Follow us on social

google cta
190430-n-fk318-017-e1654879953239

Who lost Fiji?

Why is the New York Times aghast that the United States has apparently lost its influence in the tiny Pacific island to the Chinese?

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The recent headline in the New York Times is enough to give any patriotic American pause: “Why China Is Miles Ahead in a Pacific Race for Influence.” The article that follows is even more disturbing. “To many observers,” it reads, “the South Pacific today reveals what American decline looks like.”

The basis for this ominous judgment? A reporter’s visit to Suva, capital of Fiji, where senior Chinese diplomats are busily negotiating deals to enhance Beijing’s clout there and elsewhere in this “vital strategic arena.” The United States is clearly lagging “far behind, mistaking speeches for impact and interest for influence,” according to the Timeswhile the Chinese are “promising development, scholarships and training.” Whatever Washington might be doing to “step up its game,” it looks to be too little, too late.

In Suva itself, the evidence is striking. There China has recently opened a “hulking new embassy,” and is constructing a high-rise apartment tower, while “workers in neon vests bearing the name of a Chinese state-owned enterprise” repair local roads. “Beijing is fully entrenched, its power irrepressible,” the Times reports. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the region, apart from “signs for Coca-Cola” and deteriorating airfields built by U.S. forces during World War II, “the United States is missing in action.”

Now Fiji is a nation of fewer than a million citizens, putting it roughly on a par with Columbus, Ohio in terms of overall population. A former British colony, it achieved full independence only in 1987. Its economy heavily dependent upon tourism, Fiji’s principal export is spring water. Even here in Walpole, Massachusetts, where I live, Fiji Water appears to be quite popular. Yet describing the source of that water as strategically significant qualifies as a bit of a stretch.

The Times article does not specify how or why Fiji qualifies as “vital” to the United States or to anyone else. Permit me to go out on a limb: U.S. interests in Fiji are actually quite modest. What happens there rightly matters to Fijians, but to Americans? Not so much.

Yet the article’s panicky tenor and the matter-of-fact references to American decline invite reflection. Developments in tiny Fiji have the Times in a tizzy. Understanding why that is the case requires putting events there in their proper context, which has more to do with psychology than substance.

Ever since World War II, Americans have been accustomed to the United States enjoying a position of unquestioned global dominance. You name the category: aggregate wealth, military might, technological innovation, higher education, popular culture—in each we ranked number one.

Playing Robin to the American Batman, the fast fading Brits more or less willingly accommodated themselves to this reality. Presented with few alternatives, so too did Germany and Japan. For their part, the French groused and sputtered at the unfairness of it all, but with negligible effect. During the 1950s and 1960s, the Soviets did manage to pull the occasional surprise—Sputnik  and Yuri Gagarin come to mind—but they never mounted a serious challenge.

When the Cold War ended, it rendered a seemingly irreversible verdict: American primacy was destined to extend to the end of time. The future was ours. It is difficult to exaggerate the prevalence and depth of this expectation, especially within the ranks of the elite.

Soon enough, however, the recurring misuse of U.S. military power abroad and the disintegration of a common moral framework at home reversed the irreversible. Focused, disciplined, and hungry, the People’s Republic of China seized the opportunity and today ranks first among the beneficiaries of American folly.

That all of this happened so quickly offers a partial explanation for why Americans still cannot fully comprehend how perpetual primacy has somehow slipped from the nation’s grasp. Granted, some political outsiders, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump prominent among them, tried to alert Americans to the fact that something fundamental was amiss. But voices insisting that American primacy is either secure or can easily be restored drowned out their critique.

Even today, in establishment circles—in the upper reaches of the Biden administration, for example—questioning American global primacy remains heresy. Hence, the dismay expressed by a Times reporter baffled by evidence that Fiji has somehow escaped from America’s orbit. Isn’t Fiji, along with the rest of the strategically vital South Pacific, meant to be “ours”?

This unwillingness to acknowledge how the international order has changed, part nostalgia, part self-induced blindness, will not serve the nation well. We now live in a multipolar world. The so-called “rise” of China is one fact among many testifying to that truth. The sooner the United States accommodates itself to that truth the better. To persist in illusions of reasserting U.S. global primacy will only accelerate American decline by deflecting attention from the imperative of repairing the social order here at home.

So let the Chinese repair the roads in Suva. We have more than enough work to do right here where Americans live.

This article was republished with permission from the American Conservative.


SUVA, Fiji (April 30, 2019) Sailors man the rails as the guided-missile destroyer USS Stockdale (DDG 106) arrives in Suva for a port visit. Stockdale is deployed to the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Abigayle Lutz)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

keep readingShow less
Indonesia stock exchange
Top photo credit: (Shutterstock/Triawanda Tirta Aditya)

Trump's ‘move fast and break things’ war slams into economy

Middle East

The launch of joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran could lead to economic and financial disruptions that ripple across the countries of the Global South with devastating effects. And while a quick end to the war could dampen these effects, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has acknowledged that the war could even last up to 8 weeks, and Israel is now reportedly expecting a "weeks-long" war with Iran.

The fundamental issue here seems to be an increasingly expansive vision of American — and particularly Israeli — war aims. These have now gone well beyond Iran’s offer of substantial denuclearization to regime change, and some quarters have even more extreme visions like the potential Balkanization of Iran into multiple statelets. Such mission creep on the part of the U.S. and Israel has in turn changed incentive structures in Iran towards an expansion of the conflict to target both the Gulf States and global oil markets, a dynamic that threatens to broaden the conflict and extend it, with profound impacts on the global economy.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.