The September 2025 Pukpuk Treaty uniting the Australian and PNG militaries has drawn newfound attention to the worsening geopolitical situation in Oceania. Antonio Garcia argues these developments validate longstanding ideas about financial consolidation and inter-imperialist conflict: from Marx to Lenin, Luxemburg and Bukharin.
In Case You Missed the News…
In September of this year, the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) signed a landmark security agreement. Under this treaty, the Australian Defence Force will assume responsibility for all of PNG’s military assets, installations, and personnel. Make no mistake, this is not the close cooperation we see in treaties such as ANZUS or NATO, agreements that, whilst bringing the militaries of various states into coordination, still maintain each member’s semi-independence. Rather, this is a total integration of forces. The Australian Defence Force and the Papua New Guinea Defence Force are now one and the same; they constitute a single, unified military. As PNG’s Defence Minister stated, “we’re not talking about interoperability, we’re talking about totally integrated forces.” Whilst both governments face practical challenges stemming from the new treaty, and many remain to be seen, we can glean valuable insights from the present arrangement. Most critically, we find that this move affirms the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, a process by which economies simultaneously centralise and internationalise.
Fortress PNG – A Pawn in Imperialist Games
It is easy, upon reading this, to interpret the integration of PNG’s armed forces into Australia’s as an imperialist ‘power grab’. It is quite easy to hand-wave further analysis with simple slogans bemoaning the ‘domineering’ or ‘greedy’ nature of the Australian bourgeoisie. However, these slogans are just that: short snippets that communicate one’s political preferences with little more than passion behind them. If we are to understand how this agreement genuinely intertwines with imperialism, we must set aside these moralisms to investigate the material heart of the matter.
What we find in this landmark agreement is a redefined boundary in the inter-imperialist division of the world. When Papua New Guinea first gained its independence in 1975, there was little serious international intrigue over the matter. At the time, the world’s great imperial powers fell into two camps: the Soviet Bloc and the American Bloc. By 1975, Soviet influence was no longer a threat in Oceania. Australia’s and New Zealand’s bourgeoisie were firmly within the US bloc, enjoying the economic boons of their agricultural, resource, and finance exports, as well as plentiful American investments. Many of the Pacific Islands remained under the control of the UK, France, or the Americans, including Vanuatu, Palau, and the Solomon Islands. Others had only recently gained ‘independence,’ and thus remained economically and politically bound to the US sphere, such as Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa. The Soviets then had little room to intrude on the continent, and their forays into nearby Asian states either resulted in total failure, such as in Indonesia, or, whilst successful, did not help penetrate the Oceanic market, such as in Vietnam. This middling success in Asia was then exacerbated by the Sino-Soviet Split, which saw the Chinese bourgeoisie assert its independence from the Russian bourgeoisie, thereby laying the groundwork for the PRC’s rise to its present-day status as an imperial hegemon. In short, there was little threat to the American bourgeoisie’s control of Oceania, and therefore, no need for concern over PNG’s ‘independence’ from it.
This lax attitude no longer exists.
Since 1975, Chinese capitalism has developed significantly, to put it mildly. The Chinese bourgeoisie has not only solidified its rule but also united politically, economically, and militarily in a manner few national bourgeoisies can claim to have. Through this firm, coordinated rule, it has developed into a major economic powerhouse, one that has begun to unravel the US bloc’s decades of unchallenged rule, thereby allowing it to emerge as a global imperial hegemon. With Oceania in its backyard, the region can no longer be taken for granted as it once was.
This conflict is arising before our eyes today. Across the continent, the Chinese bloc has been battling the US for control over the Pacific Islands. In Samoa, China financed a massive expansion of the Faleolo Airport; in Niue, the Chinese have worked to revamp the island’s infrastructure and have made similar investments in the Cook Islands. Each of these inspires ire from the American, Australian, and Kiwi bourgeoisies. The Chinese have not ignored Papua New Guinea- far from it. The Chinese have built two new mines and a new hydroelectric plant in the last few years, leading to PNG’s exports steadily rising. China’s industrial heartland is the ultimate destination for a majority of these exports. The US bloc has not ignored these developments, though it has struggled to combat them. The Australian bourgeoisie has advanced $2 billion to support 28 infrastructure projects across the Pacific, as well as an additional $500 million in projects targeting sustainability and gender inequality. Meanwhile, the Americans have been considering support for a proposed offshore mine off the coast of Samoa. As can be seen, this conflict has proven unfavourable to the American sphere of influence. Whilst the Australian bourgeoisie has indeed invested in several Pacific Islands, the Americans, the region’s true imperial hegemon, have largely remained stationary as Chinese investments pour in.
We thus find the old words of Nikolai Bukharin actualised before our eyes. He wrote, “capital export is the most convenient method for the economic policy of finance groups; it subjugates new territories with the greatest ease. This is why the sharpening of competition between various states is most salient here. The internationalisation of economic life here, too, makes it necessary to settle controversial questions by fire and sword.” Put simply, since the Australian bourgeoisie cannot economically outcompete Chinese investments and the American bourgeoisie is unwilling to lose Oceania, the only solution is armed struggle.
Indeed, both blocs have been steadily increasing their military presence in Oceania. In 2022, China signed a security agreement with the Solomon Islands, which promised Chinese investment in the islands’ police force and military, as well as provisions allowing Beijing to station troops in the country to protect Chinese assets. Additionally, China has sent military and policing experts to train the police forces of Kiribati and Vanuatu, all whilst developing short-range missiles capable of hitting the US-controlled island of Guam. In this respect, the American bloc has been much more proactive. The United States has heavily militarised its island territory of Guam, building new radars as it repairs outdated ports and airstrips. Moreover, it has expanded its operations across the region, deploying naval ships to Palau and conducting military exercises with the Australian, Taiwanese, Indonesian, and Indian militaries.
We then find that the integration of PNG’s military into Australia is simply a continuation of the struggle between the American and Chinese blocs to divide the world. It is a step that demonstrates the Marxist Theory of Imperialism- that increasing economic competition between imperial blocs leads to military competition. It is not, as less developed theoreticians may argue, a ‘benevolent’ move to ‘protect’ Papua New Guinea, nor is it a ‘power-grab’ from the ‘decadent west.’ Instead, it is a single step in a protracted, ongoing conflict between Beijing and Washington to divvy up the Pacific in preparation for the next great imperial slaughter.
International Centralisation – A Progressive Imperialism?
Marxist theoreticians of imperialism have consistently argued the same point: that capitalist development trends toward centralisation while it simultaneously spreads across the globe. Thus, whilst the ‘national’ economies of various countries coagulate into monopolies, be they state-owned or otherwise, they also spread their tendrils around the globe. We see this in the current standoff in the Pacific. China provides aid through various state-owned banks and state-managed projects, such as the Belt and Road Initiative; meanwhile, the US bloc provides economic assistance through the Australian government, USAID, and centralised investment groups such as the Australia-Pacific Islands Business Council. While on the one hand, the domestic capital of these states centralises around a few monopolies, on the other hand, these centralised apparatuses invest in projects all across the globe.
The result of this is the centralisation of economies, first within a given country’s economy, then throughout the globe. The centralisation of capital within a national economy, as Lenin understood, is necessary for a given state’s bourgeoisie to gain total, unified mastery over its economy. This spurs industrial progress, paving the way for innovations, hastening development, and higher economic output, whilst enabling the bourgeoisie to accumulate massive sums of capital. Through this accrued wealth, banks and trusts emerge to further centralise capital and begin the mass export of finance abroad, causing ‘foreign’ economies to centralise around investments from these banks. Alongside this stands the export of commodities, which, as Bukharin noted, further intertwine various economies by virtue of creating more ‘entry points’ for investments to pass through. The result is the total integration of several states’ economies into imperial blocs, which then compete to conquer rival states to expand their markets, thereby stalling the ever-falling rate of profit.[1] Hence, while nominally independent states such as Australia and New Zealand share remarkably similar economic interests and challenges with the United States, their economies form part of a greater international whole.
As these states’ economies unite, so too do their political systems. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote, “The development of world powers, a characteristic feature of our times growing in importance along with the progress of capitalism, from the very outset condemns all small nations to political impotence.” Thus, states trend toward co-dependence as imperial blocs solidify. Plenty of examples exist, from the increasing federalisation of the European Union, to the tripartite integration of South Korea’s, Japan’s, and America’s militaries, and yes, the integration of PNG’s military into Australia’s. This is a necessary element of capitalism, as Marx, Luxemburg, Lenin, and Bukharin all agreed. They have shown how this unification has accelerated the overall development of these states, thereby hastening the ultimate downfall of capitalism. Integration and centralisation are thus historically progressive forces, bringing capitalism closer to its apex and, subsequently, to its collapse. This does not, of course, mean that they are ‘good’ developments, or that they will necessarily benefit the proletariat in the short term. To this point, Marx’s The British Rule in India is critical in revealing that historically progressive politico-economic developments can, and often are, brutally repressive in the short term. Thus, whilst Marxists can and should acknowledge that the increasing integration of Papua New Guinea, Australia, and the United States is historically progressive, it also heightens the exploitation of each state’s working class and drives the US-China conflict ever closer to war.
What, then, is the proletarian response to this development? We must approach the matter with caution. We cannot, on the one hand, label this move as ‘reactionary,’ as it does serve the workers’ long-term interests in the accelerated development of capitalism, which will give way to socialism. Moreover, as prior Marxists have taught us, wholesale opposition to nations’ ‘loss’ of their ‘independence’ is an economically and politically illiterate conclusion to draw. It is, to quote Luxemburg, one that “doesn’t represent anything specifically connected with socialism nor with the politics of the working class.” That said, we cannot applaud this development, either. It will undoubtedly lead to a heightened exploitation of both Australian and, especially, Papua New Guinean workers. Moreover, it drags both states deeper into the US bloc, placing them on the front lines of upcoming inter-imperialist struggles.
We therefore find it most useful as a confirmation of existing Marxist theory, and of a ‘pressure gauge’ for the ongoing inter-imperialist conflict in Oceania. The integration of Australia and PNG’s militaries, as well as the developments that led to it, affirm the correctness of the Marxist Theory of Imperialism and of capitalism’s centralising internationalisation. There is no ‘rethinking’ nor ‘modernisation’ needed, as the theory remains accurate. In addition, this development indicates the sharpening of the US-China conflict, as seen in the escalation from economic to military competition. This element is of significant concern because it increases the likelihood of another inter-imperialist slaughter akin to those of the World Wars. However, it also indicates a step forward in global development and, thereafter, the collapse of capitalism. It thus reinforces what we already know, and thereby signifies that we must maintain the Marxist response to imperialist struggle: proletarian internationalism and revolutionary defeatism.
[1] The rate of profit is a concept that is generally self-explanatory. It is the profit that capitalists derive from the sale of commodities. This rate tends to decline as innovations in production spread across a market, thereby evening out prices. This leads to stagnation, which is destructive for capitalism, as it requires perpetual growth to function. Capitalists can only combat the falling rate of profit by expanding the volume of profit, a process done either by intensifying/innovating on the exploitation of existing workers, productive forces, and markets, or by increasing the size of the market via conquest, be it economic or military. Thus, capitalism necessitates both ever-deepening exploitation and constant conquest to properly function.
PARTISAN! 
You must be logged in to post a comment.