FPA: Organizational Process Model

This model centers on the fact that different bureaucracies have different standard operating procedures. These procedures are made in order to allow day to day operations to be carried out. Thus, a foreign policy decision is made based on these standard operating procedures. It is hard for a bureaucracy to make a decision or let alone function out of character or contrary to their standard operating procedure.

The reading Chapter 4: Foreign policy shares a straight forward explanation of the OPM:

"An alternative to the rational model of decision making is the organizational process model. In this model, foreign policy decision makers generally skip the labor-intensive process of identifying goals and alternative actions, relying instead for most decisions on standardized responses or standard operating procedures. For example, the U.S. State Department everyday receives more than a thousand reports or inquiries from its embassies around the world and sends out more than a thousand instructions or responses to those embassies. Most of those cables are never seen by the top decision makers (the secretary of state or the president); instead, they are handled by low-level decision makers who apply general principles—or who simply try to make the least controversial, most standardized decision. These low-level decisions may not even reflect the high level policies adopted by top leaders, but rather have a life of their own. The organizational process model implies that much of foreign policy results from “management by muddling through”."

According to Allison, the OPM looks at the different organizations and constrains they place on decision making choices. Choices are limited based on standard operating procedures. Standard operating procedures are charters detailing the function and mission of an organization. A series of programs are developed to carry out missions depending on the budget or financial funding of each organization. By having standardized responses for most of what international politics can throw at you, foreign policy decision making can become very efficient.

For PNG, do we have standard responses? Do we have a procedure in place to follow and make decisions when faced with a major foreign policy problem (threat, opportunity or crisis)? What is our standard response for the West Papuan Issue? What is our stand response for the China threat or Taiwan issue?

PNG diplomats serving around the world when asked about the West Papuan issue and what PNG is doing about it will give the standard response that “West Papua is an integral part of Indonesia”. Whether it is the West Papua issue or any other issue to do with Indonesia the embassies and high commissions will communicate with other low level decision makers with in the foreign affairs department to give standardized responses. 

However, Prime Minister O'Neill made a statement that is different to previous stance.  He said in 2016 that:

"We are equally concerned about what is happening in West Papua,".............. "We have expressed that directly to the highest authority including the President this year particularly the human rights issue and for autonomy."

Also, to address Australia’s paranoia about the Chinese presence in the region the PNG high commission in Canberra might give a standard response that China is a mutual partner in our quest for development based on the advised from Foreign Service officers working in the Asia branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Their response might also be influenced by information from the PNG embassy in Beijing. 

Mr. Rimbink Pato said:

"We should be collaborating better and more effectively so we that can get the best out of these collaborations,"

The same might be said in regards to the Taiwan issue. Leaders and diplomats will talk about the 'One China' policy. 'We see Taiwan as an integral part of Mainland China' is a commonly used standard response.  

Sir Michael Somare said:

"Taiwan is a province of China and PNG will not have official contact of any kind with Taiwan"

Similar to America where the state department communicates with its embassies all over the world on a daily basis. I assume that the Department of Foreign Affairs does the same with its high commissions and embassies. Also the Department of Defense Communicates with its defense attaché in the different high commissions and embassies to make standardize decisions.