Rising tensions with China have renewed focus on Taiwan, though the broader Pacific may prove just as critical in any conflict. Cleo Paskal, a senior fellow focused on the Indo-Pacific, argues that U.S. territories and nearby island nations form an overlooked frontline in that competition.
Paskal focuses on the Pacific islands and India, examining how geopolitical competition plays out in regions often treated as peripheral.
Paskal says any move by China on Taiwan would immediately put U.S. Pacific territories at risk. “You can’t have an armed, effective Guam in play if you’re the Chinese, if you’re going after Taiwan,” she says. She explains that Chinese planners would likely seek to neutralize Guam and surrounding islands early, possibly without triggering mass casualties. “It’s possible that the thought is to disable Guam and the Northern Marianas without killing Americans,” she says, pointing to cyberattacks or infrastructure disruption as plausible tactics.
She says that this approach reflects lessons from World War II. “The attack on Pearl Harbor and the killing of Americans motivated a response in Washington that may not have happened if Americans hadn’t died,” she says. That lesson could shape a strategy aimed at delaying or complicating a U.S. response while China consolidates control over Taiwan.
Paskal also warns that public perception inside the United States could become a strategic vulnerability. “You may get a domestic U.S. population that goes, why should we die to liberate Taiwan when they didn’t even defend themselves?” she says, describing the role of “cognitive warfare” in shaping political will.
Immigration and governance issues in U.S. territories present another concern. She describes the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as a major vulnerability. “This is an open door,” she says, referring to visa-free entry policies that allow Chinese nationals access to U.S. territory. “It’s completely under the remit of Homeland Security, and there have been multiple letters from Congress asking for this loophole to be closed.”
Paskal says the scale of the problem is difficult to ignore. “The issues are kind of off the chart,” she says, citing corruption, illegal entry routes, and weak enforcement. These vulnerabilities extend beyond U.S. borders. “The U.S. is not just creating vulnerabilities for itself, but for its allies by letting these kinds of things slide,” she says.
She attributes much of the strategic blind spot to how Americans understand geography. “If you remember the map on the wall of your classroom… the Pacific is cut off in two parts,” she says. That distorted view obscures the importance of U.S. territories across the region. “If you had a map that actually had the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Marianas, Alaska, and American Samoa… you would have a much better conceptualization of how important the Pacific is to the U.S.,” she says.
Historical decisions reinforce that importance. “America does not accrue territory casually,” she says. “Those are all very deliberate strategic decisions.” She notes that U.S. engagement in the Pacific dates back more than a century. “The strategic thinking around why the U.S. needed Philippines and Guam has been foundational now for almost 130 years,” she says.
Policy responses, according to her, must address both security and governance. “Corruption is a main entry point for the Chinese Communist Party into these societies,” she says. She calls for a “political warfare rapid response team” to help local governments counter influence operations and strengthen rule of law.
She points to recent agreements with Pacific partners as a potential model. “It’s a whole package that’s designed to help protect it,” she says, describing efforts that combine cybersecurity, law enforcement support, and economic investment. These measures aim to “block the illegal, coercive, aggressive, and deceptive Chinese actions while building local stability.”
Pressure from China on smaller nations remains intense. Paskal recalls conversations with Pacific leaders. “We’re going to take Taiwan… and once we take Taiwan, you have no negotiating power,” she says, describing messages delivered by Chinese officials. Countries that resist face sustained pressure, she adds, despite aligning with democratic principles.
