A recent discussion on regional mobility highlighted the need for mobility pathways that uphold dignity, protect sovereignty and expand opportunities for Pacific peoples, writes Dr Akka Rimon.

Security in the Pacific is increasingly defined by climate pressures, socioeconomic shifts and environmental changes—forces that are reshaping daily realities across the region. Within this evolving landscape, mobility has emerged as one of security’s most contested dimensions: who moves, how, why and under what conditions. It sits at the heart of regional debates, acting as both a connector and a source of tension across communities.

This topic anchored a panel at the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue, featuring the Hon Simon Kofe, Tuvalu’s Minister for Transport, Energy, Communication and Innovation; Professor Yvonne Underhill-Sem of the University of Auckland; and Dr Henrietta McNeill-Stowers from the Australian National University.

Together, the panellists explored mobility’s deep cultural and historical roots, and its growing relevance amid labour migration, demographic change and climate change impacts.

The drivers of mobility today

Opening the discussion, Minister Kofe said that Tuvalu mobility today is shaped by longstanding pressures—environmental stress, resource scarcity, and aspirations for better education and employment opportunities – which have driven movement across generations and created structural issues the country must confront.

Professor Underhill-Sem highlighted an often-overlooked driver: curiosity, which shapes movement between villages and islands as an integral part of Pacific life. She pointed to the legacy of service-based mobility, particularly through wartime deployments, which have leaving lasting imprints on regional peace and security. Today’s mobility patterns, she noted, are more gendered with increasing participation of women while impacts of mobility are also being experienced in distinct ways.

Dr McNeill-Stowers reframed mobility through the lens of return, arguing that dignified mobility must encompass the ability to return home. Her research on deportations demonstrates that rising nationalism, stricter border regimes and coercive deportation practices have made return mobility a critical security concern requiring a whole-of-nation reintegration approach.

Staying or leaving?

At the 2026 State of the Pacific conference earlier this year, former prime minister of Samoa Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa posed the question of whether countries were creating conditions that enabled their people to have meaningful lives at home.

Responding to this provocation, Professor Underhill-Sem cautioned against the uncritical use of the Triple Win narrative in labour mobility. Drawing from her research across the region, she said that while remittances and returning skills have transformed communities, the inequities in schemes like New Zealand’s Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) program concentrate opportunities, fracture social cohesion, and risk allowing governments to neglect building viable economies at home.

Dr McNeill-Stowers extended this discussion by foregrounding the structural implications of large-scale outward mobility, noting that remittances must be understood alongside labour shortages, service gaps and vulnerabilities that arise when essential workers are overseas, especially during crises.

Minister Kofe positioned the provocation as a reminder for Pacific leaders to make home environments more attractive and viable, clarifying that the Falepili Treaty aims to expand choices rather than facilitate escape. He emphasised the need for incentives to retain skilled workers, pathways for diaspora return and innovations like the Digital Nation initiative to enable meaningful participation in national development from afar.

Protecting identity and belonging

The Pacific Guidance on Internal Planned Relocation emphasises that relocation must be people-centred and rights based, and that land issues must be resolved in ways that protect identity and belonging. The speakers agreed the guidance reflects core Pacific principles such as people-centred decision making, protection of rights and the safeguarding of identity and land, but each stressed that applying these principles in practice is far more complex.

Professor Underhill-Sem attests that mobility and land have long been negotiated and relational, with communities historically moving in response to environmental and political change, making planned relocation inseparable from deeper histories of belonging.

Rights-based, people-centred approaches must apply to all forms of mobility, said Dr McNeill-Stowers, noting that most movement is internal, unplanned and driven by necessity. Communities overwhelmingly want to remain connected to place, requiring community-led decisions and strong support systems, she said.

Minister Kofe emphasised that people must remain at the heart of any relocation or mobility policy, highlighting the cultural shock of moving abroad. He described the Digital Nation as a practical tool for safeguarding identity, heritage and continuity for Tuvaluans across generations and geographies.

Security and mobility

While mobility has long shaped Pacific politics, recent bilateral security agreements are now reshaping mobility in new ways.

Dr McNeill-Stowers emphasised the need to distinguish new agreements, emerging since 2017 amid heightened geopolitical competition, from longstanding frameworks enabling migration such as the Compact of Free Association or New Zealand’s free association with the Cook Islands and Niue. She said mobility was increasingly used as a bargaining tool and noted that Pacific leaders have consistently called for easier visa access. As a result, mobility provisions have become leveraged in new security deals, from Tuvalu’s Falepili Union to Vanuatu’s Nakamal Agreement, and even the expansion of Solomon Islands’ Pacific Engagement Visa share. She highlighted the Falepili Union as a model that enables dignified mobility, without requiring proof of climate harm.

Minister Kofe offered insight into Tuvalu’s negotiations over the Falepili Treaty, acknowledging early concerns about sovereignty, but explained how these were resolved through an explanatory memorandum that ensured national interests remained protected.

In sum, the discussions made one thing clear: that mobility is a continuum shaped by opportunity, risk, climate pressures, labour demands, demographic change and shifting geopolitics.

As the region confronts new mobility frameworks, amid emerging security agreements and intensifying economic and climate shocks, the challenge is not choosing between staying or leaving, but continually reviewing mobility settings to determine how security can be achieved through present day movement that upholds dignity, protects sovereignty, and strengthens futures Pacific peoples seek for themselves.

Dr Akka Rimon is a Research and Engagement Fellow at the Pacific Security College. This blog draws on insights shared during a panel on mobility at the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue. A recording of the panel discussion is available here.

Views expressed via the Pacific Wayfinder blog are not necessarily those of the Pacific Security College. Read our publishing policy.

At the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue, Sainimili Tawake offered a provocation on the future of peace and security in the Pacific, calling for persons with disabilities to be seen as central actors in shaping the region’s peace, security and development agendas.

I believe all of us want a future that is peaceful, resilient and inclusive.

We want a Pacific that embraces persons with disabilities and their issues, one where every person can live in dignity, safety, and with a lot of opportunities. But to realise that future we must ensure that persons with disabilities are treated not as an afterthought – they must be recognised as a central pillar to our peace and security agenda.

From the Pacific Disability Forum’s perspective, three things must happen.

First, we must embed disability equity and inclusion across the Blue Pacific 2050 agenda and all its processes, particularly within the peace and security space.

The 2050 strategy speaks to human security, climate resilience, inclusive development, and people-centered governance. Disability cuts across all these priorities. This means we must build inclusive disaster preparedness and response systems, invest in accessible infrastructures and services, recognise persons with disabilities as agents of peacebuilding, and ensure disability data is evidenced and reflected in every planning framework.

We must also recognise the growing burden of diabetes across the Pacific as both a public health challenge and a disability inclusion issue. Diabetes is increasingly contributing to preventable disability through amputation and vision loss, kidney failure, and other long-term complications, especially where early diagnosis, treatment, and foot care remain limited.

We need to scale up prevention, screening and early diagnosis at community level, expand access to affordable treatment, rehabilitation and assistive technology and services, invest in foot and eye care and kidney care, and ensure diabetes-related disability is reflected in health disability and social protection planning. Persons with disabilities who acquire diabetes must be effectively included in this prevention process.

We must also acknowledge the growing illicit drug crisis across the Pacific, particularly its impact on young people and on already stretched mental health services. Rising drug use is contributing to addiction, psychosocial distress, violence and contact with the justice system, while placing unsustainable pressure on psychiatric institutions and frontline health services.

This is also contributing to a rise in the number of persons with psychosocial disabilities, many of whom face stigma, exclusion and very limited pathways to support and recovery.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that there are only four organisations of persons with psychosocial disabilities across the region, leaving a significant gap in peer support, advocacy and community-based response.

Our response must be to strengthen prevention, early intervention and awareness for children, youth and families; expand access to community-based mental health addiction treatment and psychosocial support, and build stronger pathways to recovery, inclusion, and reintegration.

We must invest in organisations of persons with psychosocial disabilities, and coordinate law enforcement, health, education and social protection, so the burden does not fall on psychiatric institutions alone.

Second, we must fully implement the refreshed Pacific Regional Framework on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This framework is critical because it translates global commitments, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, into Pacific realities. That means strengthening national implementation mechanisms, supporting organisations of persons with disabilities as key partners in governance, and aligning disability rights with our security and justice systems.

Third, we must invest in institutional strengthening of organisations of persons with disabilities. This sits at the heart of the Pacific Disability Forum’s new agenda.

Our proposed new strategy – with a vision for an inclusive and equitable Pacific that enables persons with disabilities in all their diversity to assert and enjoy their rights as outlined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and other human rights conventions – places strong emphasis on strengthening national organisations of persons with disabilities, building regional coordination capacity, and advancing leadership of persons with disabilities, including women and youth.

Strong institutions are essential to peace, without them inclusion remains rhetoric, and rhetoric is not a reality.

Disability inclusion in a changing Pacific

Looking ahead, several mega trends will shape peace and security in the Pacific, and each has important implications for disability inclusion.

Climate change remains an existential threat. Intensifying disasters, displacement and growing pressures on fragile systems multiply the risks faced by persons with disabilities. Unless inclusion is built into every climate response, persons with disabilities will continue to be left behind during the impact of climate change.

Demographic shifts and urbanisation risk shaping our societies. Growing youth population and rapid migration to towns and cities create opportunity, but also increase the risk of exclusion, inequality and social tension if inclusion of persons with disabilities is not prioritised.

Digital transformation is opening up new forms of service delivery and participation, but if digital accessibility is not built in from the start, we risk creating a new layer of exclusion.

Geopolitical dynamics in the Pacific are shifting with increasing strategic competition and external influence in our region. In that context, our peace and security framework must remain Pacific-led, inclusive and grounded in community resilience.

Lastly, our understanding of security itself is evolving. Security is no longer only about borders, it is about human security, social cohesion, inclusion and equity. Disability inclusion must therefore be seen as central to the broader security agenda.

A path to peace for all

We like to say that the Pacific is a region of peace; that we hold a strong vision for the future. We also have real concerns that demand urgent actions.

• One major concern is the persistent invisibility of persons with disabilities. Despite repeated commitments, they remain underrepresented in decision-making and are often excluded from peace and security dialogue.
• A second concern is weak institutional capacity. Without strong institutions, policies are not implemented, and rights are not realised. That is why institution strengthening is at the heart of the Pacific Disability Forum strategy.
• A third concern is that climate and disaster responses are still too often not inclusive. We continue to see evacuation centres that are inaccessible and early warning systems that do not reach everyone.
• A fourth concern is the continued gap in data. We cannot plan for inclusion if persons with disabilities remain statistically invisible.
• And finally, we are concerned about the risk of widening inequality as the region develops. Those already marginalised may fall even further behind if we do not act deliberately and inclusively.

As we look to the future, several questions warrant reflection.

Are we truly including persons with disabilities at the decision-making table, or are we still consulting only after decisions have already been made?

How are our peace and security frameworks measuring inclusion and equity in practice? Are our disaster and security systems designed for the most vulnerable or for an average citizen who does not, in fact, exist?

What would it take to ensure every early warning system reaches every person?

Are we investing enough in organisations of persons with disabilities and institutions of governance and peacebuilding?

How can regional mechanisms better support national level capacity and leadership?

And if the Blue Pacific is truly about collective stewardship, who is still being left behind, and why?

The future of peace and security in the Pacific will not be secured by infrastructure or policy alone. It will be secured by strong and inclusive institutions, by empowered communities, and by a collective commitment that no Pacific Islander, especially persons with disabilities, is left behind.

The refreshed Pacific Regional Framework on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is the Pacific Disability Forum’s own strategy, has given us a road map. Now our task is implementation with urgency, with integrity and with inclusion of persons with disabilities – they must be at the centre of all these processes.

Sainimili Tawake is the CEO of the Pacific Disability Forum. This article is a lightly edited version of an address delivered at the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue.

Views expressed via the Pacific Wayfinder blog are not necessarily those of the Pacific Security College. Read our publishing policy.

Pacific Island governments need to create opportunities that support people to remain in their country, while also enabling mobility pathways that provide options for their communities, panellists at the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue have said.

Tuvalu’s Minister for Transport, Energy, Communication and Innovation, the Honourable Simon Kofe; Professor Yvonne Underhill-Sem, from the University of Auckland; and Dr Henrietta McNeill-Stowers, from the Australian National University, featured on the Regional cooperation for Pacific mobility, dignity and adaptation panel at the Dialogue.

The panel discussed the benefits and challenges of mobility in the Pacific, including workforce impacts, return migration, labour mobility schemes, and the need to provide people with meaningful choices about where they live and work.

They also outlined the motivations for some Pacific islanders leaving their home countries, including pursuing employment or education opportunities, and the importance of people having the option to leave and return as they wish.

Speaking from Tuvalu’s perspective, Minister Kofe said that in the past, one of the drivers of migration was the conditions on the island, including droughts or other times of insufficient resources.

“I think the same would apply today. The conditions is one thing that drives people to leave. In the context of Tuvalu, people are looking for better education for their kids, better job opportunities,” he said.

“As a government we need to have a hard think about that, because I think if all things were equal in terms of conditions at home and conditions of where they’re traveling to, I am pretty confident that everyone would choose to stay back in Tuvalu.”

Professor Underhill-Sem recognised the legacy drivers of mobility, including service-based mobility and the pursuit of economic opportunities, and the increase in the number of women moving.

“Some of the very early drivers of mobility were curiosity-based, and a lot of that was people interested in just even going to another village nearby or another island,” she said.

“Increasingly, the environmental changes and the political changes that are happening in our countries are also a driver of mobility in our countries, and the political changes kind of move into the social changes that are happening in places as well.”

The panel discussed the implications of mobility, including on the workforces in Pacific Island countries, and the reintegration of citizens who return home, either by choice or through forced relocation or deportation.

Dr McNeill-Stowers raised the issue of ‘return mobility’ and highlighted the impacts of immigration policy changes, particularly in the United States, on Pacific communities.

“True mobility with dignity means that people can come home whenever they choose, but for some they don’t necessarily choose that. [They] are forced home and may not have been home for a long time,” she said.

She said the return of deported citizens shouldn’t be treated solely as a law enforcement or national security issue.

“[We should be] thinking about whole-of-government approaches, churches, and village governance structures that can help people and communities accommodate and accept, so that they can live in a positive and peaceful way in their homes,” she said.

The panel also reflected on whether the region was building nations that encouraged citizens to remain, or building systems to send people abroad.

Professor Underhill-Sem discussed the effects of labour mobility schemes on the region.

“There are pros and cons to some of the recent labour mobility programs we’ve had,” she said.

“It’s not just the worker, it’s not just the country, it’s not just the home place that benefits, but there are a myriad number of other entities and agencies who are part of mobility.

“If we look around the region, we will see the places that have been built by remittances, that are occupied by people who have returned, and we can see those ways in which that’s been quite positive.”

However, Professor Underhill-Sem said the New Zealand Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) labour mobility scheme had demonstrated some of the other impacts, particularly as research showed some people had been returning to the program for 10 years or longer.

“It starts to make those divisions in our communities, those who’ve got things and those who don’t. So, that’s one thing we’ve got to keep in mind, that it’s not a simple case of those coming and going.

“The second thing is that it really does allow our governments to abrogate their responsibilities in terms of providing the economic basis for employment, and this is not an easy task.”

Dr McNeill-Stowers echoed the concerns about the implications of mobility on communities.

“What does it mean for Pacific Island governments to be able to deliver core services if qualified and experienced healthcare or national security professionals are away on seasonal work?

“What does it mean when a country has an economically vital tourism industry, but have to import labour because there aren’t enough people at home to be able to service that industry?”

Speaking of the Falepili Union Treaty, Minister Kofe said Tuvalu’s motivation for the agreement was to provide freedom for people to travel, but he acknowledged it had impacts on the labour force.

“We just want to give people that opportunity to travel, explore other places, get better education for their children. But it comes with consequences as well.

“It’s important to think about how we can motivate, incentivise our people to stay. Of course, better pay is one major incentive for people to stay. But I think also, from a leadership level, is to have a vision that people can buy into.

“There has to be that vision and that environment for them to come and input their skill, and so I think that’s a responsibility of leadership.”

Minister Kofe said trends such as the increase in remote work presented opportunities for Tuvalu.

“We have this vision of a digital nation. In this day and age, you don’t necessarily need to be physically in Tuvalu to serve the country. You can work remotely, and COVID showed us that is actually possible. We have a digital nomad sector that is thriving as well.”

Pacific youth advocates have called for increased mental health services to support young people, particularly those affected by the region’s drug crisis.

Speaking at the Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue, a panel of young Pacific thinkers discussed pressing security issues facing the region, including the drug and HIV crisis and climate change, and their impact on youth.

‘Looking ahead: today’s youth on a secure future for the Blue Pacific’ featured Pacific Youth Council Chairperson Mori-m Mahoney Mori; President of the University of the South Pacific Students’ Association ‘Isitolo Siale; Abdul Shaheed from Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC); Environmental and Cultural Consultant Vehia Wheeler; and Pacific Conference of Churches Youth Minister Coordinator Olivia Baro.

The panellists raised the importance of addressing the social and economic drivers behind rising drug use in the region, as well as the need for proactive steps to strengthen mental health support and expand opportunities for young people.

Mr Shaheed highlighted the initial “knee-jerk” reactions of governments as the crisis emerged in the region.

“The perspective with which we developed programs was that this is a maritime issue, there’s a border security issue, that this is a criminal activity. We did not look at the social factors that led us to this stage,” he said.

“For me, the drug crisis is not necessarily only a maritime or border issue, it’s a human security issue. It is about the fact that there are not enough economic opportunities for young people who then get very quickly ensnared with the bad actors…coming into the region, using the region as transit points, propagating the use of drugs.

“Until we look at this as a social problem, not as a political or legal problem only, and not criminalising everything that goes wrong with our social issues, we will not protect human beings; we will not protect Pacific Islanders.”

Ms Wheeler agreed the region should strive for more economic equality in terms of jobs and social services.

“I’m wondering if…these stark inequalities are pushing people to drug use. I think we should work towards a holistic means of creating a better society, more access to basic needs, basic services, and see how our societies can improve from there.”

Several of the panellists discussed the urgent need for more mental health support and facilities, including as a preventative measure.

Mr Siale, from Tonga, said governments must prioritise mental health.

“We tend to focus more on the actual crime itself, instead of focusing on the root causes,” Mr Siale said.

“Why are people turning to drugs? It encompasses a lot of social issues [and] inequality in our communities, in our countries.

“Our communities are not supportive of opportunities for people to be open and to be able to share their struggles mentally and emotionally. It is very important for our government to put more emphasis on creating safe spaces for people, not just young people, people of all ages.”

Mr Mori raised the high rates of suicide among young people in the Federated States of Micronesia, and the cycle between mental health, drug use and domestic violence. He said it was a common story across the region, but that some countries weren’t equipped to provide the necessary support.

“There are some countries that just don’t have mental health facilities,” he said.

He said the increasing detection of drug smuggling vessels caught in the region suggested the crisis was only going to increase.

“We must recognise that we have no regional facility to respond to this issue. There’s none, but there’s hope. Because we are very capable of coming together and establishing institutions and facilities to protect our tuna. I think we can do the same for our people.”

Mrs Baro said the Pacific Conference of Churches had partnered with other stakeholders, including the Ministry of Policing and civil society organisations, on a national pastoral response in Fiji, and was focused on the human and social aspect of the crisis.

She said collaboration was essential.

“The whole of society, whole of government and whole of community must address this together. We must paddle the waka together,” she said.

“If people are doing different paddling, we’ll go forward, we’ll go backwards, sideways, and then we overturn, which is something that we wouldn’t want, given the risk that we are facing.”

The panel also explored other security issues facing the region including climate change and the Pacific’s nuclear legacy.

Mr Shaeed, Engagement and Outreach Lead at PISFCC, which spearheaded the campaign to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on states’ obligations regarding climate change, said the resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in May was a step to operationalising the ICJ’s ruling.

He said it gave the region another tool in its efforts to drive global climate action, but also urged the Pacific countries to remain accountable for their obligations.

“We no longer go into COP begging for sympathy and empathy. We go into COP telling countries ‘you have a responsibility’, but that responsibility…does not only lie on states who are causing this harm. It lies on us in the region also. How many of us in the region have codified a right to a healthy environment for our people?

“We need to lead the world as frontline communities, but we also need to show that leadership back home.”

Ms Wheeler said Pacific youth should strive to maintain their agency and voice in addressing environmental and security issues in the region.

“In French Polynesia, we experienced 193 nuclear explosions from 1966 to 1996 and today we continue to face ongoing environmental impacts, ongoing health impacts,” she said.

“We have to make sure that we have our own agency when we’re talking about security, and that we’re building up our own security before privileging others and outside security.”

The 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent reminds us that security is not an end in itself, but part of a future we are deliberately shaping, one grounded in our shared values, identity, wellbeing, and responsibility to future generations, writes the Hon Simon Kofe.

The 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent is often described as a development strategy, but at its heart it is a values-based vision for our region.

What makes it distinctive is that it begins not with economics, infrastructure, or trade, but with our people, cultures, and identities. It recognises that development is ultimately a means of safeguarding the values that define us as Pacific peoples.

These values include stewardship of our environment, respect for one another, collective responsibility, solidarity, reciprocity, and a commitment to the wellbeing of present and future generations. They are values that have sustained Pacific societies for centuries and that continue to shape how we understand leadership, governance, development, and our relationships with one another. Particularly, our Pacific value of collective responsibility and collectivism has often guided and moulded us as a stronger region.

In this sense, our values are more than aspirations. They are the compass that guides our decisions and informs the systems we build. The question before us, therefore, is not simply how we respond to security threats, but whether we have the wisdom and conviction to allow our values to guide our collective response to an increasingly complex and uncertain future.

Our ancestors faced their own uncertainties. They crossed vast oceans in small vessels, navigating unfamiliar waters, changing weather, and unknown horizons. Yet they did so with courage, wisdom, and an unwavering belief that beyond the sikulagi  – the horizon – lay opportunity and a better future for their people.

They were guided by the knowledge, values and traditions passed down through generations. Today, as we confront new challenges, from climate change and transnational crime to technological disruption and geopolitical competition, we are called to demonstrate that same resolve. The horizon before us may look different, but the compass remains the same.

The challenges confronting our region today are not merely technical or policy challenges. They are, in many respects, tests of leadership, tests of institutions, tests of unity and ultimately tests of values.

Climate change, for example, is often described as an environmental crisis. But at its core, it is also a crisis of values and ethics. It forces us to confront questions of responsibility, stewardship, intergenerational justice, and our obligations to those who are most vulnerable. It asks whether our responsibility to future generations will prevail over short-term interests. It also highlights the necessity of unified global solutions.

Transnational crime presents a different challenge. It is not only a test of law enforcement capacity. It is a test of the integrity of our leadership, systems and institutions. Criminal networks thrive where governance is weak, where information is not shared, where borders are poorly coordinated, and where public trust is eroded. The success of these networks often depends not on their strength, but on our fragmentation.

While climate change and transnational crime may appear very different, both reveal the same underlying lesson. Climate change exposes the costs of fragmented global action. Criminal networks exploit fragmented national responses. In both cases, our vulnerability is often found not in the threat itself, but in the gaps between us.

Likewise, technological disruption and geopolitical competition challenge our judgement, our resilience, and our ability to remain anchored to our values and each other while adapting to a rapidly changing world.

Viewed through this lens, the question is not simply whether we can respond to these challenges. The question is whether the values we proclaim are sufficiently strong to shape the systems we build and the decisions we make.

For if values are the compass of the Blue Pacific, then our institutions, policies, and regional arrangements are the vessels with which we navigate. One without the other is inadequate.

Regionalism in an interconnected world

In Tuvalu, we are taught from an early age that membership in a family comes with responsibilities. We are expected to contribute, to show respect, to exercise discipline, and to place the wellbeing of the collective alongside our own interests. Similar values can be found across the Pacific, expressed differently in different cultures, but reflecting a common understanding that individual wellbeing is inseparable from the wellbeing of the community.

I believe these same principles can be elevated beyond the national level to the regional level. Because regionalism is not simply a political arrangement. It is the application of Pacific values at a larger scale.

But the environment we are operating in today forces us to go further in our reflection. The challenge is no longer simply whether we cooperate. The challenge is whether our cooperation is structured in a way that prevents fragmentation from weakening us.

Fragmentation is now one of the most persistent strategic vulnerabilities facing our region. It appears in differences in rules and standards, in uneven enforcement across jurisdictions, and in the ability of external players, whether criminal networks, commercial interests, or geopolitical actors, to exploit these gaps. Fragmentation rarely announces itself as a threat. Yet over time it erodes effectiveness, weakens resilience, and diminishes our collective influence.

This is where we can draw useful lessons from the experience of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement or the PNA. Formed to manage fisheries, specifically for skipjack tuna, the PNA recognised that fisheries could never be simply a national matter in the Pacific due to the movement of fish across national maritime boundaries.

I do not suggest that the PNA is a perfect model, nor that its arrangements can be directly transplanted into other areas. Rather, its significance lies in the values and principles that underpin it. By examining those foundations, we can identify patterns of success that offer useful insights for how we approach security challenges across our region.

The success of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement was not simply the result of cooperation. It was the result of deliberate choices made to harmonise conservation and management measures, coordinate access arrangements, establish common benchmarks, strengthen enforcement, and share information. In doing so, the PNA reduced the ability of external actors to exploit differences between states and strengthened their collective position.

Most importantly, the PNA demonstrated that in an interconnected world, sovereignty is often strengthened, not diminished, when states act collectively. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement increased their strategic influence by aligning their efforts around common rules, shared responsibilities, and a unified purpose.

That lesson extends far beyond fisheries. It has relevance for aviation, labour mobility, border management, maritime surveillance, immigration, cybersecurity, and regional security cooperation. In each of these areas, fragmentation creates vulnerability, while coordination creates strength.

We are already beginning to see this principle reflected in emerging regional initiatives such as the Pacific Blue Shipping Partnership, which was formally established in the Republic of the Marshall Islands just last week. The Partnership works alongside Pacific Transport Ministers to advance the decarbonisation of domestic shipping across the region and catalyse large-scale climate finance investment to transition to low carbon shipping.

While focused on maritime transport, its significance extends beyond shipping itself. It represents a recognition that many of the challenges facing our region can no longer be addressed effectively through isolated national responses alone. By pursuing common standards, shared objectives, and coordinated action, Pacific countries are demonstrating how regional cooperation can strengthen resilience while respecting national sovereignty.

This is why regionalism must be understood as more than an aspiration. In an increasingly interconnected and contested world, it is becoming a practical necessity for safeguarding both our interests and our independence.

Navigating the Blue Pacific future

The 2050 Strategy challenges us to think beyond immediate pressures and short-term responses. It asks us to consider what kind of region we are building, what values will guide it, and what responsibilities we owe to those who will inherit it.

Security therefore cannot be measured solely by the absence of conflict or the strength of enforcement institutions. True security is found in resilient communities, trusted institutions, effective governance, environmental stewardship, and a region capable of acting collectively when confronted with shared challenges.

The Pacific has never lacked courage. Our history is proof of that. The question before us is whether we can match that courage with the discipline, foresight, and unity required to navigate the challenges of this century.

Our ancestors understood that survival at sea depended on more than a destination. It required a clear sense of direction, confidence in the vessel, trust among the crew, and the wisdom to adapt to changing conditions without losing sight of the horizon. The same is true for our region today.

The compass remains our values.

The vessel is the system of institutions, partnerships, and regional arrangements we build together.

The voyage is the future of the Blue Pacific.

And the test before us is whether we have the leadership to ensure that our values are not merely spoken, but translated into the systems, decisions, and actions that will carry our peoples safely through the uncertainties ahead.

If we succeed, future generations will inherit more than secure borders, stronger institutions, or greater prosperity. They will inherit a region that remained true to its values when those values were tested most severely.

The Hon Simon Kofe is Tuvalu’s Minister for Transport, Energy, Communication and Innovation. This keynote speech was delivered at the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue.

Views expressed via the Pacific Wayfinder blog are not necessarily those of the Pacific Security College. Read our publishing policy.

As artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies spread rapidly across the Pacific, leaders are warning that the same tools creating new opportunities for youth, education and cultural preservation, also increase the risks of misinformation, online harm and social division.

Speakers on the Society, Peace and Security panel at the 2026 Pacific Peace and Security Dialogue explored the rapidly evolving cyber domain and escalating cybersecurity threats facing the region. The panel featured Kiribati’s Minister for Women, Youth, Sport and Social Affairs, the Honourable Ruth Cross Kwansing; Australia’s Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology, Ambassador Jessica Hunter; and President of the Media Council of Papua New Guinea, Neville Choi.

Minister Cross Kwansing said social media, AI and new technologies were introducing opportunities but also threats to Pacific societies, such as the prevalence of misinformation and the impact on youth mental health.

“The great paradox of what’s happening in the digital world is that what is bringing our best solutions and the greatest advancements of technology is also creating the biggest problems for us,” she said.

“We realise that the threat and the solution are sitting in pretty much the same device.”

Minister Cross Kwansing said a recent campaign led by Miss Kiribati to raise awareness of the prevention of teenage pregnancies was an example of the power of social media.

“In Kiribati, our youth are using social media in very powerful ways, and one of the campaigns that came out recently showed us just how powerful and viral this platform can really be,” she said.

However, she also raised concerns about the dangers that put communities at risk, particularly if users are not required to verify their accounts.

“Without this mandatory verification, it means that you can create a fake account, you can circulate things online that you shouldn’t be circulating, you can be a predator on young children, you can put up scams, and no one will ever catch you, all because you can hide behind a fake profile and a fake email,” Minister Cross Kwansing said.

“It really is a lawless environment when there’s no verification, and with that lawlessness, we see the further pervasive impacts that are reaching our communities and our Pacific communities.”

Sharing experiences from Australia, Ambassador Hunter emphasised the need for governments to mitigate the harms of the digital world on children and youth. She acknowledged the speed at which technology was shifting, and that governments and industry had a responsibility to move at the same pace to protect people.

“I see a shift in scale of connectivity, which brings communities together, brings generations in families together, brings remote villages into a digital world that gives them a digital voice. That scale is impressive and important, but with that I also see the scale of harm shift and change,” she said.

“We’ve seen seven out of 10 children who have received online abuse or have been exposed to material that they should not have been exposed to, often encouraged through AI assistant or AI companions.”

Ambassador Hunter outlined Australia’s approach to online safety – prevention, including building digital literacy; protection; and systemic change – and discussed the social media ban, which restricts access for people under 16 years of age. She said the motivation for the restriction was to make companies responsible for safety standards; to shift the social conversation about youth and social media use; and to ensure young people build digital skills before engaging online.

“Australia did make a very bold leadership decision; the first in the world to undertake a social media age restriction,” Ambassador Hunter said.

“None of our governments want to remove capability from our youth, because we want innovation, we want them to feel connected, we want them to be producers of digital solutions, but we need to help them understand how to engage it in a safe way.”

The panel also explored how ensuring Pacific values guide technological development could help the region navigate the digital age.

Mr Choi discussed the challenges of developing Papua New Guinea’s AI framework, including the lack of an appropriate AI frontier template that can be applied in PNG’s context, given the language and cultural diversity. He said PNG and other countries in the region had an opportunity to build their own technology,

“I would like to think that even though there are frontier AI models that are developed by bigger countries, that we have the knowledge and the technology and the innovation to build our own tools that are rested on Pacific values, that are rested on Pacific culture, and that are rested and supported by Pacific languages,” he said.

“We can’t keep playing by other people’s rules. We need to play by our own rules in the Pacific, and I think truth, information, culture, tradition, honesty, and accountability. Those are values that we still hold true.”