Download or print as PDF

Introduction

On the morning of September 25, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force fired its long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a dummy war head from Hainan Island in China into the “high seas,” 700 kilometres from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of French Polynesia and within the territorial waters of Kiribati. According to a People’s Liberation Army spokesperson, the missile launch was a routine test conducted as part of the military’s annual training programme.

While the People’s Republic of China (PRC) maintains that it had given advance notice about the test to the major regional powers – Australia, France, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States – these countries expressed their disapproval regarding the potential consequences of the test. The Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) expressed individual and collective surprise at China’s ICBM test. As parties to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZT), they rebuked and publicly condemned the PRC for launching the test in the Pacific Ocean. .

This commentary seeks to provide an overview of the significant public condemnation of China’s missile test by the PSIDS, which are parties to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZT).

The Context

In 1985, the SPNFZT established a zone of peace in the South Pacific region, explicitly proscribing any nuclear weapons- related activities, including tests. The collective regionalism framework has sought a region of “peace, harmony, security, social inclusion and prosperity so that all Pacific people can lead free, health and productive lives.” The Boe Declaration, adopted by the Pacific Island leaders in 2018, clearly identifies climate change as the “single greatest threat to the livelihoods and security of Pacific peoples.” The leaders are also mindful of the “dynamic geopolitical environment” in the Pacific, characterised by escalating geopolitical and geostrategic contestation between China and the United States and its allies.

Since 2000, and especially following the launch of its Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, China has made significant in-roads in the South Pacific region with its overtures of diplomacy, aid, technical assistance, and a range of infrastructure projects. Australia, New Zealand, and the United States perceive this as unwarranted intrusion into their sphere of influence. Growing militarisation and heightened nuclear weapons-related activities have emanated from this contestation.

The Chinese ICBM test in September adds to the growing geopolitical and geostrategic tensions in the region heightened by AUKUS, the Australian, United Kingdom and United States compact to supply nuclear powered submarines to Australia.

It is noteworthy that the United States has had a long history of ICBM tests in the Pacific  from the US mainland to the  target site on the  Marshall Islands. In March, 2024 it launched the hypersonic AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) from the Reagan Test Site in the Marshall Islands. In June, 2024 it launched two ICBMs, and on November 5, it fired two Minuteman III ICBMs from its Vandenberg Space Force base in California to the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test in the Marshall Islands.

PRC’s early notification of its September ICBM test to selected ‘regional powers’ is intriguing as it has no obligation based on any pre-notification agreement other than a bilateral agreement with Russia, to do so. Was the announcement of the test, a signalling to the US and its allies in the region about Chinese nuclear capability? PRC’s muscle flexing? It certainly alarmed USA’s regional partners and PSIDS and territories.

The Chorus of Condemnation

PSIDS collectively and individually decried the Chinese ICBM test. The leaders of French Polynesia and the Republic of Kiribati have been particularly shocked. The Chinese missile landed less than 200 nautical miles from the uninhabited Caroline Island in the Kiribati EEZ, and 700 kilometers from the EEZ of French Polynesia.

Moetai Brotherson, the President of French Polynesia, expressed his concern regarding the test and the lack of prior notification, reportedly saying to the local media in Papaete,“But what this launch really points out is all this tension in the Pacific area …We all know these two superpowers (US and China) are there, observing each other, gauging each other, testing each other. And we, in the middle of all this, we are like a grain of rice in the ocean.”

Senator Teva Rohfritsch declared that the people of French Polynesia were “profoundly shocked” by the test, and asked the French President Macron to react “at the highest level, for the “sake of peace in our Pacific World and more particularly the French Pacific islands.”

A statement from the President of Kiribati’s office similarly noted that there had been no prior notice of the “unwelcomed test,” stating, “The high seas in the Pacific are not isolated pockets of oceans, they are part of our Blue Pacific Continent and are parts of Kiribati and therefore we appeal to all countries involved in weapon testing to stop these acts to maintain world peace and stability.”

Fiji and Palau perceived the test as destabilising to the region. Fiji’s President Ratu Viliame Katonivere, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly two days after the Chinese test, on September 27, recalled the legacy of nuclear weapons testing in the region and stated that, “There was a unilateral test firing of a ballistic missile into the Pacific Ocean. We urge respect for our region and call for cessation of such action.” Palau’s President less diplomatically asserted that the ICBM test was not peaceful and noted that, given its range, China “could strike any one of us in the Pacific.”

Similarly, the response from political leaders  in the Commonwealth  of Northern Marianas,  a non-incorporated  territory of the United States condemned  the test and expressed fear about being within the reach of any future Chinese missile attack.

Baron Waqa, the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum, the apex regional political organisation, was quoted as saying that the “test was extremely disappointing” and that “Pacific leaders are concerned about that.”

Reflection

PSIDS responded, both individually and collectively, expressing their alarm and condemnation of what they viewed as a violation of the peace, security, and stability of the region. The PRC ICBM test is likely to have eroded some of the gains made by Beijing in its diplomatic outreach in the region.

The September 25^th Chinese ICBM test came as a shocking and upsetting surprise for Pacific leaders and peoples. They were not included among the Pacific powers which were given prior notification. Given that the missile landed in Kiribati EEZ, rather than the ‘high seas’ as claimed by China, this was undiplomatic and disrespectful.

For them, the test was not a peaceful action; it reflected the PRC’s prowess and belligerent intentions as a major nuclear power. It reminded them of the legacy of hundreds of nuclear weapons and missile tests in the region, conducted at the expense of Pacific Islanders. These tests contributed to the proliferation of nuclear armaments during the Cold War era.

Far from being a peaceful test, the Chinese ICBM launch served as a reminder of the intensification of the geostrategic contestation in the region, which has implications for militarisation and nuclearisation at both global and regional levels.

About the Author

Vijay Naidu is currently Adjunct Professor at the University of the South Pacific (USP) where he has served as Director of Development Studies, Head of School, Dean, and Pro-Vice Chancellor. He was Director of Development Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand from 2003 to 2006. He has researched and published on Fiji and the Pacific, on a variety of areas including peace and nuclear test related topics.

The opinions articulated above represent the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network or any of its members. APLN’s website is a source of authoritative research and analysis and serves as a platform for debate and discussion among our senior network members, experts, and practitioners, as well as the next generation of policymakers, analysts, and advocates. Comments and responses can be emailed to apln@apln.network.

Image: Missile launch at night. iStock/Elen11. The elements of this image furnished by NASA.