Trans-Tasman defence alignment deepens amid global instability: NZ’s sovereignty risks and opportunities in a militarised Pacific

Māori and Pasifika perspectives view the ANZAC alliance as a continuation of colonial militarism that disrupts Indigenous sovereignty and relational security frameworks. Traditional knowledge systems, such as *kaitiakitanga* (guardianship), prioritise ecological and community resilience over state-based security, yet are sidelined in mainstream defence discourse. The framing also ignores how NZ’s military alignment with Australia and the US undermines the *Te Tiriti o Waitangi* (Treaty of Waitangi) obligations to protect Māori interests, particularly in resource-rich regions like Taranaki, where defence infrastructure encroaches on sacred lands.

The ANZAC alliance traces its roots to 19th-century colonial military cooperation, formalised during WWI as a tool of British imperial expansion. Post-WWII, the alliance evolved into a US-aligned security network, embedding NZ within Cold War militarism and later the ‘War on Terror.’ The 2010s saw a resurgence of defence alignment under the guise of ‘shared threats,’ despite Pacific nations’ growing calls for demilitarisation, as seen in the 2018 *Boe Declaration*’s emphasis on human security over traditional military threats.

Pacific Island nations have repeatedly rejected external militarisation, as evidenced by the 2019 *Pohnpei Ocean Statement* and the 2022 *Fiji-led Pacific Security Outlook*, which prioritise climate adaptation and economic sovereignty. In contrast, Western security narratives frame the Pacific as a ‘strategic vacuum’ to be filled by great powers, ignoring the region’s own security architectures, such as the *Melanesian Spearhead Group*’s non-aligned stance. Indigenous Pacific leaders, such as Fiji’s former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, have condemned defence pacts like AUKUS as neo-colonial impositions that destabilise the region.

Security studies literature increasingly critiques the efficacy of military alliances in addressing modern threats like climate change, pandemics, and cyber warfare, which require cooperative, non-militarised solutions. Research on Pacific security highlights how defence infrastructure (e.g., naval bases, surveillance networks) exacerbates ecological degradation and social fragmentation, undermining resilience. Meanwhile, climate science underscores the Pacific’s vulnerability to rising sea levels, which defence alliances do little to mitigate, despite being framed as ‘stability-enhancing.’

Pacific art and storytelling, such as the *vaka* (canoe) traditions of Polynesia, symbolise resilience and interconnectedness, offering an alternative to militarised security narratives. Māori *waiata* (songs) and *haka* often critique state violence, while Pacific artists like *Michel Tuffery*’s *Povi* (bull) sculptures challenge colonial militarism through metaphorical resistance. Spiritual traditions across the Pacific, such as *mana* (sacred authority) in Māori cosmology, frame security as a collective, ecological duty rather than a state-controlled imperative.

Scenario modelling suggests that deepening defence alignment could entrench NZ within a US-led security architecture, increasing the risk of entanglement in great-power conflicts (e.g., Taiwan Strait tensions) while failing to address Pacific priorities like climate migration. Alternative futures include a Pacific-led security framework that centres Indigenous knowledge, climate adaptation, and economic sovereignty, as proposed by the *Pacific Islands Forum*’s 2050 Strategy. However, current trends point toward militarisation, with NZ’s 2023 Defence Policy Statement prioritising ‘strategic competition’ over human security.

Māori and Pasifika communities, particularly those in low-income urban areas and rural regions, bear the brunt of militarisation through land dispossession, pollution, and displacement. Women’s groups in the Pacific, such as *FemLINKPacific*, argue that defence alliances prioritise male-dominated security paradigms while neglecting gender-based violence and economic inequality. Climate-vulnerable communities, such as those in Tuvalu and Kiribati, are excluded from security debates despite facing existential threats, while their calls for climate reparations are sidelined in favour of military spending.