Vanuatu's Internal Affairs Minister Andrew Napuat has publicly contradicted his own government, declaring that no decision has been made to reduce China's police presence in the country, despite a jointly issued statement with Australia indicating that Beijing's policing program there was set to wind down over time.
The contradiction has emerged in the days following a high-level meeting on the implementation of the Nakamal Agreement, the landmark security pact signed between Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese earlier this year. A joint statement released after that meeting noted that China's police assistance program with Vanuatu was "time-limited and expected to reduce over time", and drew a pointed contrast with Australia's legally binding, open-ended policing arrangement under the agreement.
Minister pushes back on joint communique
Mr Napuat, who travelled to Beijing last month to personally renew Vanuatu's police cooperation agreement with China, took direct aim at the language in the joint statement. He argued there was "no need to talk about a third party in any agreements", a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke of the clause referencing China's policing role.
In a statement, the minister invoked Prime Minister Napat's own post-signing remarks, noting that the prime minister had emphasised Vanuatu's long-held position of being "a friend to all and an enemy to none".
"Therefore, such statements targeting one partner do not reflect our country's position on its relationships with its partners," Mr Napuat said.
He also pushed back against media coverage he believed suggested Vanuatu was singling out China, stressing that his country still required policing support from Beijing alongside other international partners while it continued to build its own domestic force.
"At the moment, we are still building our force," he said.
Long-term ambition versus immediate reality
Mr Napuat did acknowledge that Vanuatu's ultimate goal was to develop a fully self-sufficient police force, at which point it would no longer require assistance from any external partner, including Australian Federal Police officers currently deployed under the Nakamal Agreement.
However, he was emphatic that this transition was a long-term aspiration, not an imminent policy direction, and that no government decision had yet been taken to begin phasing out any partner.
"We will make that decision when we decide as a nation. We will not phase out any partner due to the conditions in any agreement," he said.
That position stands in marked contrast to the jointly agreed communique, which explicitly framed the reduction of China's policing footprint as an expected development and stressed that Australia's arrangements under the Nakamal Agreement carried no expiry date.
Canberra's concern over conflicting signals
The public contradiction has caused discomfort in Canberra. A federal government source described Mr Napuat's messaging on policing as "very different" to the position conveyed by another Vanuatu government official in discussions the previous week, suggesting a significant disconnect within the Vanuatu cabinet.
Mr Napuat is regarded within Australian government circles as one of the most pro-China voices in Prime Minister Napat's cabinet. His relationship with Canberra has been strained before. Last year he publicly criticised Australia's then Pacific Islands affairs minister over comments made about Vanuatu's decision to renew its policing agreements with Beijing, a move that drew considerable diplomatic attention at the time.
The renewed tension comes as Australian officials have invested considerable diplomatic effort into cementing the Nakamal Agreement as a cornerstone of Pacific security cooperation. The deal, which is described as legally binding with no expiry date, was designed in part to provide a durable framework for policing and security engagement that could not easily be unwound by changing political winds in Port Vila.
Broader implications for Pacific security
The episode highlights the delicate balancing act facing smaller Pacific Island nations as they navigate competing relationships with major powers. Vanuatu has historically prided itself on non-alignment, and Mr Napuat's intervention underscores how that principle can create friction when regional partners seek clearer commitments.
For Australia, the contradiction raises questions about how firmly the language in the joint communique actually reflects agreed government-to-government policy in Vanuatu, and whether the clauses referencing a reduction in Chinese police involvement will carry practical weight going forward.
Chinese police instructors have been training Vanuatu police officers for several years, and the renewal of that agreement just last month suggests Beijing's presence is not only continuing but has recently been formally reaffirmed at the ministerial level by the very official now disputing the joint statement's framing.
The Vanuatu government has not issued any clarification reconciling Mr Napuat's remarks with the language of the joint communique, and there is no indication at this stage that the matter has been resolved internally within the Napat administration.
