Respecting the Record: A Gentle Reminder on PNG’s White House History

-

This blog is written in response to Michael Kabuni’s public call on Facebook, where he raised valid concerns over a historical inaccuracy attributed to Prime Minister James Marape. In a statement circulated through official and public channels, the Prime Minister claimed he was “the first Papua New Guinea Prime Minister to hold formal bilateral talks in the White House.”

Let us be clear: Prime Minister Marape’s 2025 engagement with U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance at the White House is diplomatically significant and reflects PNG’s growing role in regional and global affairs. That should be acknowledged. However, the claim of being the first to hold such talks is factually incorrect.

On 7 May 1990, Prime Minister Rabbie Namaliu held formal bilateral discussions with U.S. President George H.W. Bush in the Oval Office and White House patio. This meeting was part of an official state visit—clearly within the definition of bilateral diplomacy between sovereign governments.

Prime Minister Rabbie Namaliu addressing the National Press Club in Washington D.C. during his official visit to the United States in May 1990. His visit included formal bilateral talks with U.S. President George H.W. Bush at the White House—an engagement recorded in the Papua New Guinea Foreign Affairs Review (Vol. 10, No. 1).

Namaliu’s visit is documented in Volume 10, Number 1 (Jan–June 1990) of the Papua New Guinea Foreign Affairs Review, a periodical published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. During that trip, Namaliu addressed the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., where he stated:

“I have come to the United States with a small delegation, in a first step in what I trust will be a process of strengthening the ties that already exist between our countries.”

This speech, along with the documented meeting at the White House, is conclusive evidence that PNG has engaged at the highest diplomatic level with the United States well before 2025.

PNG Ambassador to Washington, H.E. Meg Taylor, signs the convention establishing the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) on May 9th, 1990, in Washington, D.C., USA. Looking on is PNG Prime Minister, Rt. Hon. Rabbie Namaliu. The event marked a key moment in strengthening PNG’s international economic engagement during the official state visit.

Despite this, a statement attributed to Prime Minister Marape appeared on the Prime Minister and National Executive Council (PMNEC) website, declaring:

“This is the first time in 50 years that a Papua New Guinea Prime Minister has held a formal bilateral meeting at the White House.”

A screenshot of this statement, shared publicly on the Academic Nomad Facebook page, remains the only accessible record for now, as the PMNEC webpage is currently inaccessible and cannot be independently verified. While the post may not have been officially removed, the unavailability of the webpage creates further ambiguity. Regardless, the fact remains: the claim is historically inaccurate and should be publicly corrected.

This is not a matter of political point-scoring. It is about protecting the integrity of the public record and ensuring that younger generations of Papua New Guineans are taught the truth about their country’s international engagements.

Correcting this statement will not detract from the achievements of Prime Minister Marape. Rather, it will signal that this administration is confident enough to honour the leaders who came before—leaders like Sir Rabbie Namaliu, who helped build the foundations of PNG’s foreign policy at the close of the Cold War.

This blog is therefore a respectful response to Kabuni’s call, and a gentle but firm reminder to the Prime Minister’s communications team and advisors: historical accuracy is a strength, not a weakness. Let us lead with truth.

Leadership is not just about being first—it is about knowing and acknowledging those who walked before you.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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