Article Review: PNG’s Security Partnerships—Sovereignty or Strategic Alignment?

Introduction

PNG is at a crucial juncture in its foreign and defense policy, navigating a complex geopolitical environment shaped by strategic competition between major powers. While PNG has traditionally maintained a non-aligned stance, recent defense cooperation agreements highlight a pragmatic approach to enhancing national security without compromising sovereignty. The argument put forth in the article "Papua New Guinea: Shhhhh … don't use the word 'Alliance'" emphasizes that PNG can and should engage in security partnerships that benefit its people while carefully avoiding the entanglements of formal alliances. This position is well-founded, as it reflects the need for small states to balance external influences while prioritizing national interests. However, while PNG seeks to assert its agency in defense arrangements, it must remain vigilant to ensure that external partners, particularly Australia, do not overstep in using PNG as a tool for broader regional containment strategies against China.

Screenshot of the article on The Interpreter.

Summary of the Blog Article

The article explores PNG's reluctance to label its defense cooperation agreements as formal "alliances" while still deepening security ties with countries such as Australia and the United States. The author argues that this approach reflects PNG's historical sensitivity to sovereignty concerns and the broader strategic ambiguity it seeks to maintain in its foreign policy. Given PNG's constitutional emphasis on an independent foreign policy, leaders are cautious in framing defense partnerships in a way that avoids the perception of aligning too closely with any major power bloc.

The article highlights the importance of security agreements in addressing PNG's pressing internal security challenges, including law and order issues and transnational crime. At the same time, it highlights the domestic political concerns that come with such agreements, particularly regarding national sovereignty and fears of external influence. The author ultimately contends that PNG can benefit from security cooperation without formally committing to an alliance, allowing the country to leverage external assistance while preserving its autonomy.

Critique: Australia Should Be Careful in Pushing Its Interests to Contain China

While the article presents a balanced discussion on PNG’s strategic considerations, it is important to critically assess the role of Australia in shaping PNG's defense partnerships. Australia has long been PNG’s primary security partner, but its increasing focus on Indo-Pacific security, particularly in the context of countering China’s influence, raises concerns about whether PNG’s sovereignty will remain fully intact in these engagements.

PNG must be wary of being drawn too deeply into Australia's broader strategic calculations, especially those driven by the U.S.-led efforts to contain China. While security cooperation can offer tangible benefits to PNG, it should not come at the cost of PNG’s diplomatic flexibility. Australia, for its part, must ensure that its security engagements with PNG genuinely prioritize PNG’s internal security needs rather than serving as a proxy for regional power struggles. If PNG is perceived as aligning too closely with Australia and its allies, it risks alienating China, which remains a key economic partner.

Moreover, Australia's influence in PNG should not translate into unilateral decision-making that disregards local political and social dynamics. Any defense cooperation must be transparent, inclusive of local perspectives, and sensitive to the long-term implications of regional strategic rivalries. Australia’s commitment to PNG’s security should be grounded in mutual benefit rather than geopolitical maneuvering.

Additionally, defense cooperation agreements could influence PNG’s standing in regional power assessments, such as the Lowy Institute Asia Power Index. If PNG’s security cooperation leads to improved military capability and resilience, it may boost PNG’s power scores in measures related to defense networks and strategic positioning. However, this comes with potential trade-offs, as increased alignment with Australia could make PNG appear less neutral, impacting its diplomatic flexibility and relationships with other regional players, including China. PNG must carefully manage this dynamic to ensure that its growing security engagements do not undermine its broader foreign policy goals.

Conclusion

PNG’s approach to security partnerships demonstrates a nuanced understanding of regional dynamics, allowing it to enhance its defense capabilities while maintaining sovereignty. The argument presented in the article is persuasive—PNG does not need formal alliances to secure its interests, and its leaders must continue to emphasize national agency in security cooperation agreements. However, while PNG has the right to engage with security partners on its terms, it must also be vigilant about external influences that could compromise its strategic independence. Australia, as a longstanding partner, should ensure that its security engagements with PNG are genuinely supportive of PNG’s national interests rather than primarily serving broader geopolitical objectives. By carefully navigating these partnerships, PNG can enhance its security without becoming entangled in great power rivalries.