From 1981 to Today: Lessons from PNG's Foreign Policy Reviews and the Role of Inclusivity

-

In 1981, Papua New Guinea (PNG) released its first White Paper on Foreign Policy, marking a pivotal moment in the country's post-independence diplomacy. The process of developing this document contrasts sharply with the current approach to foreign policy reviews, particularly the recent use of an Eminent Persons Group (EPG). By analyzing these differences, we can assess the evolution of PNG's foreign policy-making processes and their implications for transparency, inclusivity, and policy outcomes.

The 1981 White Paper: A Bureaucratic-Led Approach

The 1981 White Paper was the product of a meticulous, bureaucratic-driven process. Senior public servants formed the core of the drafting committee, tasked with conducting comprehensive analyses and synthesizing input from a wide array of sources. This included insights from a consultant employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and a review of relevant domestic and international issues.

Key features of this approach included:

  1. Inclusivity of Sources: The committee drew on diverse views, papers, and statistical data to frame a broad understanding of PNG's foreign relations. This was supplemented by appendices to provide detailed information and contextual understanding.

  2. Findings of a Consultant: The findings of a consultant employed by the DFA were incorporated into the White Paper, reflecting their importance in shaping the analysis and recommendations.

  3. Non-Partisanship: The document was explicitly designed to serve as a guiding framework rather than a politically charged manifesto. It aimed to offer flexibility for successive governments and policymakers.

  4. Focus on Public Engagement: By publishing the White Paper with detailed recommendations, it encouraged informed discussions across various sectors, including Parliament, educational institutions, and community organizations.

  5. Resource-Driven Implementation: Recognizing resource constraints, the recommendations were designed as guides for incremental implementation rather than immediate overhauls.

This structured and analytical approach reflected the priorities of the time, emphasizing PNG’s role as a South Pacific nation and a bridge between Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The overarching goal was to align national interests with global trends, offering a roadmap for navigating the geopolitical challenges of the 1980s and 1990s.

The Current Process: Eminent Persons Group and Public Engagement

Fast forward to today, PNG’s foreign policy review process reflects significant changes in methodology and stakeholder involvement. The most recent initiative employed an EPG, signaling a shift toward leveraging expertise from individuals with distinguished careers in diplomacy, politics, and academia. While this approach has its merits, it also raises questions about inclusivity and transparency.

Differences in Process:

  1. Expert-Centric Approach: The EPG model relies on a small group of elite individuals to guide the review process. While their expertise is invaluable, the process risks marginalizing broader input from public servants, civil society, and academic institutions.

  2. Limited Public Consultation: Unlike the 1981 White Paper, which explicitly aimed to stimulate public discourse, the recent process appears to lack mechanisms for widespread public engagement. For instance, key think tanks like the National Research Institute, and academic institutions such as the University of Papua New Guinea and Divine Word University were reportedly not consulted.

  3. Reduced Bureaucratic Involvement: The earlier model’s emphasis on public service-led analysis has been supplanted by reliance on external advisors, potentially diminishing institutional memory and continuity in policy-making.

  4. Focus on Strategic Outcomes: The EPG model’s streamlined nature may prioritize high-level strategic recommendations over granular, data-driven analyses.

Implications of the Shift

The transition from a bureaucratic-driven to an expert-led process reflects broader global trends in policy-making but also exposes potential pitfalls:

  • Transparency and Accountability: The 1981 process’s detailed documentation and broad dissemination ensured accountability. The current approach’s lack of extensive public engagement may undermine public trust and ownership.

  • Inclusivity: By sidelining key academic and research institutions, the recent review misses opportunities to harness diverse perspectives and grassroots insights.

  • Policy Continuity: Bureaucratic involvement ensures institutional continuity and the transfer of knowledge. Over-reliance on external expertise may create gaps in institutional capacity.

Lessons for the Future

To balance the strengths of both approaches, PNG’s future foreign policy reviews should consider a hybrid model that combines the analytical rigor and inclusivity of the 1981 process with the strategic insights of an EPG. Key recommendations include:

  1. Enhanced Public Consultation: Create mechanisms to engage a broader spectrum of stakeholders, including universities, think tanks, and civil society.

  2. Institutional Collaboration: Ensure the active involvement of public servants alongside eminent persons to leverage institutional memory and foster capacity-building.

  3. Transparency: Publish drafts and solicit feedback through public forums and online platforms to build trust and encourage ownership.

The lessons from 1981 and today underscore the importance of an inclusive, transparent, and well-resourced process for developing foreign policy frameworks that reflect PNG’s national interests and aspirations. By learning from the past and adapting to contemporary challenges, PNG can craft policies that are both pragmatic and visionary.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...
Read more

Commercial liberalism and the six norms

-
Image
Liberal internationalism is defined by Griffiths, O'Callaghan and Roach (2008, p.190) as a project to transform international relations so that they conform to models of peace, freedom, and prosperity allegedly enjoyed within constitutional liberal democracies. The same scholars go further by dividing liberalism into three distinct groups. They say these are the three ways to implement the project. The way they present liberal internationalism as a project makes their work interesting. Three distinct groups Firstly, commercial liberalism is about free trade between states. States bilaterally or multilaterally via a platform like APEC pursue the goal of trade liberalization. Griffiths, O'Callagahan and Roach (ibid.) argued that economic interdependence would decrease the likelihood of going to war. Republican liberalism is about democratic peace. The scholars argued that the spread of democracy among states so that governments will be accountable to their citizens makes it di...
Read more

Allison's rational actor model

-
There are 3 common models of foreign policy decision making according to Graham Allison: rational actor model organizational process mode government politics model.  We will discuss the 3 models and compare them with the 3 levels of analysis. However, I challenge you to use your own initiative to learn about the other models of decision making. This will help you as future decision makers or analysts to understand how decisions are made and the processes. When one wakes up from bed he or she decides whether or not to brush their teeth, comb their hair and have a shower. These decisions are paramount, they affect and influence how the individual interacts in a social setting. This highlights the fact that as human beings we make decisions every day. Decision making is defined as the thought process of selecting a logical choice from the available options. In the case of the ‘Kibung peles boy’ analogy; the male student had a choice of approaching the girl to ask he...
Read more