Why Isn’t Australia Helping PNG with Surveillance While Operating in the South China Sea?

The recent accusation by China’s defense ministry against Australia regarding its surveillance activities in the South China Sea, as reported by Reuters, raises important questions for the Indo-Pacific region. According to reports, Australia conducted surveillance flights near Chinese-claimed islands, prompting Beijing to label these actions as "provocations" and accusing Canberra of undermining regional stability. For PNG, a nation deeply embedded in the geopolitics of the Pacific, this incident invites reflection on the broader implications for its own security and foreign policy. Should PNG be worried about these developments, and what do they mean for its national interests?

A screenshot of the article from the Reuters website.

Australia’s surveillance activities are ostensibly justified as part of its commitment to maintaining freedom of navigation in international waters, a principle central to the rules-based international order. However, these actions are bound to provoke strong reactions from China, a major power with expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. Given PNG’s growing economic and diplomatic ties with both Australia and China, this raises a key question: could PNG find itself caught in the crossfire of escalating tensions between these two nations?

PNG’s geographic position places it at a strategic crossroads between Asia and the Pacific, making its stability and alignment critical for both regional and global powers. Australia remains PNG’s closest neighbour and one of its largest aid donors, while China has expanded its footprint through infrastructure investments, trade, and education exchange programs. If tensions between Australia and China continue to escalate, PNG may face difficult choices in balancing its relationships with these two major powers. Such decisions could have far-reaching economic, political, and security implications.

The incident also underscores the fragile nature of regional security in the Indo-Pacific. While Australia’s surveillance operations may appear distant from PNG’s immediate concerns, they highlight the increasing militarization of the region. This could indirectly affect PNG by drawing the Pacific Islands into broader geopolitical rivalries. For instance, if Australia’s actions lead to a greater Chinese military presence in the Pacific, PNG’s territorial waters and airspace could become areas of contestation, raising the stakes for its own national security.

PNG’s national security considerations bring to light another pressing question: why is Australia not assisting PNG with similar surveillance capabilities, especially in monitoring its airspace and maritime territory? PNG’s vast EEZ requires enhanced surveillance to combat illegal fishing, human trafficking, and other transnational crimes. Australia’s advanced surveillance assets, such as the P-8 Poseidon aircraft, could be invaluable for strengthening PNG’s maritime domain awareness. Yet, Australia’s focus on the South China Sea raises concerns about whether it prioritizes its immediate Pacific neighbours.

As PNG develops its security and foreign policies, it should consider advocating for stronger bilateral cooperation with Australia on maritime surveillance. This could involve capacity-building programs, technology transfers, and joint patrols. Such measures would not only improve PNG’s ability to protect its sovereignty but also demonstrate a commitment to regional stability, which could help mitigate the risks of being drawn into broader geopolitical conflicts. The lack of such support from Australia warrants critical examination, particularly in light of PNG’s contributions to regional stability.

Another important dimension is the potential impact on regional institutions and cooperation frameworks. The Pacific Islands Forum and other regional organizations are already under strain from competing influences. Australia’s actions in the South China Sea could alienate China further, complicating efforts to address shared regional challenges such as climate change, maritime security, and economic development. PNG’s active participation in these forums means it must advocate for a stable and cooperative Indo-Pacific, even as tensions rise.

From a strategic perspective, PNG’s leaders should use this incident as an opportunity to reassess the country’s security policy and its role in the Pacific. PNG has yet to develop a comprehensive foreign policy that addresses its position in the Indo-Pacific’s emerging power dynamics. This is an opportune moment to engage in consultations with key stakeholders, including Australia and China, to ensure PNG’s interests are protected amidst growing tensions. PNG could also leverage this moment to push for enhanced support from Australia, drawing attention to the gaps in surveillance and security assistance.

In conclusion, Australia’s surveillance activities in the South China Sea, as highlighted in the Reuters article, may seem far removed from PNG’s immediate concerns, but their ripple effects could shape the country’s geopolitical environment for years to come. PNG must remain vigilant and proactive, seeking to maintain its sovereignty while fostering constructive relationships with both Australia and China. Furthermore, PNG should question why its closest neighbour and ally is not extending similar surveillance support within the Pacific. As regional security challenges intensify, PNG’s role as a stabilizing force in the Pacific will be crucial, requiring careful diplomacy and strategic foresight. Linking these developments with insights from PNG’s own maritime security challenges—as outlined in the recently published Blue Security in the Indo-Pacific—offers an important perspective on how regional security and national interests intersect.