A “Pacific Peace Zone” Requires More Than Vibes
Fiji’s Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, just spoke at the Lowy Institute in Australia.
The speech positioned him as a self-appointed “apostle of peace”—an admittedly repentant move for a one-time coup-maker. Appealing globally—but also directly to his hosts—he literally preached peace, hoping to prevent the further fracturing of regional geopolitics and avert great-power war.
You can watch his full remarks here:
His vibes are welcome, and I share his ambitions—I am personally committed to figuring out how best to preserve peace in the Blue Pacific.
My concern, despite best intentions, is that what he’s calling for lacks a how. And that’s a huge problem because envisioning a “Pacific peace zone” directly conflicts with how policymakers in Washington, Canberra, Paris, and to some extent Beijing are actively treating the Pacific—as a frontier and sacrifice zone for geopolitics.
Let me explain.