Samoa is a small country, but the arguments taking place between the world’s most powerful states will eventually reach us.
Samoa Newshub reviewed the United Nations General Assembly speeches of leaders and representatives from the United States, China, Russia, India, France, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Ukraine, Türkiye, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, together with the address of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.
They disagree sharply over war, Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, sanctions, trade, climate change and the role of the United Nations. Yet across the speeches there is also unusual agreement on one point. The international system created after the Second World War is under pressure and the distribution of power around the world is changing.
Guterres said the movement towards a multipolar world was now “irreversible”. He described new centres of economic, political and technological influence emerging while power was also shifting away from governments towards corporations, individuals and increasingly machines.
India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar was equally direct. He said the post-1945 order was giving way to new realities and argued that a more diverse world required broader consultation and reform of international institutions.
Russia described the same change largely as the decline of Western dominance. China took a different position. Beijing defended the international system centred on the United Nations and international law, while calling for greater representation and influence for developing countries and the Global South.
France warned about what President Emmanuel Macron described as a return to a world where force could replace rules and stronger countries could determine the future of weaker ones. His answer was stronger international law and multilateral institutions.
Brazil and South Africa spoke repeatedly about giving the Global South more control over decisions affecting its people, resources and development. South Africa called for permanent African representation on the UN Security Council, arguing that a continent representing a large part of the world’s population remains largely outside the most powerful decision-making body in the international system.
These debates are not distant from Samoa.
Pacific leaders have already recognised the effect of increasing competition between larger powers. The Pacific Islands Forum’s 2050 Strategy was developed after regional leaders identified intensifying geostrategic competition as one of the pressures increasing Pacific vulnerability. The strategy says Pacific cooperation must protect the region’s ocean, island resources, cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and right to determine its own future.
A Pacific Islands Forum security assessment has gone further, saying Pacific nations will increasingly have to balance outside interests against their own sovereignty and national and regional security interests. It recommends careful examination of the long-term risks and benefits attached to projects and offers from external partners.
For Samoa, the changing world order is therefore not simply about deciding whether the United States or China is more powerful.
India does not want the world divided into two camps. Saudi Arabia disagrees with Iran over regional security while strongly supporting a Palestinian state. Türkiye remains part of NATO while maintaining relations with Russia and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Brazil argues that Latin America should not be treated as the backyard of another power. South Africa wants greater African control over global decisions.
Countries are looking for room to protect their own interests while maintaining relationships with several competing powers.
Samoa will have to do the same.
The meaning of national sovereignty is also becoming wider.
For most of our history, sovereignty has been understood mainly through control of land, borders and government. The UN speeches show that governments are increasingly talking about sovereignty through technology, finance, energy, resources, information and data.
Guterres described data, computing capacity and algorithms as new sources of concentrated power. He warned that technological power was increasingly moving into the hands of a small number of companies and countries.
India said each nation should have the ability to develop AI systems according to its own national priorities. China called for AI development that benefits wider society and reduces the digital divide. France argued that countries should not become completely dependent on a few foreign companies or on the technological systems of the United States and China.
Brazil was even more direct about control of technology. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva warned about the concentration of technological power among large companies and called for stronger regulation of artificial intelligence and digital platforms.
These questions are already arriving in Samoa.
In April this year, the Government launched the National ICT Policy 2025/26–2030/31 and the National Cybersecurity Strategy. They cover digital public infrastructure, digital identity, digital payments, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure and the use of artificial intelligence in government services, financial inclusion, disaster preparedness and climate resilience.
In September, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology described Samoa’s developing digital public infrastructure as a foundation similar to roads, wharves and the electricity grid. It includes digital identity, digital payments and systems allowing government agencies to exchange verified information with the consent of citizens.
These developments can improve public services and make life easier for Samoans. They also mean decisions about technology can no longer be treated simply as decisions for an IT department.
Who designs these systems, where information is stored, who can access it, who maintains the infrastructure, which foreign companies supply the technology, whether Samoa can move from one provider to another and who owns the information generated by these systems are questions of national importance.
The same argument is appearing around natural resources.
Brazil told the General Assembly that its critical minerals and rare earths belonged to the Brazilian people. Lula said access to those resources would be linked to value being created inside Brazil, technology being transferred and Brazilian strategic industries benefiting from extraction.
South Africa made a similar argument for Africa. Its representative said Africa’s critical minerals should help development within Africa and that African countries should have a role in determining the rules governing both minerals and artificial intelligence.
Guterres said countries and communities producing critical minerals should retain a greater share of the value created from those resources rather than repeating older patterns of extraction where most of the wealth left the producing country.
There is a lesson here for Samoa.
Our ocean, fisheries, land, cultural knowledge, telecommunications infrastructure, data and any natural resources that may become commercially valuable in the future should not be considered only by asking how much money someone is willing to pay for access.
The more useful questions are how much value remains in Samoa, what knowledge is transferred to Samoans, who owns the resulting businesses and intellectual property, what environmental responsibilities remain after the investor has gone, and whether Samoa retains control over the resource and the decisions surrounding it.
The arguments over Gaza and Ukraine add another part to the picture.
Netanyahu’s address placed military strength and the defeat of armed enemies at the centre of Israeli security. Trump also spoke extensively about strength and deterrence. Zelenskyy argued that Ukraine requires weapons and economic pressure on Russia before peace can be secured. Iran said countries require enough strength to prevent themselves from being dominated. Russia justified its own military actions through its interpretation of security and the international system.
Other speakers placed greater emphasis on international law and negotiation. India called for an end to war and diplomatic settlement. China called for dialogue and consultation. Brazil argued that diplomacy was the only viable way to end the Russia-Ukraine war. Jordan said military force could not by itself return displaced people or create a meaningful peace. France argued that international law exists precisely so force does not become the only method available when states disagree.
The disagreements are substantial, particularly over who started conflicts, who is acting defensively and whose interpretation of international law should prevail. What the speeches show clearly is that governments continue to rely on both power and rules. Even countries calling for diplomacy invest heavily in their own security, while countries relying on military strength still seek international recognition for their actions.
Small countries have to understand that reality.
Samoa needs relationships with larger countries. Development assistance, trade, education, infrastructure, security cooperation, climate finance and technology partnerships are necessary parts of modern international relations.
Those relationships do not remove the national interests of the countries offering them. Samoa also has national interests.
A good relationship should allow both sides to acknowledge that.
The Pacific has sometimes been discussed as though our islands are empty spaces between larger powers. They are not. Pacific countries have governments, populations, cultures, resources, territorial waters and political interests of their own. The Pacific Islands Forum’s 2050 Strategy places Pacific people, culture, resources and regional decision-making at the centre of its vision rather than allowing the region to be defined only through the strategic interests of outsiders.
Samoa’s new Pathway for the Development of Samoa 2026/27–2030/31 also identifies strategic diplomacy, national security, digital transformation, resilient infrastructure and protection of natural resources as national priorities.
The changes being discussed at the United Nations will therefore meet decisions Samoa is already making at home.
Earlier, Samoa Newshub published who will own Samoa’s future.
Ownership is not limited to whose name appears on a land title. A country can retain legal sovereignty while becoming heavily dependent on systems, capital, technology or expertise controlled somewhere else. Dependence does not automatically mean exploitation. Every modern economy depends on international relationships. The question is whether that dependence leaves Samoa with enough knowledge, capacity and freedom to continue making its own decisions.
Samoa does not have to withdraw from the world to protect itself from these changes. Isolation would bring its own problems. It needs the ability to understand what is being offered, negotiate from knowledge, preserve control over strategic assets and recognise where a short-term benefit could create a long-term dependency.
The speeches from New York show countries large and small thinking carefully about these questions.
Brazil is asking who benefits from its minerals. India is asking who controls technology and global institutions. South Africa is asking who gets a seat at the table. France is asking what protects smaller states when powerful countries ignore international law. China and Russia are asking who should hold influence in the international system. The United States is placing renewed emphasis on national power and strategic advantage. Guterres is asking how power itself can be governed before it overwhelms the institutions created to control it.
Samoa should be asking its own questions with the same seriousness.
The world being built now will influence where our information is stored, who finances our infrastructure, who develops our technology, who has access to our resources, who receives the economic value created from them and how much freedom future Samoan governments will have when making decisions.
The larger question is whether Samoa will continue to have the practical ability to make these decisions for herself.
