The Yegiora Files

 By Bernard Yegiora The debate on charging transit fees through the Jomard Passage should no longer be framed as a narrow question of revenue. It is, fundamentally, a question of how PNG finances and operationalises maritime security. The opportunity before the country is not simply to monetise a strategic waterway, but to convert that revenue into a sustained security capability. This is precisely where the concept of Blue Security—developed in my research —becomes directly relevant. The Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 provides a timely and necessary recognition of the country’s evolving security environment. It acknowledges the importance of maritime security, identifies threats such as illegal fishing and transnational crime, and calls for strengthened border and maritime governance. It also frames PNG as a steward of vast oceanic resources and aligns itself with broader regional narratives such as the Blue Pacific. Yet, despite this recognition, the policy stops short of ar...

By Bernard Yegiora  The global maritime order is no longer operating on passive assumptions of free access. It is shifting toward strategic control, and states are beginning to assert their interests over critical waterways. Iran’s move to charge vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz is a clear signal that the rules are being tested . Indonesia’s discussions around the Malacca Strait reinforce the same trajectory. These developments are not anomalies—they reflect a recalibration of how sovereign states interpret control over maritime space. PNG must read this shift carefully and respond with intent. For too long, the Jomard Passage has been treated as a neutral corridor rather than a national asset. This is a fundamental policy failure. The passage sits within PNG’s maritime domain and serves as a route for international shipping, yet the country derives minimal economic benefit from its use. At the same time, PNG carries the burden of environmental risk, maritime safety concer...

By Bernard Yegiora Climate change is no longer a peripheral environmental concern for PNG. It is a structural threat to national stability, human security, and state legitimacy. Seminar 8 examined this shift through the lens of the Boe Declaration on Regional Security , which explicitly identifies climate change as the “single greatest threat” to Pacific peoples. The central policy challenge is not recognition—it is execution. PNG continues to treat climate change as a development issue when it must be operationalised within the national security framework. Seminar 8 in session: unpacking climate change as an existential security threat to Papua New Guinea, with a focus on the Boe Declaration and the structural policy gaps in preparedness, coordination, and response. The 2015 drought and frost crisis, which affected nearly two million people, remains a defining case. As highlighted by Thomas and Ezebilo , the scale of the crisis was not solely the result of climatic conditions, but o...

By Bernard Yegiora PNG’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 (pp. 57–58) establishes a clear strategic baseline: climate change is not a peripheral environmental issue but a core pillar of foreign policy, national development, and international engagement. When juxtaposed with the seven seminar questions derived from Goulding , Carter , Pascoe et al ., and Hualupmomi , a critical insight emerges—PNG’s policy architecture is directionally sound, but operational execution remains constrained by structural, institutional, and geopolitical limitations. For a full breakdown of the seven questions and their analytical framing, refer to the seminar recording here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJtT0C-dYyw Screenshot from the seminar recording illustrating Question 1, which examines Goulding’s concept of Pacific Island states as “large ocean states” and its strategic relevance for enhancing regional influence in global climate change negotiations. The first point of convergence lies in G...

By Bernard Yegiora PNG’s foreign policy should be guided by national interest, not sentiment, symbolism, or diplomatic habit. The Foreign Policy White Paper presents support for Israel as a settled position, linked to the 2013 bilateral declaration, the 2023 opening of PNG’s embassy in Jerusalem, and a stated intention to expand cooperation in agriculture, security and information technology. That is a major strategic commitment. It should therefore be subjected to continuous review, especially when the Middle East is entering a more dangerous and more legally contested phase.  Screenshot from Pillar 1: Strong Bilateral Relationships , page 48 of the Papua New Guinea Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 , highlighting PNG’s stated position as a “consistent supporter of Israel in the United Nations.” The immediate policy problem is that PNG’s support at the UN looks increasingly automatic. Open-source UN records show PNG voting with Israel and a very small minority of states on multip...

By Bernard Yegiora  PNG’s foreign policy is entering a decisive phase. The Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 positions the United States as a central partner in security, trade, and development. At face value, the policy reflects confidence. But a closer reading reveals something more measured—something policymakers cannot afford to ignore. Screenshot of the cover page of the PNG Foreign Policy White Paper 2025. The White Paper states that PNG and the US enjoy “strong and amicable ties… based on our shared history and values,” and recognises the US as “a major economic partner” with a growing role in regional security. These are not abstract claims. They are reinforced by concrete agreements: the 2022 Defence Aid Agreement, the 2023 Defence Cooperation Agreement, and the Ship Rider Agreement, all of which deepen operational alignment between Port Moresby and Washington.  Screenshot of page 47 of the PNG Foreign Policy White Paper 2025. From a policy standpoint, PNG is clear...