Becoming a Pacific Peacemaker

Major conflicts in the Pacific have historically arisen from colonialism and large power confrontation. Decolonisation in the Pacific has gradually removed the colonial authorities, opening the way both to positive engagement between Pacific communities and the possibility of internal and inter-state conflicts.

New Zealand’s role as a Pacific peacemaker is reflected in its emerging orientation towards non-provocative defence; mediation, peace-monitoring and peacekeepingin Pacific regional disputes; strengthening of the conflict resolution mechanisms of the 16-member Pacific Forum; the promotion of peace and disarmament education globally; and pro-active engagement in multilateral bodies such as the United Nations.

While New Zealand has been involved in one or more peacekeeping operations continuously for over 50 years, the 1990s saw a marked increase in participation.New Zealand is currently taking part in 19 peace support missions around the world.Three of these were in Bougainville (unarmed peace monitoring), East Timor (UN peacekeeping in a newly independent state), and the Solomon Islands (intervention with Australia and other Pacific Forum countries to stop ethnic conflict and corruption). These were popular with New Zealanders increasingly interested in supporting the development and maintenance of peaceful democratic societies in the Pacific. The involvement of the UN and Pacific Forum[43]in these operations was perceived as contributing more to human security and sustainable peace than traditional force projection by allied or coalition actions such as the invasion of Iraq which was not supported by New Zealand.

According to Marian Hobbs, Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control, New Zealand is responding to security risks and violent conflict in the Pacific in a strategic way through the development of ‘whole of government’ responses. [44] NZAID has developed a policy on Preventing Conflict and Building Peace for the government which highlights the need to address root causes of conflict.For example, a key NZAID project in the Solomon Islands is to make primary education available to all, as a post-conflict strategy which encourages an educated population to seek non-violent ways to resolve conflict. Practical disarmament measures are also important. Although over 90% of weapons on Bougainville are now destroyed extra effort is needed to ensure the last 10% are destroyed before the December 2004 deadline when the UN mission is due to withdraw. [45]

Strengthening the Pacific Forum

In 1997-98, Aotearoa/New Zealand played a key role in facilitating the peace agreement between the Papua New Guinea government and the Bougainville Revolutionary Army, which had been fighting a devastating 10-year civil war. New Zealand provided a neutral space for negotiations, mediation services and an unarmed peace monitoring force, supported through the Pacific Forum, to help implement the peace agreement.

New Zealand was able to play this role primarily because its policy changes over the previous decade – including a series of apologies for past colonial injustices perpetuated on Pacific Islands - had led to a developing confidence in the other Pacific Island countries that it was no longer playing a colonising role as part of the Western alliance, but was more attuned to the perspectives and cultural realities of the Pacific. The same was not true of Australia, which has remained strongly wedded to the Western alliance – and particularly to the United States. This experience helped to strengthen the confidence and capabilities of Pacific countries to seek resolution of their conflicts through regional mechanisms including the Pacific Forum.

When South Pacific leaders signed the Biketawa declaration in Kiribati during the 2000 Forum, the 1988-97 civil war on Bougainville and the 1998-2000 ethnic conflict in the Solomon Islands had only just ended. The leaders, ‘while respecting the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of another member state’, recognised ’the need in time of crisis or in response to members’ request for assistance, for action to be taken on the basis of all members of the Forum being part of the Pacific Islands extended family’. The Declaration set out principles of good governance, human rights, democratic processes and the rule of law, as agreed by all forum countries. It emphasised the importance of forum members working together to respond to security threats and to address their causes. [46]

The Declaration set out guidelines for the Forum’s Secretary General to advise members to take some or all of the following actions in any crisis:

First, it amounted to the first explicit recognition that the internal affairs of a member state might in certain circumstances be the legitimate concern of the Forum as a whole; that the problems of one might be the problems of all. Secondly, it represented the first attempt, in a direct sense, to assemble a vehicle for conflict prevention. Biketawa has been invoked twice since 2000, most notably in respect of Solomon Islands. In 2001-2002, the Secretary General used it to explore possible avenues for the Forum and the Secretariat to play a role in bringing the conflict to an end.And in July 2003, the Biketawa Declaration was the enabling mechanism through which the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands was mounted. That Mission has been fairly widely judged to have been a considerable success so far . [47]

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Phil Goff recognised that any deployment to the Solomon Islands was only for as long as the Solomons people and government wanted it, and that they retained sovereignty. It needed to be of the nature and style of earlier New Zealand operations in Bougainville and East Timor, where the police and military personnel were able to engage and work with local people as equals and friends. He acknowledged that ‘colonial power put in place institutions which ultimately failed because they did not forge links with local cultures and traditions that would have allowed them to take root and to build the capacity of local people to make them succeed.’ [48]To this end, the Australia and New Zealand military and police involved in the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands have confiscated over 3,500 weapons from criminals and ethnic militias, removed corrupt elements in the local police force, and restored social services so that aid can be successfully delivered.

In recognition that any successful conflict transformation requires an advance warning system about what is to be prevented and when, a group of academics, police, politicians, military, indigenous peoples from the region, activists and conflict prevention practitioners met in 2003 in Auckland to develop a Pacific Conflict Transformation Network. One of its initial tasks was to undertake a feasibility study for a regional facility for securing a peaceful Pacific. This has been carried out by a respected South Pacific organisation – the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre - which has close contacts with NGOs, churches, women, politicians, youth, unions and traditional chiefs.Some of the key roles of the Network identified in the study were to ‘provide leadership to establish an early warning system or response to potential conflicts such as preventive diplomacy; to provide a neutral peace negotiation team to the conflict area and to develop a directory and database on available resource people and best practices on peace-building training available.’ [49]

The government is very supportive of this initiative, recognising the role that civil society plays in conflict prevention and transformation.It also agrees there is a need to establish a peacekeeping school which would include training for the military in non-violent conflict resolution in the field.

In August 2003 Helen Clark, as Chair of the 35th Pacific Forum meeting in Auckland, requested an Eminent Persons’ Group, chaired by a former Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, to carry out a review of the Forum’s role, functions and Secretariat. Although Pacific Island leaders had worked together closely in the past to confront the threat of nuclear testing and to develop the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, this was the first formal review since the Forum’s inaugural meeting in Wellington in 1971. The group recommended to Forum Leaders that they adopt, and work collectively and individually towards achieving a collective vision and action plan. [50] In April 2004 New Zealand chaired a meeting in Auckland of the leaders of Australia, the Cook Islands, Federated states of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu to consider the Eminent Persons’ Group review.The leaders adopted the following vision:

Leaders believe the Pacific can, should and will be a region of peace, harmony, security and economic prosperity, so that all its people can lead free and worthwhile lives. We treasure the diversity of the Pacific and seek a future in which its cultures, traditions and religious beliefs are valued, honoured and developed. We seek a Pacific region that is respected for the quality of its governance, the sustainable management of its resources, the full observance of democratic values, and for its defence and promotion of human rights. We seek partnerships with our neighbours and beyond to develop our knowledge, to improve our communications and to ensure a sustainable economic existence for all.

They endorsed and developed the proposed Pacific Plan which mandated the Secretary General, in consultation with the Forum’s Chair, to call a meeting of Leaders or Forum Foreign Ministers in times of crisis with a view to galvanizing regional action. Other recommendations included the development of national human rights machinery; addressing the low participation of women in all levels of decision-making processes and structures; listening to the needs and aspirations of the burgeoning population of young people in the region; and strengthening Forum engagement with civil society.[51]There is a proposal under consideration for civil society to organise a forum just prior to the Leaders’ meeting with a report conveyed to Leaders via the Secretary General.

New Zealand, the United Nations and the Use of Force

Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, New Zealand has frequently turned to the United Nations for national, regional and international security purposes and has found considerable success in so doing. This included, inter alia:

However, the shift in policy in the 1990s led to a much stronger adherence to multilateralism and a rejection of coalition actions without UN approval . Thus, New Zealand supported the United Nations missions in Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction [53] , but did not support the US-UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 which did not have UN Security Council endorsement. Prime Minister Helen Clark noted that such action was unnecessary and illegal.

This growing confidence in the ability of the United Nations system to address key security issues related to weapons of mass destruction is reflected in New Zealand’s active involvement in:

Terrorism and Proliferation

With respect to two key international security issues, terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, New Zealand has supported some coalition initiatives such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, but continues to emphasise multilateral approaches under the rubric of international law. This combines a non-discriminatory application of the law with a commitment to addressing the underlining causes of the security threats. Thus, New Zealand holds that attempts to halt the proliferation for nuclear weapons, for example, will not succeed while the powerful states retain such weapons themselves. Marian Hobbs, the New Zealand Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control, noted: Nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament aretwosides of the same coin, and both must be energetically pursued.[55]

Also in 2004, New Zealand welcomed UN Security Council Resolution 1540 which mandates states to take action to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including criminalizing the proliferation actions of non-state actors.However, Hobbs noted:

It seems a pity that the Security Council did not pass a sister resolution to 1540, declaring nuclear disarmament to be mandatory for all member states.[56]

The revelations about a nuclear black market operated under the AQ Khan network, indicate the potential roles of both State and non-State actors in proliferation and the need to address both.New Zealand has led by example in taking an active and consistent approach in its legislation addressing these issues. Its Nuclear Free Zone Act makes it a crime for both non-state actors and state actors to be engaged in the development, possession, transfer, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons or in aiding others in these actions. Hobbs notes that “ nuclear proliferation is a symptom, and the patient cannot ultimately be cured as long as we leave unaddressed the underlying causes of insecurity and instability – such as regional rivalries, the chronic lack of good governance, the divide between rich and poor, and cultural schisms based on ethnic, racial or religious differences.”[57]

Role of Non-Governmental Organisations

Over the past decade New Zealand has ensured that women are included in all levels of decision-making, and encouraged closer working relationships with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) by holding regular consultative meetings, establishing public advisory committees, and including NGOs on government delegations to UN and other international meetings. As an indication of this relationship, the government appointed NGO representatives, including the authors, on delegations to the 1988 United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, as head of delegation to the 2001 UNESCO Ministerial Conference and as its government expert [58]on the UN Study on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education which was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 2002. The authors have also played key roles in assisting draft government reports to the UN and in delivering speeches on behalf of the government, including on behalf of the Prime Minister at the launch of the UN Study. It contains 34 far-reaching recommendations which encourage governments to:

As indicated earlier, New Zealand has always taken a keen interest in the United Nations since its establishment in 1945. It served on the Security Council from 1954-55, in 1966 and in 1993-94 and is now seeking its fourth term from 2015-16. Foreign Minister Phil Goff sees this ‘as a strong symbol of our long-term commitment to effective multilateralism, and it will be a major foreign policy priority for New Zealand in the coming decade’. [59] New Zealand is also having input into the debate about reform of the UN and is calling for greater representation of areas such as Asia, Latin America and Africa on an expanded Security Council.[60]It welcomes the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the role that it can play in dealing with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has called on all countries to accede to the convention establishing the Court and to recognise its jurisdiction. In his speech to the recent UN General Assembly, Foreign Minister Phil Goff acknowledged that while terrorism is at the forefront of our concerns, for hundreds of millions of people today starvation, disease and poverty are more immediate threats to their well-being. It is this challenge which the United Nations must also meet, through implementing the Millennium Development Goals agreed to at the United Nations by world leaders in 2 000.[61]

New Zealand takes an active role in other multilateral fora such as APEC, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Commonwealth. This is reflected in the appointments of Don McKinnon, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, as current Secretary General of the Commonwealth and Mike Moore, former Labour Prime Minister, as former head of the WTO. New Zealand’s shift away from the traditional Western defence system and its challenges to the legality of nuclear weapon systems have if anything enhanced its ability to play a leading role in multilateral affairs.


The struggle for independence, first signalled by the Maori chiefs in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, is coming to fruition as New Zealanders adapt to their growing identity as members of a small Pacific Island community in the Ocean of Peace – Te Moana Nui a Kiwa. The last vestiges of colonialism, as practiced in the past by British and US-led ‘gunboat diplomacy’, are being replaced by honest attempts to build a Pacific Island community based on principles of peace, justice, human and environmental security.There is a growing acceptance that the wide range of threats to the security of the region cannot be dealt with by traditional military means.

The Pacific Forum is rising to the challenge to find mechanisms for conflict resolution which are truly consultative and respectful of the wide range of cultural and spiritual differences of the peoples who make up the Pacific family.As small island states, multilateralism through the UN and other fora provide preferred mechanisms for regional security. Further inclusion of civil society in decision-making processes will play a vital role in the future in developing a lasting peace in the region.

Regardless of which political party is in power, Aotearoa/New Zealand will probably continue to play a leading role in regional and international peacemaking through promoting diplomacy and mediation; pursuing disarmament and arms control; addressing global environmental concerns; providing development assistance; building trade and cultural links; maintaining New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and promoting a nuclear-free South Pacific, and leading efforts towards a nuclear weapons free world.

* Dr Kate Dewes Ph.D. O.N.Z.M, (Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit) is Co-founder and Co-Director of the Peace Foundation Disarmament and Security Centre, a member of the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control and a pioneer of the World Court Project which achieved a landmark decision from the International Court of Justice on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

* Alyn Ware is Global Coordinator for the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament, Vice-President of International Peace Bureau, Consultant for the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, member of the Public Advisory Committee on Disarmament and Arms Control and Director of the Peace Foundation Wellington Office.

[1]The names Aotearoa and New Zealand can be used interchangeably. Aotearoa is the original Maori name. New Zealand is the European name. Both are official.

[2] Robert Mahuta and Manuka Henare, ‘The Basis for a Maaori Foreign Policy’, Chapter 5 in John Henderson and Richard Kennaway (eds), 1991, Beyond New Zealand II: Foreign Policy into the 1990s (Longman Paul, Auckland), pp. 56-63.

[3] Ranginui Walker, 1990, Ka whawhai tonu matou: struggle without end (Penguin Books, Auckland), p. 80.

[4] Kennedy Graham, 1989, National Security Concepts of States: New Zealand (Taylor and Francis, New York), p. 10.

[5] Rt. Hon Michael Savage, NZ Prime Minister, 5 September 1939, NZ Official Yearbook, 1985, p.31.

[6] South East Asian Treaty Organisation.

[7] Nigel Roberts, 1972, New Zealand and Nuclear Testing in the Pacific (New Zealand International Review, Wellington), pp. 5-6.

[8] Michael Ashby, ‘Fraser’s Foreign Policy’, in Margaret Clark (ed.), 1998, Peter Fraser: Master Political (Dunmore Press, Palmerston North), pp. 169-190.

[9] Ministry of Foreign Affairs,1972, New Zealand Foreign Policy Statements and Documents, 1943-1957, Government Printer, Wellington, pp.104-105; statement by Peter Fraser to the House of Representatives, 24 July 1945.

[10] Darlene Keju-Johnson, ‘For the good of mankind’, in Pacific Women Speak Out for Independence and Denuclearisation’ , 1998, edited by Zohl de Ishtar, Raven Press, Christchurch.

[11] Christchurch Press, 10 August 1962 cited in Elsie Locke, 1992, Peace People (Hazard Press, Christchurch), p. 180.

[12] Locke, (1992), pp. 286-296; Kevin Clements, 1988, Back from the Brink: The Creation of a Nuclear-free New Zealand (Allen and Unwin, Wellington), pp. 49-87; Elsa Caron, (ed.) 1974,Fri Alert (Caveman Press, Dunedin).

[13]Stephen Kos, 1984, ‘Interim Relief in the International Court: New Zealand and the Nuclear Test Cases’, Victoria University Wellington Law Review, No 14. pp 357-387.

[14]Margaret Hayward, 1981, Diary of the Kirk Years (A H & A W Reed Ltd, Wellington), pp. 143.

[15] Text of Prime Minister’s Official Farewell to the frigate Otago, Devonport Naval Base, 28 June 1973.

[16] Full text of the speech published in New Zealand Monthly Review, No 49, September 1964, p.5, cited in Locke, 1992, p. 307; John Dunmore, 1972, Norman Kirk: A Portrait (New Zealand Books, Palmerston North), pp.99-100.

[17]Keynote address by Mr Greg Urwin, Secretary General, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat to the Conference on ‘Securing a Peaceful Pacific: Preventing and Resolving Conflict’, University of Canterbury, October 2004.

[18] See Tom Newnham, 1986, Peace Squadron: The sharp end of nuclear protest in New Zealand,Auckland.

[19] Stephen Levine & Paul Spoonley, 1979, Waging Peace: A study of public and parliamentary attitudes towards peace and security issues (New Zealand Foundation for Peace Studies, Auckland), 84pp; Lawrence Jones, ‘Cracks in the Consensus: Shifting attitudes to New Zealand Defence’, in Roderic Alley (ed), 1984, Alternatives to ANZUS, Vol II (NZ Foundation for Peace Studies),pp. 35-50;John Henderson, Keith Jackson, Richard Kennaway, 1980, Beyond New Zealand: the Foreign Policy of a Small State (Methuen, Auckland), sections I (pp. 2-9), II (pp.20-27), III (pp.38-67), V (pp. 106-116),VII (pp. 212-215, 242- 259).

[20]NZ Herald, “N-armed warships ‘strongly opposed’”, The Press, 6 October 1984.

[21] See Robert E. White, ‘Nuclear-free New Zealand 1984 - New Zealand Becomes Nuclear- Free’, Working Papers, Centre for Peace Studies, Auckland University, No 7, pp 1-20; Robert E. White (ed.), ‘A Celebration - 10 Years of Nuclear-free Legislation’, Occasional Papers, Centre for Peace Studies, University of Auckland, No. 6.

[22] Margaret Wilson, 1989, Labour in Government 1984-1987 (Allen and Unwin, Wellington), pp. 55-67; 1984 Policy Document, New Zealand Labour Party, Wellington 1984, p.50 cited in P. Landais-Stamp, and P. Rogers, 1989, Rocking the Boat: New Zealand, the United States and the Nuclear-free Zone Controversy in the 1980s (Berg,Oxford), p. 64, footnote 11; David Lange, 1984, ‘Trade and Foreign Policy: A Labour Perspective’, New Zealand International Review (NZIR), Sept/Oct, Vol. IX, No. 5, pp. 2-4. Earlier history covering the debate in the Labour Party in 1983 is covered in Vernon Wright, 1984, David Lange Prime Minister (Unwin Paperbacks, Wellington), pp. 131-133.

[23] David Lange, 1987, ‘Facing critical choices’, NZIR, vol. XII, no. 4, July/August, p. 3.

[24] Henderson, etc., 1991, p. 214 : ‘The influence of David Lange was most evident in his determination to keep nuclear weapons out of New Zealand….’,‘... it was Lange who determined that NZ would stand firm in the face of strong pressure to change from the US, Australia and the UK’. David Lange, 1990, Nuclear Free -The New Zealand Way (Penguin Books, Auckland).

[25]Defence and Security : What New Zealanders Want: Report of the Defence Committee of Enquiry, Government Printer, Wellington, 1986; Annex to the Report of the Defence Committee of Enquiry: Public Opinion Poll on Defence and Security: What New Zealanders Want, National Research Bureau, Government Printer, Wellington, 1986.

[26] Lange, 1990, p.122.

[27] Statement prepared by David Lange for Moana Cole’s Court case at Syracuse, New York, 14 May 1991.

[28] Kate Dewes was a member from 1987-90, was reappointed in 2000 and again in 2003 when Alyn Ware was also appointed.

[29] Katie Boanas-Dewes, 1993, ‘Participatory Democracy in Peace and Security Decision-Making: the Aotearoa/New Zealand Experience, Interdisciplinary Peace Research, vol. 5, no. 2.

[30] For a comprehensive study of Lange’s critical statements of nuclear deterrence, see Graham (1989); Kennedy Graham, 1987, ‘New Zealand’s Non-Nuclear Policy: Towards Global Security’, Alternatives, vol. XII, pp. 217-242; Kennedy Graham, 1989, ‘Lowering the Nuclear Sword: New Zealand, morality and nuclear deterrence’, NZIR, March/April, pp. 20-25; K. Graham, 1986, ‘After deterrence - what?’, NZIR, vol. XI, no. 3, May-June, pp. 5-9; Michael Pugh, 1987, ‘Nuclear deterrence theory: the spectre at the feast’, NZIR, vol. XII, no 3, May/June, pp. 10-13.

[31] Lange, 1990, p 194.

[32] See Robert E. White, 1998, ‘Nuclear-free New Zealand: 1987 - from Policy to Legislation’, Working Papers, Centre for Peace Studies, University of Auckland, No. 8, chapter 4, pp. 47- 56.

[33]Report of the Special Committee on Nuclear Propulsion, The Safety of Nuclear Powered Ships, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, December 1992.

[34]See Commander Robert Green, Royal Navy (Ret’d) ‘UK Nuclear-Powered Submarines Banned from Visiting UK Commercial Ports: Reactor Problems Vindicate New Zealand’s Nuclear Propulsion Ban’ on

[35] See ‘Nuclear Denizens of the Deep: Can they be prohibited? Comments on the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Extension Bill’, Professor Elisabeth Mann Borgese and Alyn Ware on

[36]See Catherine (Kate) Dewes, 1998, ‘The World Court Project: The Evolution and Impact of an Effective Citizens’ Movement’, unpublished PhD dissertation, held at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch. See also for papers on the WCP and links to websites holding the full World Court Advisory Opinion.

[37]General Lee Butler, former Head of US Strategic Command, cited in The Naked Nuclear Emperor: Debunking Nuclear Deterrence, Robert Green, Christchurch, 2000 p 36.

[38] China has supported UN resolutions calling on implementation of the ICJ opinion through negotiations leading to a nuclear weapons convention, and the UK has undertaken a study on verification of the elimination of nuclear weapons in preparation for such negotiations. However, none of the nuclear weapon States have changed their deterrence policies as a result of the opinion.

[39] United Nations document A/C.1/52/7.

[40]Stephen Levine, Paul Spoonley and Peter Aimer, Waging Peace Towards 2000, The Foundation for Peace Studies, Auckland 1995, pp 90-91, 144-146.

[41]The Report of the South Pacific Policy Review Group, ‘Towards a Pacific Island Community’, chaired by Dr John Henderson, (Wellington, May 1990) was the first such review of relationships with Pacific Islands on a wide range of issues including defence and security.

[42] Contractual obligations precluded the cancellation of orders for two frigates from Australia, but plans for two more were cancelled.

[43] Prior to the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia joining the Pacific Forum was called the South Pacific Forum.

[44] Speech notes of Hon Marian Hobbs, Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control and Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs to ‘Securing a Peaceful Pacific’, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 15 October 2004.

[45]Ibid, p.7.

[46]Press Statement from New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon Phil Goff, ‘A Move to Succeed Where Colonial Powers Failed’, 4 August 2003.

[47] Keynote address by Mr Greg Urwin, Secretary General, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat to the Conference on ‘Securing a Peaceful Pacific: Preventing and Resolving Conflict’, University of Canterbury, 15 October 2004.

[48]Press Statement from New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hon Phil Goff, ‘A Move to Succeed Where Colonial Powers Failed’, 4 August 2003.

[49]Report by Ema Tagicakibau, Deputy Director of the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, Fiji, to the ‘Securing a Peaceful Pacific’ Conference, University of Canterbury, 15-17 October 2004.

[50] Pacific Cooperation: Voices of the Region, The Eminent Persons’ Group Review of the Pacific Islands Forum, April 2004, Auckland, New Zealand.

[51]Recommendations 6, 9-12, from ‘The Auckland Declaration and Leaders’ Decisions’ resulting from the Pacific Islands Forum Special Leaders’ Retreat, Auckland, 6 April 2004.

[52]New Zealand was one of the few countries for example that did not oppose the US use of force against Panama.

[53]United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).

[54] For an in-depth coverage of the range of multilateral mechanisms to deal with security threats arising from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and examples of their successful use, see RULE OF FORCE OR RULE OF LAW? Legal Responses to Nuclear Threats from Terrorism, Proliferation, and War, Seattle Journal of Social Justice, Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall/Winter 2003. Also available on

[55] ‘The Push for Peace’ Hon Marian Hobbs, Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Inaugural Armistice Day symposium, Auckland War Memorial Museum, 12 November 2004

[56] Ibid

[57] Ibid

[58]Kate Dewes was the New Zealand government expert on the Study. It can be found at

[59] Media Statement by Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 1 October 2004.

[60]Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Foreign Affairs, UNGA 59: Speech to the general debate, 22 September 2004.

[61] Media Statement by Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘NZ statement to the UN General Assembly’, 22 September 2004.

Previous Page