3-Theater-War Madness EXPOSED: Build Pacific Neutrality NOW! | Bevan Ramsden & Ann Wright

## The Case for Pacific Neutrality What emerges from the conversation is a stark warning: the Pacific Rim is being steadily transformed into a theatre prepared for a great-power confrontation, and the most effective preventative measure may be a declarative, citizen-driven neutrality across the region. The discussion posits neutrality not as passive acquiescence but as a proactive policy choice: refuse to participate in preparations for war, deny basing and logistical support to an external combatant, and formally declare non-participation should conflict erupt. The argument is simple and strategic. If enough Pacific Rim governments and territories adopt such a posture, the logistical and geographic scaffolding that would allow a distant superpower to wage war across the Pacific would be substantially weakened — perhaps to the point of making large-scale conflict impossible to prosecute from afar. This is a pragmatic, rights-based proposal that rests on two linked claims. First, the United States, geographically removed from East Asian waters, depends on allied territories and bases in the West Pacific for force projection. Second, the people of Pacific Rim countries generally have neither appetite nor incentive to be dragged into a war fought at the behest of external powers. The conversation treats neutrality as an instrument of prevention: by quarantining the war-making capabilities of outside powers, declared neutrality would shrink the feasible space for escalation and protect local lives and resources. ## The Geography of Militarization: Lily Pads and Launching Pads The exchange maps the expanding U.S. military footprint across islands and allied territories in the Pacific — bases, runways, logistics hubs — and describes them vividly as “lily pads” used to hop toward potential conflict zones. These are not abstract military diagrams; they are physical installations on small islands and in neighboring states, whose civilian populations bear the social and economic costs of militarization. The conversation draws attention to how even tiny nations and territories are being repurposed into nodes of global strategy: runways renewed, logistical spaces prepared, and agreements struck that allow foreign forces increased presence and authority. What is striking in the exchange is the implicit sovereignty tension. Many of these agreements afford external forces broad rights over facilities and support functions, bringing into question who controls the decisions that make a region a staging ground for war. Militarization becomes not a matter of distant strategy but of everyday governance and budgetary priority. The civilian policy choices of these countries — the ones that determine whether an island remains a peaceful community or becomes a strategic base — are now tightly entangled with great-power rivalry. ## Economics, Fear, and the Business of War The conversation unpacks the economic engine that powers militarism: war budgets need enemies. When peace prevails, private military contractors, defense-industrial complex interests, and political actors seeking to justify large defense appropriations manufacture or amplify threats. The discussion highlights a cyclical relationship: fear is cultivated to legitimize expenditure, expenditure strengthens the case for further militarized posture, and the cycle continues. But the conversation also insists on another layer: the economic interdependence of the region undermines the logic of a simplistic threat narrative. China’s economic centrality — as manufacturing hub and trade partner — supplied development and prosperity across the globe. Disrupting these ties in the name of security imposes real costs on ordinary people: diverted budgets, higher taxes, loss of trade, and social services sacrificed to defense priorities. The participants argue that the fear narrative overlooks the asymmetries of actual military capability and ignores the densely networked global economy that would suffer immediate blowback in any large-scale confrontation. There is also political economy within countries: elected leaders facing domestic pressures are being urged, pressured, or incentivized to reorient budgets toward defense. The conversation emphasizes that this is not merely a matter of international strategy but a contest over domestic spending priorities. Housing, health, and education compete with the call to rearm; neutrality asserts that the democratic choice should favour the former where people live and work. ## Neutrality as Policy: What It Would Mean The conversation delineates a clear and actionable template for what neutrality would entail. It is not an abstract moral stance but a set of concrete policy commitments: refuse to host combat troops or facilitate logistics for a third-party war; prohibit the sale of weapons intended for the conflict; deny the use of sovereign territory and waters for intelligence collection or combat operations; and legally declare non-participation should a US-China war erupt. This is a definition of neutrality that is both armed and non-aligned: countries would retain capacities for self-defence but would not serve as satellites in a foreign-led war. The advocates in the exchange stress that neutrality can be compatible with sovereign defence. It does not amount to disarmament of territorial defence so much as refusal to engage in offensive coalitions or to allow one great power to use another’s territory as a launch platform. The proposal also addresses gray zones: intelligence sharing, arms sales, and logistical access are named as specific practices to be curtailed. The conversation suggests that, by sealing these avenues, neutral states would blunt the operational reach of a distant adversary and reduce incentives for escalation. Importantly, neutrality is framed as a collective regional endeavor rather than a solitary act of defiance. One or two neutral states would not suffice; the power of neutrality comes from a coordinated refusal across multiple Pacific Rim governments. A patchwork of neutral territories would create insuperable gaps in operational continuity and make large-scale war far less feasible. ## Building a Citizens' Movement: Tactics and Challenges The conversation is candid about the politics of convincing governments: there are no shortcuts. Political elites, defense establishments, and economic interests are deeply invested in the status quo. Change, therefore, must be anchored in popular mobilization. The exchange proposes classical civic strategies — petitions, conferences, local organizing, public education — but with an emphasis on sustained, grassroots pressure: building coalitions across cities and rural districts, organizing national campaigns to oppose specific agreements such as base-access pacts, and translating public opinion into electoral consequences. Practical tactics discussed include leveraging polls and public sentiment (which in some cases already favour neutrality), converting research and policy proposals into party platforms, and framing neutrality as a politically advantageous stance for leaders who wish to show independence in foreign policy. The conversation also underscores direct-action elements: occupying public spaces, attending congressional hearings, and confronting warmongering narratives where they are produced. Activists are encouraged to infiltrate the symbolic and physical spaces where policy is debated — think tanks, legislative corridors, and party meetings — to force alternative narratives into the public record. The exchange recognizes obstacles. Security frames are effective because they tap into fear. Political donations and defence-industrial influence insulate elites. And some regional governments face strategic pressures that make neutrality difficult without regional solidarity. The prescription is therefore multi-pronged: combine local organizing with international solidarity, produce credible a

3-Theater-War Madness EXPOSED: Build Pacific Neutrality NOW Bevan Ramsden and Ann Wright are members of the Pacific Peace Network, which recently launched a peace and solidarty campaign calling on Pacific Rim countries to declare their neutrality for the sake of preventing a US-China war. JOIN THE CALL NOW! Sign the Petition. Sign the Neutrality Petition: https://worldbeyondwar.org/declareneutrality/ Pacific Neutrality Campaign Launch Webinar - Saturday, June 21 at 11:00am AEST: https://worldbeyondwar.org/neutralitywebinar/ Pacific Peace Conference on August 2nd at 9:00am-5:00pm AEST in Brisbane (+ option to join on Zoom): https://events.humanitix.com/pacific-peace-conference #F1 In fact, just this week there have been more congressional hearings—the intelligence committees, the armed services committees—and they just keep harping on "China is our enemy, China is a threat." When you try to stand up in the hearings and say, "No, it's not," then you get arrested and thrown out, which I still have a court case pending for from my last one. But that's what we have to do as activists. We have to be in the hallways. We have to nab these guys and gals who are the warmongers as they come in and out of congressional hearings and wherever we see them. #M2 Hello everybody, this is Pascal from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking to Bevan Ramsden and Ann Wright. Bevan is an Australia-based peace activist, while Ann is one of the United States' most famous and forceful voices against war and interventionism. Both are members of the Pacific Peace Network, which recently launched a peace and solidarity campaign calling on Pacific Rim countries to declare their neutrality for the sake of preventing a US-China war. This is what we want to discuss today. So, Bevan, Ann, welcome. #F1 Thank you. #M2 It's great having you both here. And before we go into the neutrality issue, I just need to ask you, Ann, because you just came back to the US from Italy, where you were intimately working with the -- 1 of 11 -- people from the Freedom Flotilla and this fantastic awareness campaign for the pain of the people in Gaza, and also having 12 people actually sail to Gaza. Can you tell us just a little bit about how things are going at the moment and how you're assessing what this activism has accomplished? #F1 Well, due to the global outcry that's been happening over the Israeli genocide of Gaza and their country's participation and complicity in it, those same people were very, very supportive of the sailing of the Madeline to challenge the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. Our 12 people who were on board—six French citizens and then people from six other countries—sailed and were kidnapped on the high seas, in international waters, and put in prison in Israel for entering the country illegally. They were taken against their will. Four of them have already returned home and are already speaking out about the conditions in detention. The other eight will be on their way today and tomorrow, mainly because the Israelis want to get them out of there pretty fast, since they're getting a lot of bad publicity from the sailing of the Madeline. So we appreciate very, very much everyone's concern about them. We also need to be concerned about the Global Convoy for Gaza, which is now in Cairo, where over 2,000 people from all over the world are flying into Cairo, and we are already getting reports back that hundreds of them have been detained at the airport. In other cases, the police have gone to the hotels of the people and are taking them back to the airport. So the oppression of people who are standing up for the Palestinians continues, whether it's going to short imprisonment in Israeli jails as with the Madeline, or whether it's flying all the way to Cairo and then the Egyptians being so complicit in what's happening—the genocide, the lack of food going into Gaza—they will get a definite black mark in their history for what they're doing to the global flotilla or the global convoy. Thank you for asking. #M2 You know, this is such an important example of how actual peace activism has an impact. Even if the Madeleine boat wasn't able to reach Gaza, I do think we are seeing a sea change right now, especially in Europe, when it comes to the perception and the depiction of Israel and this genocide that's going on. And this is one of the most important works, I think, that peace activists can do. Now, we have another initiative of yours—both of you and of the collective that you're part of— which is to try to talk sense into Pacific Rim countries and de-escalate this goddamn... well, war rhetoric that's going on and that's coming especially from the US side toward China. Bevan, can you maybe speak a little bit to the motivation and the idea behind launching a petition for neutrality? #M3 Well, I think it became obvious to us in the Peace Pacific Network that our countries in this area, particularly the Western Rim countries in the Pacific, are facing the same problem. We are being pressured by the United States to gear up for a war—or their war, the one they want to have or -- 2 of 11 -- intend to have—with China. We've already got these U.S. military bases in South Korea with lots of troops, and in Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines, Guam, and Australia, and the United States is building up the facilities there. But the pressure is to even... The pressure is to enormously increase defense expenditure in these countries, in my country and other Pacific countries, to make them even more ready for a big one. Now, it's pretty clear that the United States cannot fight a war against China from the West Coast of America. They cannot, and they cannot do it without being based in and having the support of their allies closer to China and the West Pacific. And indeed, that is where this petition we've thought of comes in. It's a call from the people of Australia, South Korea, Japan, Okinawa, the Philippines, and countries on the Pacific Rim to their governments to say, look, we don't want to be involved in such a war. It's of no advantage and a huge disadvantage to us. And if we say no—if my government and your government say no—we will take a neutral position in such a war. And as the petition says, refuse to join military preparations for a US-China war, declare you will not fight in a US-China war, declare neutrality should such a war break out, and not allow your sovereign territories or waters to be used in such a war, including the collection and relay of military intelligence, sales of weapons, and hosting combat troops and facilities. That would quarantine the situation such that, if our governments did that, I believe we would prevent such a war. I don't believe the United States could fight such a war from the West Coast of the United States. #M2 Ann, do you agree? I mean, you're sitting in the US. You've seen a lot of the US military capabilities. Is this the approach to go? #F1 Well, yes, it is. And I live in Hawaii, which is halfway across the Pacific. As a U.S. diplomat, before I resigned from the government over the Iraq War, I had a two-year assignment in the Federated States of Micronesia, one of the three small island nations that the United States buys off through the Compact of Free Association. The United States buys what they call the defense rights to this huge area of the Pacific that goes all the way from the Marshall Islands, through the Federated States of Micronesia, and all the way out to Palau. It's a huge part of the expanse, and of course, the territory of Guam is a part of this whole mixture. And as Bevan said, the increase in the number of facilities that are out on these small island nations—even the tiny country of Palau, which is usually known only for its scuba diving—now has two new military runways on these small islands in the Pacific. Saipan—they are repaving the runway on one of the islands, Tinian, from which, 80 years ago, the United States launched the aircraft that dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So Tinian is now being revamped for yet another horrible, horrible military operation, which we, of course, -- 3 of 11 -- through this petition and through all sorts of actions, are trying to prevent. But it's certainly true: you can't launch from the West Coast of the United States. That's why the United States has these little lily pads all throughout the Pacific. And a big lily pad is where Bevan is, in Australia. I know that the Australians are trying desperately to stop all of this. #M2 On the one hand, there is always the danger that allies are forced into a war that they don't want anything to do with, right? Or being used as proxies. The danger of proxy warfare is dramatic. But even the danger of being used as a launching pad and then being drawn into the war is huge. So the idea of making these places officially declare their neutrality—even if not all of them join, if a large number of them actually did that—you would suck out the oxygen of the war-making capacity, which is one of the reasons why the United States is so ardently against the idea of its allies going in any way neutral. Bevan, what is the idea behind doing this as a citizen initiative? You don't try to appeal to the United States, right? You try to appeal to the individual governments of the Pacific Rim. #M3 Absolutely, and we felt too that it's important in this sort of action to know that we're all doing this together. There's some solidarity there between us all. We all have the same problem, and it's in our interest to prevent such a war and to get our governments to take this position. Now, speaking from an Australian position, we are very, very concerned at the militarisation of this continent of ours, and at increasingly being set up as a launching pad and a support base for US operations. Indeed, the organisation I'm particularly associated with in Australia, the Independent Peaceful Australia Network, is commencing a campaign calling for the cancellation of AUKUS and the termination of the Force Posture Agreement. Now, it's quite interesting that this Force Posture Agreement—similar wording is used in other countries. I noticed that the one they've signed in the Philippines, the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement, has a lot of similar wording about the United States having access to agreed facilities in places under their total control for munitions and logistics support, and for basing of troops, and so on. It's a similar sort of approach they take with different countries. That's all about giving them a place, a posture—like in Australia, a posture in Australia—from which they can work and launch. But further than that, it's about getting us to prepare to help them and spend a lot of money in doing that. We have urgent— as each country has—urgent social needs. And it's a question of what do you spend it on? Why are we spending, and why are we being urged to spend, virtually—Australia is almost doubling its expenditure. I think Peter—he's the Defense Minister for the U.S.; I forget how to pronounce his name—he was talking about 5%. Pete Hegseth. He's talking about 5% being imposed on U.S. allies. I mean, Japan spends, I think, about 1%. Five percent would be an incredible increase. Australia is spending at 2%. And if they want us to go to 5%, or even 3.5%, as we've said to Defence Minister Marles, that's an enormous diversion of money -- 4 of 11 -- that we need for other purposes. There are urgent housing needs in Australia and health issues. It's simply diverting money away from those important social needs. For what purpose? I mean, we're not being threatened by China. China's not threatening us in any way at all. In fact, they're a major trading partner for Australia. Trade with China has helped make us quite prosperous. Now, the Australian leadership is quite divorced from the Australian people. I must mention this, if I might continue talking, Pascal. Two years ago, t