The Pacific cannot continue to naively fumble defence issues
From Suva, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale is asking the Pacific to imagine itself as something more than a collection of small nations navigating the ambitions of larger powers. Chairing the Pacific Islands Forum, Wale is pressing for a formal regional security agreement — one that would give Pacific nations a collective voice on drug smuggling, illegal fishing, and the deeper currents of great-power competition. The idea has found sympathetic ears in Canberra, Port Moresby, and Suva, though the distance between a growing consensus and a functioning agreement has humbled many well-intentioned proposals before this one.
- Pacific nations are watching great powers compete for regional influence and increasingly fear they have no meaningful say in the outcome.
- Drug smuggling networks and illegal fishing fleets exploit the absence of coordinated regional enforcement, giving the proposal its most concrete and urgent justification.
- Wale has spent weeks building political momentum — consulting Australia's Albanese, PNG's Marape, and Fiji's Rabuka — and claims leaders across the region recognise genuine gaps that a shared framework could fill.
- China's ability to negotiate separate bilateral deals with individual Pacific nations, as it did with Solomon Islands in 2022, would be significantly constrained by any formal regional security architecture.
- Australia is quietly constructing its own hub-and-spokes system of bilateral partnerships, raising questions about whether Canberra would accept a collective arrangement that limits its own room to manoeuvre.
- Security researchers warn that the Pacific already carries a dense web of overlapping agreements, and it remains unresolved whether a new framework would build genuine capability or simply add another layer to an already crowded landscape.
Matthew Wale arrived in Suva last week carrying an argument the Pacific has not yet fully reckoned with. As the Solomon Islands Prime Minister and current chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, he stood before the organisation's secretariat and made the case for something the region has never quite attempted — a formal, binding security agreement that would unite Pacific nations around shared defence principles and give them a collective voice in matters of strategic consequence.
Wale had been testing the idea for weeks, raising it with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra, then with Papua New Guinea's James Marape and Fiji's Sitiveni Rabuka in separate regional visits. The response, he told the ABC, suggested momentum was building. "I think there is a growing consensus," he said. "All the leaders that I have spoken to see that there is a genuine need, there are gaps that such an architecture would help to plug."
The practical problems are real: drug smuggling networks cross borders with impunity, and illegal fishing fleets strip Pacific waters with little consequence. But beneath these concrete challenges sits something larger — a region watching great powers compete for influence and wondering whether it has any agency in the outcome. Wale's argument is that the Pacific has been too passive, too willing to accept whatever arrangements external powers offer. A regional framework, he contends, would let Pacific nations set the terms by which outside security relationships operate within their waters.
The geopolitical implications are not lost on observers. A formal regional framework would make it far harder for Beijing to negotiate individual agreements with Pacific nations the way it did with Solomon Islands in 2022 — establishing shared expectations that would constrain China's room to manoeuvre, whatever Wale's stated intentions.
Australia has not fully embraced the proposal, though Pacific Minister Pat Conroy indicated openness to it, framing it as consistent with Pacific-led security. Behind the scenes, however, Canberra is already building a hub-and-spokes system of bilateral partnerships — a structure that gives Australia considerable influence while leaving Pacific nations to negotiate separately rather than collectively.
Security researcher Anna Powles sees both promise and peril in Wale's push. His urgency during his remaining two months as Forum Chair suggests he wants to establish momentum that successor chairs will feel obligated to carry forward. But she cautions that the Pacific already has a dense web of security arrangements, and it is far from clear whether a new framework would add genuine capability or simply layer another agreement onto an already crowded landscape. The tension between collective action and individual sovereignty remains real and unresolved — and the hard work of turning a growing consensus into a functioning agreement has only just begun.
Matthew Wale arrived in Suva last week with an idea that he believes the Pacific can no longer afford to ignore. The Solomon Islands Prime Minister, currently chairing the Pacific Islands Forum, stood before the organization's secretariat and made his case for something the region has never quite attempted: a formal, binding security agreement that would bind Pacific nations together around shared defence principles and give them a unified voice on matters of strategic importance.
Wale had been testing the concept for weeks. He'd raised it with Anthony Albanese during a visit to Canberra the previous month, then carried it to Papua New Guinea's James Marape and Fiji's Sitiveni Rabuka in separate trips across the region. The response, he told the ABC after his Suva speech, suggested momentum was building. "I think there is a growing consensus," he said. "All the leaders that I have spoken to see that there is a genuine need, there are gaps that such an architecture would help to plug."
The practical problems Wale wants to solve are real enough. Drug smuggling networks operate across borders with impunity. Illegal fishing fleets strip waters that belong to island nations with little consequence. But beneath these concrete challenges sits something larger: a region watching great powers compete for influence and wondering whether it has any say in the outcome. Wale's argument is that the Pacific has been too passive, too willing to accept whatever arrangements external powers offer. A regional framework, he suggested, would let Pacific nations assert their own agency and establish the rules by which outside security relationships operate within their waters.
Australia has not yet fully embraced the proposal, though the government's Pacific Minister Pat Conroy indicated openness to it last week, framing it as consistent with Pacific-led security. The opposition has already signalled it would pursue such an agreement if returned to power. Behind the scenes, though, Australia is already building what experts call a "hub and spokes" system of bilateral security partnerships across the region—a structure that gives Canberra considerable influence but leaves individual Pacific nations negotiating separately rather than collectively.
China's reaction to Wale's proposal remains uncertain, but the strategic logic is clear. A formal regional security framework would make it far harder for Beijing to negotiate individual agreements with Pacific nations the way it did with Solomon Islands in 2022. It would establish shared principles and expectations around external security engagement—rules that would constrain Beijing's room to manoeuvre. Whether Wale intends this as a direct response to Chinese influence or simply as good governance, the effect would be the same.
Anna Powles, a security researcher at Massey University, sees both promise and peril in what Wale is attempting. She notes that his decision to push the idea so aggressively during his remaining two months as Forum Chair suggests he wants to establish momentum that the next chairs—Palau and New Zealand—will feel obligated to carry forward. But she also warns that proposing an idea of this magnitude is far easier than making it work. The Pacific already has a dense web of security arrangements, bilateral treaties, and institutional commitments. It's unclear whether a new regional framework would add genuine capability or simply layer another agreement onto an already crowded landscape.
There's also the question of what Australia and New Zealand would actually accept. Both countries have their own security partnerships they want to protect. Both would likely resist any regional arrangement that constrained their ability to pursue independent security relationships in the Pacific. Wale has said that sovereignty among Pacific Islands Forum members remains "sacrosanct," but the tension between collective action and individual freedom is real and unresolved.
Wale told the ABC that he's already prepared a paper outlining how the agreement might function, suggesting his government has done serious groundwork. He and Albanese are also negotiating a separate bilateral treaty that Australia hopes to finalize by year's end. As the Prime Minister prepares to visit both Fiji and Solomon Islands next week, the regional security question will almost certainly dominate the conversation. What remains to be seen is whether the growing consensus Wale describes can survive the hard work of turning an idea into an actual, functioning agreement.
Citações Notáveis
There is a growing consensus among Pacific leaders that there is a genuine need, and gaps that such an architecture would help to plug— Matthew Wale, Solomon Islands Prime Minister
Proposing an idea of this magnitude is far easier than achieving it, and the region already has a dense security architecture with unclear implementation value— Anna Powles, Massey University security researcher
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Wale think the Pacific has been too passive on security?
He seems to believe that island nations have been accepting whatever security arrangements external powers offer them, rather than negotiating as a bloc with shared interests. The drug smuggling and illegal fishing are real problems, but they're almost symptoms of a deeper issue—that the Pacific doesn't have enough collective voice.
And China would see this as a threat?
Almost certainly. A formal regional framework would establish rules that make it much harder for Beijing to negotiate individual deals the way it did with Solomon Islands. It's not explicitly anti-China, but the effect is constraining. That's probably the point.
Does Australia actually want this?
Not clearly. Australia is already building bilateral security partnerships across the region—what experts call a hub and spokes system. That gives Canberra influence without having to negotiate as equals with a unified Pacific bloc. A regional framework might actually limit Australia's flexibility.
So Wale is asking countries to give up some autonomy for collective strength?
Exactly. He says sovereignty remains "sacrosanct," but he's asking leaders to accept that they're stronger together on security than negotiating separately. The problem is that Australia, New Zealand, and others might not see it that way.
Can he actually pull this off in two months?
He's trying to build momentum that the next Forum chairs will feel obligated to carry forward. But experts say proposing the idea is much easier than implementing it. The Pacific already has so many security agreements that it's unclear whether a new framework adds anything real.
What's the real test?
Whether the framework actually gives Pacific nations more agency or just becomes another layer of bureaucracy. And whether Australia and New Zealand will accept constraints on their own security relationships.