Ocean of Peace Alliance – Asia Pacific Report

Has the Pacific’s Ocean of Peace concept been hijacked?

APR editor — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 00:34:24 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

As geopolitical tensions increase in the Pacific region and numerous security alliances are rapidly forged, questions are being raised over whether the Ocean of Peace concept is being hijacked.

The Ocean of Peace Declaration was made last year by members of the Pacific Islands Forum, recognising the role of civil society in peacebuilding.

However, the emphasis of the initiative seems to have quickly shifted.

Australia and Fiji take the lead
Australia last week signed the Vuvale Union and Ocean of Peace Alliance treaties with Fiji, the latest in a series of regional pacts Canberra has forged with Pacific Islands countries.

“The Vuvale Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance have a really strong regional component,” Australia’s High Commissioner in Suva, Peter Roberts said in a post on X.

He said the new treaties underlined Fiji’s position as a regional leader.

“I think we’ve all seen during this fuel crisis how important Fiji is as a hub. And we’ve seen on security matters how important Fiji is as a regional leader, including through Prime Minister Rabuka’s vision for the Ocean of Peace.”

According to Roberts, the treaties empower Australia and Fiji to support the Pacific region in efforts against security threats such as transnational crime, cyber crime and illegal fishing.

“Including in this Fiji and Australia supporting the establishment of the Ocean of Peace Centre, in close cooperation with the Pacific islands Forum. So you’ll see Australia and Fiji standing together in support of the stability and prosperity of the region.”

Value for money
The Vuvale Union is backed by around A$1 billion in funding for Fiji by Australia over a decade, while Australia is also funding the Ocean of Peace Centre to the tune of around A$22 million.

Geopolitical commentator Dr Connor Graham from the Lowy Institute said Australia sees great value for money in these arrangements.

He said Australia was driven by the aim of keeping China out of Pacific waters and maintaining its position as the dominant security partner in the region.

“I’d note as well, a billion dollars over 10 years is a lot of money. But it’s relatively small fries in terms of defence, and the rest of the defence budget and militarisation. So I think this sort of defence through diplomacy is quite a cost effective use of money.”

While Canberra notches a big diplomatic win, regional civil society has been left wondering where it all leaves the Ocean of Peace Declaration.

Shift away from peacebuilding?
The declaration came together off the back of significant engagement with — and made provision for the leadership of — Pacific civil society in peacebuilding, especially women and Indigenous communities.

“This meaningful inclusion was celebrated and consultation followed on the premise of institutional support for conflict prevention and mediation initiatives grounded in culture, like those that were so successful with the Bougainville conflict, or in bringing Kiribati back into the Forum,” Pacific historian and AUT lecturer Dr Marco de Jong said.

But now, with the signing of the Ocean of Peace Alliance and plans to establish the Centre, the language has shifted from being about conflict prevention, peacebuidling and mediation towards deterrence, and the countering of China through military means.

It coincides with the plan of the Australian-led Joint Heads of Pacific Security to insert itself into the Pacific Islands Forum-led regional security architecture, and to advance a regional deployment framework

Joey Tau, the coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation and the chair of the Pacific Regional NGO Organisations Alliance, said that as civil society, they welcomed the original Ocean of Peace initiative

“But our main concern is that we hope such a declaration is not coopted or used as a strategy to advance external security and military interest of external parties.”

He said the Ocean of Peace concept should be something that draws from existing regional priorities and responds to legacy issues for the Pacific.

These include self-determination problems in West Papua and Kanaky New Caledonia; the planetary biodiversity crisis; exploitation of ocean resources; nuclear testing and new threats of nuclearisation in the region.

“One, the Rarotonga Treaty, which declares our region is a nuclear-free region, and secondly, other initiatives as such, need to be informed by the Pacific. And when I say Pacific, Pacific peoples.

“With the proposal of a peace institute, I think it needs further consultation. It needs to be informed by Pacific people, and one that is not determined by external parties.”

Women and peacebuilding
Pacific Women Mediators Network coordinator of political engagement Sharon Bhagwan-Rolls is concerned about the lack of focus on peacebuilding in how the Ocean of Peace initiative is being developed.

“For us, demilitarisation is at the top of the agenda,” she told RNZ Pacific.

“You can’t talk about peace with simply saying that it is the absence of violence or conflict. We have to talk about peacebuilding in the operationalisation of the Ocean of Peace Declaration, and that has been clear for us from the start.”

She said it was important not to see peace building as simply a regional security agenda.

“It is critical that the future or the operationalisation of the Ocean of Peace Declaration through the Pacific Islands Forum needs a stronger focus on peace building in practice, not simply from seeing peace through a traditional security or militarised lens, but through a civilian lens, through a civil society lens, through a people-centered lens.”

“It’s important that we don’t just see peacebuilding as simply a regional security agenda,” Bhagwan-Rolls said.

“We feel that there is a need in forging alliances to also support the forging of peace-building alliances and not just security alliances, and that peace cannot just simply stand as a word of inaction, but we talk about transformative peace.”

As far as the Ocean of Peace Centre is concerned, Dr de Jong said its ultimate purpose had not been made clear, leading to speculation within regional civil society.

“Certainly, regional civil society asked for a peace centre, but maybe they got a military base instead,” he said.

“This has, in effect, shifted the focus of the Declaration itself towards deterrence, and the countering of China through military means.”

Things are moving fast
Regional civil society is also concerned that the Ocean of Peace initiative is being dominated by Australia and Fiji — not necessarily with Pacific regional buy-in

Tau said that to declare something as regional required wider consultation, not just an agreement between two countries.

“Anything of a peace regional peace institute or anything further along those lines needs proper consultation,” he told RNZ Pacific.

“So I must caution: what stems from a bilateral agreement should not very much impact the regional steps. We have to caution ourselves around that, it calls for wider consultation, and I think that that is the proper process of informing policy.”

Bhagwan-Rolls said they would continue as a civil society peace building network, and as a feminist peacebuilding network, to bring attention to the priority issues from their members and communities right across twenty Pacific Island countries and non-independent states.

She called on the foreign ministers of the Pacific Islands Forum to ensure things don’t move too hastily and that substantive consultation with civil society peacebuilders takes place.

This story was first published on

Jeremy Rose: New Zealand joins the arms race to climate calamity

APR editor — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:02:35 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

Late last year, the British government suppressed a report that contained warnings from its intelligence agencies that climate change could drive mass migration and trigger a nuclear war in Asia.

A copy of the report, obtained by The Times, warned of collapsing ecosystems potentially triggering acts of eco-terrorism, and the possibility of NATO being drawn into conflicts over remaining breadbaskets in Russia and Ukraine.

It said: “Forests in Canada and Russia might pass a tipping point by 2030, as might glaciers in the Himalayas that fed rivers on which two billion people depended.”

In Australia, a 2022 climate change threat assessment by the Office of National Intelligence was described as “terrifying” by Senator David Pocock.

Similarly to the UK, the Albanese government has refused to release the full report.

A 2018 New Zealand Defence Force assessment declared climate change “one of the most significant security threats of our time, and one that is already having adverse impacts both at home and in New Zealand’s neighbourhood.”

New Zealand’s “neighbourhood” — otherwise known as the South Pacific — is on the frontlines of climate change, with low-lying atoll nations like Tuvalu and Kiribati predicted to be uninhabitable by the end of the century.

Pacific in forefront
Pacific Island nations have been at the forefront of efforts to force the world — particularly the rich world — to act.

Last year’s historic advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found that countries have a legally binding obligation to address climate change, was initiated by Vanuatu.

The contrast between New Zealand and Australia’s reactions to the court ruling and the existential threat faced by our neighbours, versus their response last week to China’s ballistic missile test which landed in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, is instructive.

Vanuatu Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu has criticised both New Zealand and Australia for continuing with fossil fuel exploration and warned they could find themselves in court on the wrong side of the ICJ ruling.

New Zealand is ranked 44th on the Climate Change Performance Index, down from 28th in 2021. Australia is 56th of the 63 countries (plus the European Union) included in the index.

When it comes to dealing with the existential threat of climate change, both countries are laggards.

But when it comes to updating their military hardware for interoperability with US forces in the new Cold War with China, they’re keen to be seen at the front of the pack.

‘Biggest peacetime increase’
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles has boasted that the country is seeing the “biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our nation’s history”.

The defence budget is projected to hit A$96.6 billion by 2033, or 3 percent of GDP.

New Zealand has committed to doubling its defence spending from the current 1 percent to 2 percent in the next eight years.

Its recent purchase of five US-built MH-60R Seahawk helicopters, costing NZ$2.6 billion, was made with the expressed intention of making New Zealand’s armed forces interoperable with the US military.

Officially, New Zealand’s only military ally is Australia, but with its commitment to interoperability, regular military secondments, and participation in joint exercises, nuclear-free New Zealand is a card-carrying member of the Western alliance. (Former Labour prime minister Jacinda Ardern spoke to a NATO conference in Madrid in 2022.)

Both Australia and New Zealand are justifying the billions of dollars being spent on high-end killing machines by hyping up the so-called China threat.

Leaders on both sides of the Tasman were quick to pounce on last week’s ballistic missile test by China as evidence of a growing military threat.

Unacceptable, unwelcome
New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said it was unacceptable, unwelcome, and concerning.

“This is an intercontinental ballistic missile test, the second that we’ve seen in recent years, having not had one in the region for 40 years, from China,” RNZ reported him saying.

“We are living in a region that is proudly nuclear free … we don’t want to see increasing militarisation in our region.”

What was left unsaid is that, according to The New York Times, the US tests between five and 10 Minuteman missiles every year, and both New Zealand and Australia are ramping up purchases of military hardware — massively increasing the militarisation of the region.

Australia, a signatory of the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, has three nuclear-powered submarines on order at a cost of more than A$300 billion.

If Prime Minister Luxon was truly concerned about the increasing militarisation of the South Pacific, he would not be expressing interest in New Zealand joining Australia and Fiji in the “Ocean of Peace Alliance” announced last week.

Last month, the New Zealand Defence Force announced its first Harpoon missile launch from a P-8A Poseidon aircraft during a joint military exercise with the armed forces of the US, Australia, Canada, and Japan in the Philippine Sea. Image: NZ Defence Force

Peace needs climate justice
Following the announcement of Fiji’s first-ever military alliance, the Pacific Elders Group — whose membership includes former heads of state — released a strongly worded statement reiterating its position that climate change is the region’s most urgent concern:

“An Ocean of Peace cannot be built on a narrow security agenda. Peace cannot be separated from climate justice or from the forces that produce insecurity in Pacific lives: climate change, fossil fuel dependence, extractive industries, militarisation, nuclear legacies, gendered violence and the denial of self-determination. These are the challenges that any genuine Pacific peace agenda must confront.”

Sadly, New Zealand and Australia’s actions suggest they are more committed to militarisation than climate action.

The two missiles fired — estimated cost between NZ$3 million to NZ$6 million — were supplied to New Zealand by Australia.

Millions of dollars blown on sinking a decommissioned warship that could have gone to, say, providing half a dozen Pacific Island villages with solar panels, rather than ramping up a new Cold War.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published by his Substack Towards Democracy.

Jeremy Rose: The nuclear-free Pacific and hypersonic hypocrisy

APR editor — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:00:33 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

On March 5 of this year, the United States launched a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. Travelling at speeds of more than 24,000 km/h, it landed near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, 6700 kilometres away, 24 minutes later.

Minuteman III missiles can deliver up to three separate nuclear warheads, each more than 20 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

On March 3, 2025, the Marshall Islands formally announced its intention to join the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone by signing the Treaty of Rarotonga.

Searches of The New Zealand Herald and Stuff websites for stories about the missile test, and the signing of the treaty come up empty.

And yet, on Tuesday, both The Herald and The Post led with news that China had test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in the Pacific. Neither report made any mention of the at least 15 ballistic missile tests fired into the Pacific by the US since 2021.

How many missiles has the US fired into the Pacific — did Australia protest those?

Here are the dates that the US test fired nuclear-capable ICBM missiles 7,000kms into the mid-Pacific:

•2026: March 5, June tbc.
•2025: February 19, May 21, November 4.
•2024: June 4,… pic.twitter.com/v6nxkRGA9U

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) July 7, 2026

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters and his Australian counterpart, Penny Wong, were both quoted as saying the Chinese missile test went against the intent of the Treaty of Rarotonga.

“The Pacific Islands Forum leaders have made clear that they want the Pacific to be an ocean of peace. We believe this test is inconsistent with that objective,” Wong said.

Wong isn’t wrong.

Kiribati criticised US test
In 2024 Kiribati publicly criticised an earlier test of a Minuteman III missile that also landed in the Ronald Reagan Space and Missile Test Range located near the Kwajalein Atoll. As the name suggests, the tests are a regular occurrence.

A statement from the President’s Office, reported by RNZ, said Kiribati objected equally to China and the US using the South Pacific for test-firing nuclear-capable missiles.

“Kiribati continues to advocate for the cessation of weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean and urges global cooperation to ensure the peace, security, and stability of our shared environment. We remain committed to protecting the peaceful future of the Pacific and safeguarding the well-being of future generations.”

It is a thought — almost — echoed by Winston Peters in his response to the Chinese test: “This missile was fired into the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone established by the Treaty of Rarotonga. China’s action goes against the object and intent of that Treaty.”

You will search long and hard to find any similar criticism of the US missile tests by Ministers Peters and Wong. That is despite the people of the Marshall Islands themselves and the leaders of neighbouring countries making it clear any testing of ballistic missiles in the Pacific goes against the spirit of the Treaty of Rarotonga.

The Chinese missile test is widely being reported as a response to Australia and Fiji’s signing of the Ocean of Peace Alliance the previous day.

Without confirmation from China, it is impossible to know for certain, but it seems likely that the alliance — which New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has expressed interest in signing up to — is seen as a ratcheting up of military tensions in the South Pacific.

When it comes to the “object and intent” of the Treaty of Rarotonga, mentioned by Peters, few if any of the signatories would have countenanced one of their members purchasing nuclear-powered submarines.

Australian nuclear submarines plan
But in 2023, Australia announced it was doing just that with the planned purchase of three nuclear submarines at an estimated cost of more than A$300 billion (about 15 times the combined GDP of the Forum countries excluding New Zealand and Australia).

Shortly after the announcement, then Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Damukana Sogavare told the UN General Assembly that his nation “would like to keep our region nuclear-free and put the region’s nuclear legacy behind us… We do not support any form of militarisation in our region that could threaten regional and international peace and stability.”

The legacy Sogavare mentions is nowhere felt more keenly than the Marshall Islands, where the US carried out 67 atmospheric nuclear tests between 1946 and 1956, resulting in sky-high rates of thyroid cancer.

The US has paid out just US$150 million in compensation despite the internationally mandated Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal having awarded more than US$2 billion in personal injury and property claims.

A survey by the Asia New Zealand Foundation earlier this year found that just 23 percent of New Zealanders viewed China as a threat, compared to 35 percent who saw the US as one.

The US has more than 5000 nuclear warheads with 1700 actively deployed; China has 620 with 34 deployed.

China has a long-standing policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, while the US refuses to rule it out.

When our leaders claim to be supporting Pacific countries in their commitment to a nuclear-free Pacific by rightly criticising China’s missile tests while steadfastly refusing to criticise the US regular testing of intercontinental nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, they are indulging in hypersonic hypocrisy.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published by his Substack Towards Democracy.