ASPI Strategist this week released a new commentary arguing that the finalised Australia-Vanuatu Nakamal Agreement, while securing some important commitments, appears to be a watered-down version of the deal Australia originally sought, with weaker provisions on third-party security arrangements and policing.
The commentary states that despite its limitations, Nakamal demonstrates that Australia retains the capacity to shore up meaningful strategic commitments in the Pacific against intensifying Chinese competition.
Quote from the commentary:
After a turbulent 10 months, Albanese and Napat signed a seemingly watered-down version of Nakamal. In place of the veto provisions expected in last year’s deal, Vanuatu agreed to consult Australia on third-party security deals involving critical infrastructure investment without a commitment to action. The deal nominally recognises Australia as Vanuatu’s primary policing partner and requires Vanuatu to prioritise Pacific Island Forum members when making policing requests.
Read the full commentary: The Nakamal Agreement is not quite the deal Australia wanted