Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?

Credit: brutto film

Globally, there has been a 0.36% deterioration in average levels of peacefulness, as more countries increase militarisation against the backdrop of rising geopolitical tensions, conflict, and economic uncertainty.

But this statistic omits most Pacific island countries. In 2025, only three are ranked by the Global Peace Index (GPI): New Zealand in 3rd place, Australia in 18th, and Papua New Guinea in 116th out of 163 nations.

As regional dialogue about an ‘Ocean of Peace’ concept advances, a dedicated Pacific Peace Index—as suggested by Solomon Islands’ Professor Transform Aqorau at the July 2025 Pacific Regional and National Security Conference—might add further shape to an evolving political dialogue among Pacific Islands Forum member states.

But how is Pacific peace defined? How might a Pacific measure of peacefulness complement existing efforts to safeguard peace and security in the region?

Peace is more than the absence of conflict or violence; it is a global public good that enables people to live full, healthy, and prosperous lives without fear.

“Peace must serve the people, not geopolitics, not elites in the region, not distant interests,” Professor Aqorau says, articulating a vision for Pacific peace. Peace must also address broader factors affecting safety and well-being across the Pacific, particularly for women and vulnerable populations, says Fiji’s Shamima Ali.

Peace and development are two sides of the same coin. The Pacific 2050 Strategy for a Blue Pacific Continent places peace alongside harmony, security, social inclusion, and prosperity as a key element for attaining free, healthy, and productive lives for Pacific peoples. Delivering Pacific peace therefore entails securing well-being; protecting people, place, and environment; advancing development; and securing futures for present and future generations, including climate action and protection of sovereignty.

While global indices are often critiqued for omitting Pacific Islands data, relying on unilateral development and indicator bias, using poorly contextualised methodologies, or demanding significant resources to produce regional datasets, they can nonetheless usefully inform policymakers.

The current starting point for measuring and monitoring peace in the region is found in existing country commitments to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 (the ‘Peace Goal’).

The Pacific Roadmap for Sustainable Development has contextualised eight SDG 16 indicators for regional reporting that address experiences of violence, access to justice, civil registration and legal identity, transparency of public expenditure, and public access to information and views on participation in decision-making.

In 2022, a regional monitoring report led by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat found that limited data availability for SDG 16 hampered measurement of progress in the Pacific. This reflects global trends, where further investment is needed in data generation and statistical capacity.

The report also found that the Pacific was regressing in advancing effective institutions, transparency, and accountability.

But are SDG 16’s contextualised indicators sufficient to meet the expectations of the Boe Declaration on Regional Security and the Pacific 2050 Strategy’s Peace and Security pillar? Could this type of reporting serve as a potential proxy ‘Pacific Peace Index’?

Peace has deep roots in Pacific social and cultural structures.

Despite close alignment with regional strategies, the current SDG 16 indicators do not fully encapsulate the Pacific vision of peace.

Pacific Islands Countries’ policy commitments to peace are well-documented. Each year new initiatives are announced that respond to an expanded concept of security, ranging from traditional security cooperation to tackling gender-based violence, climate mitigation, humanitarian assistance, or investing in democratic processes.

But knowledge gaps remain about the contribution of locally driven peace initiatives to national and regional efforts, and how these contribute to overall Pacific well-being. Addressing these gaps would allow for a more comprehensive account of Pacific peace that could be factored into a Pacific Peace Index. For example, peacebuilding dialogues following the Bougainville crisis, Solomon Islands’ ethnic tensions, and Fiji’s coups have highlighted the importance of locally driven approaches, including traditional dispute resolution.

Telling a story of purposeful peace.

Pacific peace is more than a collection of data points or security projects. Peace is an evolving process, future-oriented and proactive.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa has stressed that peace must be “anchored in sovereignty, resilience, inclusion and regional solidarity.” Many Pacific scholars agree, arguing that there can be no real peace without addressing longstanding issues of colonisation, militarisation, restricted sovereignty, and justice, which continue to affect many Pacific islanders.

To tell a regional story means connecting, for example, Tuvalu’s international statehood recognition, the recent ICJ advisory opinion on climate change, nuclear legacies in the region, political instability, elections, and well-being measures, to the region’s vision of peace. Combined, these elements contribute to a cumulatively peaceful region.

Another tool is the Positive Peace Index, which measures the ‘attitudes, institutions, and structures that sustain and create peaceful societies’. It assesses socio-economic development, justice, good governance and effective institutions, inclusion, resilience, and diplomacy. A Pacific Peace Index could adapt this by incorporating Pacific indigenous philosophies of peace and values of social cohesion, well-being, and reconciliation—factors absent from existing global indices—and track the region’s progress, disaggregated by country.

Multi-country indices demand considerable capacity, so a State of Pacific Peace assessment may instead offer a simpler option. This could entail a dedicated section in the Pacific Regional Security Outlook report produced by regional organisations. Alternatively, the region’s academic institutions (via Track 2 mechanisms) could be invited to assist. Investing in peace summits would also provide opportunities for ongoing regional dialogue.

The emphasis, however, must be on building upon, not duplicating, existing regional mechanisms.

The opportunity of a Pacific Peace Index would be in owning and telling a coherent peace narrative that:

a) bridges security and development, and

b) reflects how the peace interests and dignity of Pacific peoples are being upheld over time.

As political dialogue about a Pacific ‘Ocean of Peace’ evolves, Pacific peoples’ visions of peace must drive any framing and subsequent action. Professor Aqorau offers further wisdom: “Our peace should not depend on choosing sides, but on asserting our needs, on our terms, and on our collective aspirations.”