We are in the middle of the Trump-induced chaos, and while we are uncertain about where it will take us, we certainly know that it will last several more weeks, if not months, and perhaps until the congressional mid-term elections in 2026.
It is clear that Trump will only be stopped politically by the loss of the House or Senate in 2026 or if he obeys Supreme Court decisions that won’t go his way.
In this process, his administration is described as always “pivoting” and “purging.” In the Ukrainian War, Trump is pivoting toward Putin. In economic policy, he is pivoting toward the use of tariffs. If he isn’t pivoting, he is purging the military leadership and the intelligence agencies.
Trump is attempting to undermine the basics of how American political behavior has been understood for several decades. Since the end of World War II, the United States has sought stability and an American-style world order based on international alliances and keeping the world reliant on the American dollar. In domestic policy, the country has moved toward diversity, equity and inclusion in society since the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
The new administration is trying to go back to the pre-Civil Rights era of social relationships and pre-World War II international order.
Perhaps the biggest international pivot is from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. This is not just an effort to draw attention to an important part of the world, but a way of redefining the world. Nothing was more symbolic of this shift than the U.S. voting against a U.N. resolution condemning Russia and Putin for the invasion of Ukraine in late February.
The United States was one of 18 countries voting against the resolution calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Ukraine. The Marshall Islands, Palau and Israel all voted to support Russia, as well. The Federated States of Micronesia voted to abstain along with China, Iran and 62 other nations.
Fortunately, the saner voices of the world prevailed and passed the resolution. This included the Philippines, Japan, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands.
Pivoting away is not the same as pivoting to. The Pacific Pivot has been long discussed since the time of President Obama. There were some efforts made during the Biden administration and now it is earnestly being discussed in the new Trump administration. There is also the competing Arctic Pivot toward Greenland and the pivot toward tariffs as an instrument of diplomacy as well as economic self-interest. The mega-Trump vision of all this remains unclear since priorities will inevitably be established.
I am unsure what this means for us in the island Pacific.
The Heritage Foundation published a report titled “The Pacific Pivot” by Andrew Harding, advocating a series of steps in the island Pacific in response to the competition between the U.S. and China. The main motivation is how the U.S. is supposed to deal with the competition.
The attention is predicated on making the Pacific Ocean America-friendly. It outlines several interesting steps, including the establishment of an ambassador-at-large for the Pacific island region, aligning discretionary foreign assistance with Indo-Pacific priorities and engaging in new initiatives to train both U.S. and Pacific island professionals across the region. These are more “soft power” initiatives.
While making the Pacific great again is not exactly the motivation, most of us in the Pacific welcome almost any attention. The pivot plan also calls for “harder” approaches. These include the funding of the Indo-Pacific Command’s unfunded priorities and exploring how the freely associated states could factor into Indo-Pacific contingencies.
This is already occurring and can be seen in the planning for divert airfields in Palau and Yap. I am unsure if the FAS security managers were included in this military planning— I mean, planning and not just agreement once a decision has been made.
How we see the world determines how we define it. We in the island Pacific see vulnerable islands in a sea of uncertainty. We recognize the challenge of climate change and we understand the interest of larger powers that see us as potential allies and our small island masses as potential launch pads and battle grounds.
Those outside the Pacific view them as vulnerable islands and see the uncertain seas as contested areas in which they must exert their influence. If it were up to them, the Pacific pivot would ask us the simple question: “Whose side are you on?”
For the new Trump administration, the historical role of regional alliances and interlocking economic relationships are being cast aside in the pivot to bilateral relationships with individual countries and the use of tariffs on individual countries to secure a desired result.
We in the island Pacific have to ask long-term questions about survivability in the new world order, which many fear (or welcome) as coming. In the Pacific pivot, we must ask longer-term questions about survivability in the emerging 21st-century order.
We must be able to ask difficult questions about the long-term consequences of the “pivot.” Does the pivot require new and more empowering relationships? Is the pivot going to include economic development and not just military posturing? Are we the venue upon which the pivot is occurring? Is the United States pivoting toward managing essentially Asian contingencies and the islands are just the pivot points?
One is reminded of the shifting of weight and force on the feet of a basketball player as she “pivots” toward a new direction.
Are we underfoot again or are we finally getting the attention we deserve? Island leaders must engage this question in some unified, coherent way or the vulnerabilities we face will be utilized against island interests in ways that remind us of the bad old days.
Dr. Robert Underwood is the former president of the University of Guam and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Send feedback to anacletus2010@gmail.com.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly edition
Comments