Sub-regional security approaches need a strong foundation
Pacific Wayfinder’s new ‘Join the Conversation’ series invites scholars and policy practitioners to respond to a shared question through the lens of their expertise.
In this edition, writers consider the question: How can sub-regional security strategies align with and advance regional efforts under the Boe and Ocean of Peace declarations?
We invite you to join the conversation by leaving a comment below or submit your thoughts to psc@anu.edu.au.
Most Pacific Island countries now have national security policies and strategies.
Tuvalu and the Republic of the Marshall Islands are at various stages of domestic consultations, while another Pacific Islands Forum member – Australia – has yet to publicise a national security strategy.
As I have previously argued, developing national security strategies for our diverse and vast Pacific island geographies comes with many challenges, but their value in an era of intensified geopolitical and strategic competition remains significant. Not least because national security strategies are the foundation that underpins bilateral and multilateral security agreements, which in turn provide structure for the regional security architecture for the Boe Declaration.
However, we are all familiar with the plethora of policies that die because they either did not deliver real outputs or were inadequately invested in. When this happens nationally, it also affects sub-regional and regional outcomes.
Investing in foundational work to implement national security strategies helps to produce tangible outcomes for the communities they are designed to safeguard. But how do we measure their impact on our quality of life and security?
This is why I argue that national security strategies, and the sub-regional and regional advancement of security they underpin, must incorporate mechanisms for assessing performance and tracking progress.
We all want to see our region prosper but this won’t happen if there’s no plan for implementing policy. Such plans should include monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks, with budgets and clear goals.
In December 2026, Cook Islands will review its national security policy for the first time, based on a performance assessment framework designed to measure its effectiveness. Vanuatu and Samoa reviewed their national security strategies in 2022 and 2023 respectively, using metrics from targeted action plans and aligned to national sustainable development plans.
When national security strategies have clear M&E frameworks, it is possible to show and track progress on regional and sub-regional commitments to the Boe Declaration and Ocean of Peace.
Importantly, national security strategies in the Pacific do not operate in isolation of national sustainable development plans and priorities. Their measures of progress are intertwined. Fiji’s National Security Strategy is a prime example of this.
In this way, Pacific security policies and strategies reflect the epitome of the Boe Declaration: they bridge traditional and non-traditional security priorities – including development – by treating them as important to national security.
If sub-regional security strategies like the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) draft are developed, they need to include an operational plan and clear measures of progress. They must also avoid duplication and build on existing national policies and systems. The MSG is well-positioned in that four of its countries – Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu – already have national security policies. The MSG also already has a meeting mechanism for discussing policy implementation, which is invaluable for tracking progress.
But talk must be followed by action. And action must show positive impact for Pacific peoples.
Associate Professor Henry Ivarature is the Deputy Director of the Pacific Security College.
Views expressed via the Pacific Wayfinder blog are not necessarily those of the Pacific Security College. Read our publishing policy.
