolutely unacceptable” and that “This visit … by the sitting Russian president goes against Japan’s consistent position on the Northern Territories.”  

Aside from Putin’s visit the exercise was notable because it involved rare live-firing missile exercises including; land-based anti-ship missiles, submarine and surface launched missiles.

Russia’s allies; China and North Korea are increasingly assertive in the region causing tension.  Japan’s response includes expanding its already large military, and re-interpreting its constitution to allow for weapons exports and overseas deployments.  Notably, Japan is also part of the G7 block of countries that sanction Russia and support Ukraine. Helping Ukraine includes exporting licence-built Patriot missiles to the US so American stocks can be released for use in Ukraine, activity that is very likely to upset Russia. 

Therefore the large military exercise and Putin’s visit could be designed to send a message to Japan about supporting Ukraine. Al Jazeera reports that “Analysts said Putin’s visit to the Kurils could be a warning to Japan not to deepen its support for Ukraine by supplying Patriot missiles directly to Kyiv or working closer with NATO.” An assessment that I generally agree with but that I think needs to include a greater emphasis on regional political dynamics. 

Specifically, Japan’s increasing assertiveness and military power worries China because of the two nations shared history. China’s allies and partners are likely to share similar concerns or at least be willing to support Chinese initiatives to confine Japan. Therefore, it seems plausible that Russia’s activity in the Kuril Islands are probably part of a wider programme loosely organised between these nations.  

Putin’s visit and the large Russian exercise are designed to signal a variety of points to Japan. First, that regardless of its issues in Ukraine Russia remains active in the Pacific.  This message ‘rattles the Russian sabre’ at Japan serving as a warning that Russia does not appreciate it supporting Ukraine, and is willing and able to defend the Kuril Islands. Finally, this activity demonstrates Russian support for China. 

Notably, Russia and China’s exercises perform a similar role to Exercise RIMPAC last month as demonstrations of military capability designed to reinforce diplomatic positions. 

Russia issues fake missile test notice near New Zealand

On 18 August, Russia issued a warning that it would be conducting missile testing in the Southern Ocean, approx. 1900km south-west of New Zealand near the Ross Sea.  The warning forced a US supply plane flying from New Zealand to Antarctica to cancel its flight.

This incident is notable because no test occurred, and the warning or Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) appears to be a hoax.  Dr Anne-Marie Brady wrote in The Diplomat that “… it appears that Russia’s warning is a dummy warning of a dummy missile – an information operation and another example of Russia’s reckless hybrid warfare.”

This activity raises questions about Russia’s motivation. Any action like this is likely to be well considered and designed to send a message. The NOTAM only impacted on US, Australian and US flights supporting the Antarctic programme.  So it is clear that the intended recipients of the message are these nations. Dr Brady opined that the warning could be a menacing Russian prank designed to warn New Zealand about its support for Ukraine. 

In my opinion this incident is a timely reminder of Russia’s desire to demonstrate that it remains relevant in the Pacific. An important measure for a diminishing power that is trying to maintain its equivalency with its main ally China, while becoming less relevant because of its disastrous adventure in Ukraine. My prediction is that we will see more Russian activity in the wider Pacific as Putin tries demonstrate that Russian is still an international power. 

Melanesian Update

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

Solomon Islands to review 2022 security deal with China

Solomon Islands Prime Minister, Matthew Wale announced this month that his government intends to review the nation’s 2022 security agreement with China. The agreement was secret and created considerable concern in the region. A review will be welcomed by nations like Australia that are keen to reduce China’s security influence in the region.

Wale stated that his government is committed to greater transparency and has asked Manasseh Sogavare the previous prime minister to participate in the review stating “I call on the Leader of the Opposition to support the review, this House must support the principle that no treaty should stand without the informed consent of Parliament.”

Solomon Islands is caught in a difficult balancing act because it is keen to maintain its economic relationship with China but is under pressure from Australia to limit Chinese influence. A situation many Pacific nations find themselves in as larger powers compete for influence in the region. Dr Anna Powles from Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies recently described the Solomon Islands situation as follows “Again, the challenges of balancing the economic and the security relationships is obviously an issue that many Pacific island countries experience.” 

Competition between larger powers is not going away, instead it is increasing and this means that more and more small Pacific nations will be facing similar tough decisions as they try to balance their economic and security relationships.  Wale’s call for greater transparency should be applauded because open and transparent decision-making is a strong counter to ‘grey zone’ influence operations. 

Bougainville independence update

Papua New Guinea’s government is currently debating whether the island of Bougainville should become an independent nation.  Radio NZ reports that the “prime minister has urged the nation to appreciate the gravity of the decision on Bougainville that parliament is to debate this week.”

Bougainvillians fought a long civil war against Papua New Guinea, and in a 2019 referendum approx. 98 % supported independence. Now the referendum has been tabled in parliament and will be debated by MPs.  The result is uncertain. Bougainville is rich in resources and its independence could encourage other minority groups inside Papua New Guinea to attempt to secede. Factors that mitigate towards Papua New Guinea trying to maintain control of the island.  

The stakes are high and the outcome of the vote will have a significant impact on regional politics as Melanesia either welcomes a new state; or Papua New Guinea risks another conflict with the people of Bougainville.