The US and Fiji have signed a new defence pact as tensions rise in the Pacific amid concerns about China

By foreign affairs reporter Stephen Dziedzic, ABC

When Fiji's Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka opened a joint press conference with Lloyd Austin in a luxury hotel on his country's west coast at the weekend, he couldn't resist making a brief quip about just how extraordinary the US defence secretary's visit was.

"We all pray it's not an indication that we are looking at some dangerous years ahead," the prime minister declared, with a small smile.

"We are here to talk about peace, and how we guard, protect and promote that peace."

Rabuka's comment neatly captured the mix of anticipation and trepidation that Pacific officials and leaders feel as they navigate the cross-currents created by major powers intent on entrenching their positions in the region.

Austin had just become the first US defence secretary to pay a visit to the Pacific island nation, and his arrival in Fiji was a sign of the times.

As China's military might continues to swell, the United States is responding by expanding its military presence across the Pacific, swivelling its focus back to countries and territories that its planners and strategists have long ignored.

This isn't just in Melanesian nations like Fiji.

The US is also rapidly expanding its arsenal and bases across Micronesia, where it already has an entrenched military presence.

A smiling Rabuka, sporting a tie emblazoned with the Stars and Stripes, praised Austin and called his visit a "milestone".

But Pacific leaders like Rabuka also know that protecting the peace is easier said than done.

So why was the Secretary of Defence making this historic trip to Fiji?

How is US military strategy shifting across the Pacific?

Here is what it might mean for leaders and everyday people across the region.

What did the US and Fiji agree on?

There was plenty of pomp and fanfare in Nadi to mark the defence secretary's visit.

Austin and Rabuka announced almost $5 million from the US to help support Fiji's military modernisation, and signed a new deal to bolster "bilateral logistics cooperation" - which will make it easier for the US to help Fiji during emergencies by quickly transferring things like fuel and medical supplies.

The prime minister heaped praise on the announcements, saying American security assistance had long been indispensable.

"Fiji has benefited greatly from the US Fiji defence relationship through many programs…that have enabled us to protect our borders and our marine resources, and has assisted us in tackling trans-national crime," he said.

The two men also confirmed the two countries would begin negotiating a "status of forces" agreement, a legal pact that would help set rules and arrangements for US military personnel in Fiji.

The defence secretary said that would pave the way for "increased exercises" and "military-to-military engagements" between the US and Fiji.

"The [agreement] will enable us to deploy and re-deploy forces in support of Fiji. And help us train with the Fijians on a very routine basis," Austin said.

Jennifer Parker, an expert associate at the National Security College, told the ABC that while the agreement was hardly unusual (the US has signed dozens of similar pacts with allies and friendly nations) it would still have strategic significance.

"It's a clear sign that we'll likely see more US troops rotating through or visiting Fiji for exercises or for coastguard deployments," she said.

But that doesn't mean the US will establish a permanent military base in Fiji, as it has in allied countries like the Philippines and Japan.

Austin told journalists there was "no notion" of a permanent base, and the idea wasn't on the table during talks.

"We did not have any discussions like that," he said.

It's not just Fiji

So why is the United States suddenly so intent on stepping up its efforts in Fiji, and why now?

One big reason is Fiji's location.

Jennifer Parker calls Fiji "really strategically important" because it sits on or near many of the vast maritime routes between Pacific ports used by warships and merchant vessels alike.

"If you think about the protection of sea lines of communication across the Pacific, access to Fiji is pretty central to that," she said.

For decades the United States hasn't been anxious about that access because it exercised overwhelming naval superiority across the Pacific.

That's now changing. US defence planners know that China has now built a formidable navy capable of challenging US power in the region.

Beijing has also worked assiduously to cultivate stronger security and commercial ties across the Pacific, and US leaders have publicly declared that China wants to leverage that to set up military bases across the region.

Parker said while access to sea lines was "not being contested at the moment", the US is clearly "concerned" by China's increasing influence and is trying to buttress its own position.

"This is about building greater US influence and greater US access in Fiji," she tells the ABC.

It's not just Fiji. Last year the Biden administration struck a sweeping defence cooperation agreement with Papua New Guinea, while promising to help the country modernise and develop its defence forces.

The US is also helping to redevelop the Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island, although funding has been slow to flow.

Anna Powles from Massy University says rising tensions between the US and China in Asia are "driving" increasing US defence engagement across the Pacific.

"The US is seeking a series of security arrangements…to embed the bilateral relationship within the recipient country's security eco-system and facilitate the US military's ability to operate in the Pacific, including, for example, access to bases," she tells the ABC.

She argues that if the US succeeds in that, it not only sends a "symbolic message" but will also help it project power through the Pacific.

"All these agreements provide the US Navy with options in the Pacific, both in peacetime and, particularly, during a potential crisis."

It's not just Melanesia

If the United States is taking its first steps in Papua New Guinea and Fiji, it is moving with much greater speed and urgency in Pacific waters closer to China.

The military is racing to upgrade, restore and expand facilities across multiple US Pacific territories, as well as in independent Pacific states that have "Compact" agreements tying them closely to Washington.

US troops are clearing the jungle on Tinian Island in the Northern Marianas, restoring a vast World War II-era airfield not far from the major US military base on Guam.

They've already rebuilt another WWII airfield in Palau on the island of Peleliu - where the US and Japan fought a vicious and bloody battle in 1944 - and are installing advanced new radar systems in other parts of the country.

It's a similar story on the island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia, where the US hopes to extend yet another old airfield.

Some details of the strategy might be classified but US planners and defence leaders are blunt about what they are doing, and why.

If war breaks out, the US expects China will strike military targets in what defence planners sometimes call the "first island chain" closest to the Chinese mainland - including American bases in Japan and the Philippines.

Both Guam and the Pacific Island bases that are being rapidly redeveloped are in what's sometimes called the "second island chain" - within China's reach, but harder and more taxing for it to strike.

And if China succeeds in destroying or disabling the US base in Guam, the military wants to be able to send its troops, warships, planes and critical supplies to other facilities across the second island chain, to make sure it can keep on fighting.

Jennifer Parker says if a full-scale conflict breaks out between the US and China in Asia, then US Pacific territories and bases in Micronesia could quickly become "critical".

"If there was to be a conflict in the Indo-Pacific it's pretty clear that any US and allied forces in the first island chain would suffer significant losses and would need to be a fall back outside the first island chain," she said.

"And the Pacific becomes critical in terms of being able to position and fight back, in a conflict scenario."

A zone of peace?

The expanding latticework of defence and policing agreements across the Pacific also sits uncomfortably with the rhetoric used by its leaders, most of whom preach for peace and non-alignment.

For example Sitiveni Rabuka, who stood beside the US defence secretary on Saturday, has been championing the idea of an "Ocean of Peace" in the Pacific.

Rabuka and other Pacific leaders - including those who have struck security arrangements with Beijing - seem confident they can square that circle, enjoying the benefits of security investments without risking being caught up in a regional conflagration or losing their sovereignty.

But Anna Powles says there is still a "tension" between the rhetoric used by Pacific leaders and the security agreements they are increasingly signing off on.

"There needs to be a wider conversation about what these potentially competing positions mean for Pacific countries and the region overall and what the obligations are of Pacific countries in a time of crisis," she says.

Some civil society groups in the Pacific are also deeply uneasy about the way outside powers are trying to entrench their positions, saying it's driving a rapid militarisation of the Pacific.

"Clearly there is an agenda that has been set," says Sharon Bhagwan, a prominent Fijian activist working on peace and security issues.

"The question should be asked, should the investment really be about militarisation, when we need hospitals, when we need the human security agenda to be met?"

"Isn't that far more important?"

She says Pacific governments and regional organisations need to invest real time and effort building a practical framework for the "Ocean of Peace" Rabuka has championed.

"There's actually a very critical need right now to actually make sure that our governments, our intergovernmental agencies, particularly the Pacific Islands Forum, is actually getting better at peace building, rather than at militarisation," she says.

But Jennifer Parker says while Pacific leaders might face some "difficult" questions in an era of strategic competition, they're also adept at exploiting it.

"In many ways for Pacific island nations this period of competition could actually be a great opportunity to get greater investment, and much-needed resilience in some of their infrastructure," she said.

"So certainly, it's a difficult position to be in. But there are lots of opportunities as well."