The US agenda behind its shiprider agreements with PICs

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., the United States, January 18, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

By Zhang Siyuan

In recent years, the United States has been keen on signing shiprider agreements with the Pacific Island Countries (PICs). Up to now, it has signed such agreements with 12 PICs and territories: Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, the Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Tonga, Kiribati, Nauru, the Cook Islands, Palau, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu.

The U.S. publicly claims that these agreements allow the PICs' law enforcement officers to board U.S. Coast Guard vessels and inspect ships suspected of illegal activities, and that they are good for the PICs' maritime security and capacity building.

As a long-time observer of Pacific Islands affairs, this is my take on what the U.S. truly seeks to accomplish with the shiprider program.

The key to U.S. enthusiasm

The key to American enthusiasm lies in the special law enforcement privileges granted by these agreements.

For instance, when a U.S. law enforcement vessel sees a ship that it wants to pursue and board entering a PIC's territorial waters, it is free to do so without applying for additional authorization from the host nation. The U.S. can also investigate and board ships within a PIC's territorial or archipelagic waters without observers from the host nation on board. In the exclusive economic zones, U.S. personnel may conduct inspections unilaterally without involving the host nation at all.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), these are rights reserved exclusively for PICs.

Taumeasina Hotel in Samoa, October 20, 2019. [Photo/Xinhua]

What do PICs get from the pact?

While many such agreements include reciprocal provisions, such as mutual access to ports, airspace overflight rights, communication support and information sharing during joint operations, the PICs' limited capabilities render such reciprocity illusory.

For example, none of the PICs has an air force, making it impossible for them to exercise overflight rights over U.S. airspace. Therefore for the PICs, these provisions exist only in name.

In fact, these agreements require the PICs to cede sovereignty and allow the U.S. to profit unilaterally. There is no equality at all. How the PICs found themselves at the signing table is anyone's guess.

What is the U.S. truly after in the Pacific?

History and facts shed some light on America's true intentions. After World War II, the U.S. tried to use its economic and military power to turn the Pacific Ocean into an "American lake," while the PICs were deemed as its "lake keepers."

American military bases were established on islands such as Guam and Palau. Numerous nuclear tests were conducted on the Marshall Islands, without due regard for safety or health, inflicting irreparable damage on the indigenous communities. The U.S. raises the banner of "shared values" when it needs the PICs, yet discards them when it sees them as unhelpful to American interests.

These shiprider agreements are a clear example of America's tendency to overstep its bounds in a hegemonic manner. They demonstrate the misuse of long-arm jurisdiction, which is intended to expand U.S. surveillance in the Pacific region. The ultimate goals are to strengthen control over its "sphere of influence" and advance its geopolitical agenda.

It is important to remember that the U.S. has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, evading accountability under international law. Does it align with the PICs' own interests to cede their sovereignty and rights to such a power? This is a question all islanders need to think carefully about.

Zhang Siyuan is a Beijing-based commentator on international affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News, Global Times, China Daily etc.