Drug trafficking across the Pacific Ocean spurs delegates to focus on maritime security law enforcement.

Lea Koh | Australian Associated Press

---

In the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) conference today, delegates were alarmed to receive an update stating that a German naval vessel passing through Oceania noticed an illegal shipment of roughly 300 tonnes of drugs.¹ 

However, the German Navy could not apprehend the drug traffickers due to a lack of clear legislation on drug trafficking. 

When asked for comment, the anonymous German naval officer stated that he was “appalled”, proceeding to express his dismay at the lack of effective law enforcement in the Pacific Ocean.

“I can’t believe that there's so little enforcement on the high seas — people are bringing drugs around like Christmas presents!” 

This is not an isolated event, but rather something symptomatic of a larger problem. 

The Pacific nation has increasingly been a site of spillover for transnational crime from regions such as Southeast Asia, due to gaps in the implementation of its drug trafficking laws. This has made the Pacific Ocean an increasingly important transit route for illicit drugs.² 

In the PIF, this incident has prompted delegates to finalise an agreement on the question of maritime security and law enforcement, in order to prevent similar incidents from happening again within their waters. 

This marks a shift from the previous day, as delegates have decided to focus specifically on maritime security rather than reducing reliance on foreign aid. 

The CMPS is mirrored by the Blue Shield Security Compact (BSSC) from the delegation of the US, which promises “information exchange networks”, with “bi-monthly meetings of country representatives”. 

Additionally, the delegation of Papua New Guinea (PNG) proposed a Pacific Capacity Resilience Framework, which would entail the “facilitation of training from countries with expertise in defence”. 

Clearly, these two solutions are very similar to the two ideas outlined in the CMPS, as they touch on topics of sharing intelligence, as well as training with foreign countries. 

Aside from the overlap in solutions, offers of assistance from various foreign powers have been brought up by the delegates of France, the US, and the People’s Republic of China. 

Currently, as most delegates are in agreement that advanced technology is needed, the members of the PIF seem to be open to accepting foreign aid. 

After all, considering the low level of development of some Pacific countries, external assistance in terms of funding and intelligence sharing could prove to be invaluable. 

Australia has stated that they are open to “co-operation with the US and possibly China”. 

When asked for comments, the PNG said that they were willing to “work with [external powers]” on the condition that they work with a “Pacific-First approach”, without threatening their sovereignty.

It is evident that the Pacific nations remain wary of foreign economic interference, due to the concern that countries receiving external funding would be affected by foreign interests. 

Notably, the delegation of New Zealand emphasised that “external powers” should not be able to “make decisions” under any accepted framework. 

“Decision-making should be limited to the members of the PIF, though we can still accept support from other countries.” 

This concern over funding extends to members in the PIF as well, with the delegation of the Marshall Islands advocating for an Australia-funded framework, the Pacific Maritime Security Program, to be subsumed under a more general framework. This would prevent the agreement from being entirely Australia-led. 

The smaller nations of the PIF are keenly aware of the dangers associated with accepting funding from more developed countries, a promising trait that may prevent complications such as debt-trap diplomacy. 

The delay in forming a practical solution has been noted by multiple delegates, with some displeasure. For example, the delegation of Papua New Guinea described the situation as delegates being “split between different acronyms for similar frameworks”. 

This was followed by the Republic of Fiji’s assertion that the council was discussing the “same solution in different fonts”. 

Although there have been many calls for the council to work together and consolidate its solutions, some friction has been slowing down the process.

This could be due to a lack of knowledge on exactly which parts of each individual framework are in alignment. 

Still, it seems likely that progress will be made on the consolidation of solutions, as the delegates of the PIF are all in agreement with certain aforementioned measures.

Bibliography

‘Pacific Islands: Spillover Threats from Transnational Organised Crime | Lowy Institute’. Accessed 10 December 2025. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/pacific-islands-spillover-threats-transnational-organised-crime.

Tumblr. ‘@pif-Prepmun25 · Pacific Islands Forum’. Accessed 10 December 2025.

https://www.tumblr.com/pif-prepmun25.