Editor's note: Tom Fowdy is a UK-based political analyst. The article reflects the author's views, and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The government of Papua New Guinea (PNG) announced this week that it rejected a “counteroffer” from the U.S., Australia and Japan which attempted to persuade the Pacific nation to drop Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei from building an internet cable. 

The move, which was widely seen as an attempt to contain the company's international expansion and China's economic partnerships across the Asia-Pacific region, serves a blow to Trump's foreign policy and illustrates its lack of appeal, scope and vision in trying to “persuade” countries to make distance from Beijing.

Such an outcome is a far cry from the way things are depicted in the Western media. It is a reminder that such countries will continue to see China as playing a significant role in their economic development and that U.S.-led scaremongering over such initiatives is not a coherent strategy in making them think otherwise. 

A week ago the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, hosted in PNG itself, was hijacked by hysterical rhetoric by Mike Pence who sought to seize the initiative and push an anti-China message. Of course, the Western media, due to its cultural and political proximity to the U.S., inevitably focused upon this and repeated his discourses. Seeing this fairly one-dimensional portrayal of events, most commentators naturally followed with the opinion that the meeting was a setback to China's diplomacy within the region. 

Yet this kind of reporting does not portray an objective reality, Mike Pence might have been able to showcase things which Western audiences may be able to understand, but that does not give an accurate reflection of regional opinion and interests alike. That is, developing countries see benefits in meaningful economic and investment ties with Beijing and concurrently do not want to be caught in geopolitical crossfires. They are not willing to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

There is good evidence of this. What was not really reported was that at the meeting a number of Pacific Island countries would sign memoranda of understanding (MoU) with China on the Belt and Road Initiative, far from this whole talk of “debt traps” and counteroffers; this included Tonga and Vanuatu. The Cook Islands also joined. 

This seems light years away from how Washington and the media would portray it to be, where we are to imagine a Pacific with a huge “backlash” against Beijing and obstacles to the BRI all around. The reality is consequentially different, with countries about to accept China's investment.

This leads us to PNG itself. It is worth noting that the country is not “taking sides” in the U.S.-China dispute, but it is consistent on the fact that China has a positive role to play. Hence, a few months ago Australia and the U.S. announced that they were making a “counter-offer” to Huawei's internet cable construction on the island nation. Their goal was to get Port Moresby to abandon the Chinese firm and go with them instead. 

However, the PNG government has decided to reject this, being clear on the fact that “we have a deal” and it would be disastrous diplomacy to scrap it on a whim because of Washington's geopolitical aspirations.

The outcome of the offer illustrates a number of points. While undoubtedly most countries in the region would welcome investment from both the U.S. and China simultaneously, the idea that any country is going to get involved in geopolitical confrontation and “switch sides” so callously is ridiculous. It's a poorly thought out strategy from Washington. If Beijing also tried to force countries to choose, it would similarly fail. 

Secondly, with reference to the above, it also makes a mockery out of Pence's APEC hijacking and suggests he is in fact out of touch with most of the region. It's easy to grab Western headlines with bellicose rhetoric, but it requires more effort to actually understand why your counterparts are making the decisions they are making. Whatever reservations these countries might have, the American message isn't being bought. Instead, the U.S. risks appearing condescending. 

So as a whole, this doesn't bode well for the U.S. If they are hoping to contain China's “influence” in the region, then it isn't really working. It might be time to go back to the drawing board.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)