The Yegiora Files

By Bernard Yegiora Security remains one of the most powerful and contested ideas in international relations. It shapes budgets, institutions, political priorities, and ultimately determines who receives protection and who does not. Yet despite its centrality, the meaning of security is neither fixed nor universally agreed upon. In a recent seminar presentation, my students examined how the concept of security has evolved beyond its traditional military focus. Drawing on Paul Williams’ Security Studies: An Introduction and the broader framework associated with Barry Buzan, the discussion explored how security now extends into political, economic, societal, and environmental domains. This expansion has significantly reshaped both scholarship and policy practice. Seminar 1: Reframing Security in International Relations — examining how the concept of security has evolved from traditional military concerns to include human, economic, societal, and environmental dimensions. For much of the...

By Bernard Yegiora Key takeaways • Internet infrastructure is now a strategic national asset, not just a technical service. • PNG must avoid binary alignment in digital infrastructure decisions involving China and Australia. • A multi-partner, institution-led approach is essential to protect sovereignty, security, and development outcomes. Introduction: internet infrastructure is now strategic For PNG, the internet is no longer simply a tool for communication. It is part of national infrastructure tied to economic development, state capacity, service delivery, and security. Decisions about who builds, finances, or supports digital systems are therefore strategic choices. As geopolitical competition intensifies in the Indo-Pacific, digital infrastructure has become a key arena of influence. PNG finds itself navigating between major partners, particularly China and Australia, both of whom see telecommunications as central to regional stability and national security. This is not a si...

 By Bernard Yegiora  PNG’s new foreign policy white paper will set direction for the country’s diplomatic engagement in the coming years. The central challenge is not policy formulation. It is implementation. In the current environment, implementation will depend heavily on whether the state can coordinate its digital diplomatic platforms into a single operational system. At present, the digital footprint of PNG’s diplomacy is fragmented. Individual missions operate Facebook pages. The central presence of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) exists. The official website exists. But these platforms do not function as an integrated communications architecture. PNG’s diplomatic presence abroad is active and visible on social media, as seen on the official Facebook page of the PNG High Commission in Canberra. However, without direct integration with the DFA website and central platforms, these mission-level digital efforts remain isolated rather than operating as part of a c...

By Bernard Yegiora Key takeaways • PNG has policy and advisory functions, but lacks a dedicated, institutionalised foreign policy analysis system. • Inconsistent analytical processes increase volatility and weaken coherence for a small state. • A modest, permanent analysis unit would strengthen decision-making without undermining political authority. Screenshot from a news report announcing PNG’s adoption of a new Foreign Policy White Paper in November 2025, marking the first comprehensive update to the country’s foreign policy framework in over 40 years. Introduction: the issue is not engagement, but process PNG is not disengaged from the world. It maintains diplomatic relations across regions, participates in multilateral forums, and increasingly debates foreign policy decisions in public and parliamentary spaces. This visibility is healthy. However, visibility alone does not guarantee coherence. What matters is how foreign policy decisions are made , not only how they are anno...

By Bernard Yegiora Development is not only about resources — it is about strategy , institutional discipline , and how political systems make and implement decisions. In my Political Science honours sub-thesis, I examined China’s economic reforms initiated under Deng Xiaoping and assessed whether elements of that governance logic hold lessons for PNG . Over the past decade, I’ve also explored broader ideological divides in democratic governance, including in my article “Exploring the Ideological Divide: Democracy, Development, and Governance in Papua New Guinea.” (👉 https://theyegiorafiles.blogspot.com/2023/08/exploring-ideological-divide-democracy.html ). Together, these pieces foreground a critical question: when democracy is not delivering development outcomes, what governance mechanisms matter most? This article summarises the key argument of my unpublished sub-thesis in a way that connects to PNG’s contemporary policy conversations — including debates about leadership, institu...

By Bernard Yegiora Introduction: why decision-making models matter PNG’s foreign policy decisions have, at times, appeared inconsistent or difficult to reconcile when viewed purely through material or strategic interests. Positions taken on different international issues can seem coherent in one context and value-driven in another. This is not unusual. Foreign policy decisions everywhere are shaped by a mix of calculation, belief, domestic politics, and institutional constraints. Understanding how decisions are made therefore matters as much as evaluating what decisions are taken. This article applies insights from foreign policy analysis (FPA) to examine variation in PNG’s foreign policy decision-making across two political periods. Using PNG’s policy positions on Israel as a case study, it contrasts decision-making logics associated with the O’Neill–Pato period and the Marape–Tkachenko period. The objective is not to assess whether specific policy choices were right or wrong, but...