The New Ocean Empire: How the Pacific Became the World’s Strategic Crossroads

In most Western schools, children were often asked in Geography class: “Which is the largest ocean in the world?” To us, the Pacific looked like empty space — a vast stretch of blue that separates continents. But that cartographic illusion hides the truth: the Pacific is not empty at all. It is a constellation of nations, languages and histories, now standing at the fault line of global power. However, much like the game of chess that was the Cold-War, is the Pacific slipping towards being the sacrifice made to gain further power? 

For the first time since the Second World War, the world’s most powerful states are re-learning, re-strategising and innovatively attending to the Pacific. China’s rise, America’s tactical pivot, and a new web of alliances from Canberra to Tokyo have turned the region into the geopolitical frontier of the 21st century. Yet amid this flurry of military pacts, port deals, sport initiatives and diplomatic visits, one question remains unasked: what does the Pacific itself want?

Waving Goodbye to the Old and Embracing the New Independence

In the mid-20th century, many Pacific nations gained independence and began to define themselves as part of a shared oceanic identity – the Blue Continent. Their voices were often overshadowed by Cold War logics, devastatingly used as refuelling points, test sites and aid recipients in someone else’s game – a game they weren’t invited to play in.

Now, history is looping back. The Pacific is once again the centre of strategic competition. The Solomon Islands’ security pact with China in 2022 startled Washington and Canberra, prompting hurried diplomatic missions across Oceania. The US reopened embassies it had neglected for decades, the peoples they had deemed not important enough to build equitable relationships with. Australia soon scrambled to strengthen defence ties with Papua New Guinea and Fiji, their influence being positive and entrenched through sport, diplomatic visits, and a blossoming relationship. 

Yet this flurry of attention feels eerily familiar to Pacific leaders. As former President David Panuelo of the Federated States of Micronesia remarked, “We are seen as pawns again, but we are not playing chess.”

Small Nations with Big Leverage

The most striking development in this new Pacific era is how island nations — once considered marginal — are asserting leverage. They are no longer content to be spoken for. This is a development I can get behind. 

Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Palau, for instance, have used climate diplomacy to reshape global narratives, arguing that the survival of small nations should be central to international law. Their students taking on the likes of The Hague, demanding laws be made, demanding accountability to be held so that they are no longer victims of others’ games. They will no longer be pawns, but gamechangers, policymakers, and history definers. 

Others, like the Solomon Islands or Fiji, are deftly balancing superpowers, extracting economic aid and infrastructure in exchange for alignment or access.

This is not naivety or opportunism — it’s statecraft. These small but mighty nations understand that geography is their greatest asset. Being the guardians of shipping lanes, fibre-optic routes, and vast Exclusive Economic Zones rich in minerals and fish, they possess resources that global powers need and positions of great advantage.

The moral discomfort for Western capitals is clear: after decades of treating the Pacific as a peripheral humanitarian concern, they are discovering it is central to their own strategic survival.

China’s Chase, America’s Anxiety

China’s presence in the Pacific has been gradual but determined. Neo-colonialism is unfolding before our eyes. First in the African continent, now they have set their eyes on waters blue. Through infrastructure loans, digital connectivity, and educational exchanges, Beijing has embedded itself in the local economies and political systems of island states. Its large, rich and politically controlling diaspora has entrenched and weaselled itself into the system that holds nations like Fiji together. Its approach attempts to blend the economic with the symbolic — masquerading South-South solidarity and post-colonial partnership, even as debt and dependence grow.

For Washington and its allies, this expansion is viewed through a security lens. The AUKUS pact and renewed defence partnerships are designed to counter Chinese influence. Yet this logic risks repeating the same mistake that alienated the region in the first place: assuming that Pacific sovereignty is merely a variable in great-power arithmetic. One may argue that it is too little too late for the far Western nations to falsify the reasons for their renewed admiration for the beautiful islands. 

Despite being wholly corrupt, yet firm in his pride for Fiji, former Fiji prime minister Frank Bainimarama put it bluntly: “[Fiji] is not anyone’s backyard.”

The Moral Geography of Power

The deeper story here is not about who wins the Pacific — it’s about who is allowed to define it. The inhumane touch of Western strategic thinkers who often describe the region as a “battleground” or “frontline,” - metaphors that flatten the Pacific into empty territory awaiting control. But for those who live there, the ocean is not a void; it is identity, ancestry, and livelihood.

This moral geography matters. When policy is made in Washington or Beijing, without listening to Suva, Nukuʻalofa, or Majuro, it reproduces the very colonial dynamics the Pacific has been trying to escape. True partnership means recognising agency, not buying allegiance.

It also requires empathy. The Pacific’s greatest existential threat is not military but environmental: rising seas, cyclones, and collapsing fisheries. To speak of “security” in the region without addressing these realities is to misunderstand what security truly means, it is to misunderstand who they are as a people, but more importantly the reasoning behind building relations justly and honourably. 

Uncontained

I don’t believe that complete separation between the Pacific and the wider world will exist. With their wide-reaching diasporas, the Pacific has reach far beyond its waters. With this in mind, I believe cooperation should and will replace and move beyond containment and competition. The Pacific Islands Forum - often overlooked in Western media - already articulates a vision called the Blue Pacific Continent, grounded in stewardship, solidarity, and shared prosperity. This translates into their success in their fight against climate change. 

It’s an idea that reframes the ocean not as territory to control but as a commons to care for. In a world increasingly fractured by rivalry, the Pacific could offer a model for multilateralism, keeping true to individuality of their mighty nations, but rooted in kinship and sustainability rather than dominance.

The challenge is whether larger powers are willing to listen.

My View from the Tideline

The Pacific is teaching the world something: small nations can shape big history. In an age obsessed with control and borders, the ocean reminds us that connection — not separation — defines human life.

If the Pacific has become the world’s strategic crossroads, then its future will test whether global politics can evolve from competition to coexistence. Whether the ocean will again be treated as a space between rival empires — or, finally, as a power in its own right.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/NASA - ISS Expedition 34 Crew - Image Science & Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center - Derivative work including grading, lens profile correction and noise removal by Julian Herzog

Licence: public domain.

No image changes made.