An American right-wing think tank is proposing a “Pacific Charter” that advocates for a greater United States presence in the region.

The Heritage Foundation, closely associated with the ruling Republican Party, wrote that China is “covetously” looking to the Pacific nations while they are vulnerable to major security threats, such as the transnational drug trade.

The think tank holds significant influence with US President Donald Trump, best encapsulated in its “Project 2025” platform that guided conservative policy leading up to the 2024 presidental election.

Its latest report, A charter of Pacific values for a prosperous Pacific future, points out that Pacific nations are uniquely vulnerable at a difficult time, emboldening “outside forces” to take advantage.

Pacific countries are asked to “align” their policy agendas, while the US establishes a “Pacific Partners Commission” and installs a “Pacific Advisor” on their National Security Council.

“Broader intra-Pacific affiliations are being superseded by the interests of external actors, and the Pacific agenda is at risk of being shaped by powerful outside forces,” the report states.

Without Western involvement, it postulated that China, with its “willingness to use political leverage and intrigue to advance its narrow interest” would monopolise their hold.

‘Reaffirm fundamental ideals’
Rather than letting that happen, co-authors Allen Zhang and Brent Sadler proposed a non-binding Charter, not to “impose values and dictate outcomes” but rather to “reaffirm fundamental ideals and strengthen regional solidarity”.

It was noted this would pressure nations to resist the influence of Chinese cash, for example infrastructure deals. Further, the mood would be set for island nations and US defence forces to come closer together.

“The foregoing principles are frequently bypassed in favour of lucrative bilateral proposals … compromised when it is personally or locally expedient.

“When regional nations accede to a charter, they accept a standard of conduct beyond the mere expression of aspiration … overtime, states begin to rationalise strategic decisions against a set of baseline principles.”

The White House has only recently turned its attention to Pacific countries in any public sense, hosting a business summit in Honolulu in early February.

Trump has also asserted his interest in critical minerals at the bottom of the Pacific ocean, leading to deep-sea mining talks with the Cook Islands and Tonga.

Jared Novelly, incoming US ambassador to New Zealand, said there was an “extreme opportunity” in the Cook Islands exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The bell has been rung, the shadow campaign is now official, and Australia heads to the polls on May 21. As the government enters caretaker mode, Australia enters a highly consequential period of democratic deliberation, but not for the reasons you might think.

It suits politicians — and many in the media — to portray a federal election as a grand job application process in which voters comprise the selection panel. But that’s really only half the story.

Political commentator Sean Kelly has written a convincing book on how Scott Morrison turned the 2019 election into a choice between him and the then Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

Morrison won when Australians were more attracted to his persona than that of his opponent. Policy played a small part, notably when bold proposals on the Labor side became a lightening rod for fear.

This time around we are again likely to see a focus on leadership eclipse policy debate. Morrison enters this campaign behind in the polls and as an unusually unpopular prime minister, but with an unshakeable faith he can turn it around.

Labor knows Morrison is on the nose, and will be perfectly happy to cast the election to a referendum on their leader Anthony Albanese versus an unpopular PM.

If we let this happen it will be a poor outcome, no matter who wins. The great drawback of democracy is that while voters get to decide who forms government, we have little power to set the agenda.

Wasting a precious chance
Yet if we can’t have a proper policy debate during a campaign, we waste a precious chance to talk about the things that matter most to us.

The US journalism academic Jay Rosen takes a keen interest in Australian media. For for many years, he has been critical of Australian media’s over-reliance on polls and tendency to treat covering politics like calling a horse race.

Rosen says this means the media allows the politicians to decide what gets talked about. Important topics get neglected as the spin-doctors steer the discussion to narrow areas where they think their party might have an advantage.

With this in mind, The Conversation is determined to cover this election differently. We are going to talk about what what matters most to us — the policies that affect our lives and the future of the planet.

As a first step, we are going to set our own citizens’ policy agenda in collaboration with our readers. Please help us by filling out our #SetTheAgenda poll.

Once we know more about what you’d like to see on the agenda, we will report back on what you’ve said and tap into the deep expertise of the thousands of academic experts who write for The Conversation.

We will bring you coverage with a clear focus on the major problems we face as a society, and try to provide evidence-based solutions that the experts think could actually work.

Final ingredient
The final ingredient is the best coverage of the politics of the campaign from one of Australia’s most respected political correspondents, Michelle Grattan, backed up by the economic nous and insight of Peter Martin.

Michelle will be writing regularly throughout the campaign and you can subscribe to her politics podcast for in-depth interviews and informed commentary

We’re also bringing back the much-loved ABC radio presenter Jon Faine for Below the Line, an election podcast with political scientists Anika Gauja and Simon Jackman from the University of Sydney and La Trobe University’s Andrea Carson.

As always, we will do everything in our power to be evidence-led and non-partisan. In a media environment manipulated by vested interests and saturated with opinions, we are committed to covering issues chosen by you and hosting a genuine debate that focuses on the public interest.

Please take advantage of this opportunity to have your say and contribute to our efforts to ensure the democratic discussion is calm, compassionate, accountable and fair.

Misha Ketchell is editor and and executive director, The Conversation. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz