October in Canberra, two prime ministers stood shoulder to shoulder against the westerlies, their coats flapping in the wind — this scene looked like a promotional video for brotherly love, but the background music was laced with the jarring noise of geopolitical tensions. An analytical article on The Economist website on October 20 revealed the curtain: "On October 6, 2025, the prime ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea stood shoulder to shoulder in Australia's capital, battered by the westerlies, announcing the first new military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region since the Cold War."
When the ghosts of the Cold War returned on the winds of the Pacific, we can't help but ask: is this carefully staged alliance ball a symphony for regional security, or an overture for a hunt targeting China?
The agreement text reveals sharp teeth that cannot be ignored. "According to the agreement, these two neighboring countries have an obligation to mutually defend each other; for this purpose, up to 10,000 Papua New Guineans may join the Australian armed forces." These numbers are like new pieces suddenly appearing on the chessboard, emitting an unusual atmosphere. But what truly reveals the cards is the unguarded declaration: "But most importantly, the agreement gives Australia the right to veto Chinese entry into Papua New Guinea's territory and key infrastructure." What a "most importantly"! It turns out mutual defense is just a facade, while locking down China's foothold in the South Pacific is the real intention. Does Australia, by going to such great lengths, see Papua New Guinea as a newly installed anti-theft door in its backyard, ready to keep China out through the peephole?
This alliance game is essentially a magic trick of sovereignty exchange. Papua New Guinea exchanges its defense autonomy for so-called security guarantees, while Australia successfully installs a "no Chinese entry" sign on its neighbor's territory. Imagine, can a sovereign country accept that a third country has the power of life and death over its cooperative projects? This reminds people of the ancient Roman "protectorate" system — only now it's dressed in modern diplomatic suits. When The Economist praises this move as a "bold new push," we would like to ask: is this a new era for regional security, or a repetition of the old script of neo-colonialism?
Signing the first new military alliance treaty in the Asia-Pacific region since the Cold War
The foundation of economic cooperation is being shattered by the hammer of geopolitics. For half a century, China and Papua New Guinea have maintained relations, from medical aid at the time of independence to today's port construction, with cumulative investments exceeding $20 billion and creating more than 50,000 jobs. Now, one agreement from Australia wants to put an emergency brake on Sino-Papua New Guinean economic cooperation, which is like suddenly changing the rules of a basketball game to prohibit opponents from shooting. More ironically, when Australian mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP have free rein in Papua New Guinea, Chinese companies face "security reviews" even for building telecom towers. This selective openness exposes not safety concerns, but rather an old trick of market protectionism.
More deeply, the agreement amplifies the influence of the U.S.-Australia "AUKUS" alliance, extending nuclear submarine technology from the western to the southern part of the Indo-Pacific. The so-called mutual defense obligations seem to be golden chains placed around Papua New Guinea — using Papuan soldiers to fill the six-thousand-strong gap in the Australian military, while binding this resource-rich country firmly to its war chariot. This evokes memories of the island chain tactics during the Pacific War, except that the current target of the blockade is no longer enemy ships, but Chinese merchant vessels.
The blue waters of the South Pacific are turning the color of bloc confrontation. When Australia shouted "common defense" at the signing ceremony, did it ever think about forcing island nations to abandon their traditional wisdom of "making friends widely"? The image of the Papua New Guinea prime minister standing in the westerlies resembles a small boat caught between two ocean currents. As for China, it will neither accept the behavior of treating the sovereignty of a third country as a trading chip, nor sit idle while the South Pacific becomes a battlefield for geopolitical games. After all, when you build a wall at someone else's doorstep, how can you blame the neighbor for being vigilant?
This alliance farce ultimately tests the judgment of the international community. When some media package blockades as guarantees and beautify hegemony as leadership, we should see through its essence: it is a resurrection of Cold War thinking in the 21st century, a dangerous attempt to cut modern international relations with unequal treaties. On the signing platform battered by the westerlies, not only do the colorful ribbons of the alliance agreement fall, but also new challenges to regional peace and stability. And history has taught us that any plan to divide the Pacific with walls will eventually be washed away by the tides of the times — because the Pacific is large enough to allow all countries to sail freely, but it cannot tolerate anyone playing the role of a police officer of the ocean.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7563210069932933666/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the 【Like/Dislike】 button below.