Framing Maritime Security: Lesson 6 Overview

-

By Bernard Yegiora 

Lesson 6 takes students into the heart of one of PNG’s most pressing strategic challenges—maritime security. As highlighted in recent scholarship, including my contribution to Blue Security in the Indo-Pacific (2025), the maritime domain is no longer a peripheral concern. Instead, it sits at the intersection of sovereignty, economic development, and regional diplomacy. PNG’s Exclusive Economic Zone is under pressure from illegal fishing, transnational crime, and great power competition, making the framing of security responses more than just an academic exercise.

The lesson begins by situating maritime security within PNG’s foreign policy framework, referencing the Department of Foreign Affairs’ Corporate Plan 2018–2022. This document underscores border and maritime security as central to safeguarding sovereignty, while simultaneously stressing the need for balanced engagement with external partners. Australia, China, and the United States all present competing models of cooperation, and PNG is caught in the delicate task of navigating among them. Students are challenged to step into the shoes of policymakers and think strategically about how framing choices shape both domestic legitimacy and international alignment.

A central feature of Lesson 6 is its focus on framing theory. Drawing on Breuning’s (2007) insights into media framing, the module demonstrates how narratives influence not only public opinion but also bureaucratic and political decision-making. By framing threats, opportunities, or sovereignty differently, leaders can legitimize particular courses of action while sidelining others. This theoretical lens provides the intellectual foundation for the lesson’s interactive exercises.

The lesson then transitions into a decision-making simulation. Students face a “Decision Point: Framing Strategy” where they must choose among three possible orientations: a Pro-Australia frame, a Pro-China frame, or a Neutral/Sovereignty frame. Each path is supported by multimedia material, including audio recordings, videos, and multiple-choice prompts, that force students to weigh arguments, anticipate counter-narratives, and articulate coherent positions. This branching structure immerses learners in the competing pressures PNG policymakers face in real-world foreign policy debates.

Branch A, the Pro-Australia frame, emphasizes PNG’s longstanding partnership with Canberra in security and defence. Students explore arguments highlighting shared history, training, and capacity-building. Yet, they must also confront potential criticisms—whether such alignment risks undermining PNG’s sovereignty or reinforcing dependency. The audio and video exercises require critical engagement with how media portrayals might either strengthen or weaken public support for this approach.

Branch B, the Pro-China frame, draws attention to Beijing’s expanding role in the Pacific. Here, the simulation highlights China’s economic muscle, infrastructure investments, and willingness to finance capacity gaps. Students must weigh these opportunities against anxieties about strategic capture and questions of trust. As in Branch A, the framing exercises push learners to analyze how media narratives can elevate China as a viable partner while obscuring possible risks.

Branch C, the Neutral/Sovereignty frame, provides the most complex option. It challenges students to consider whether PNG can assert an independent position, balancing external powers while foregrounding sovereignty. This branch underscores the strategic appeal of autonomy but also exposes the vulnerabilities of a small state attempting to resist alignment pressures. Students are asked to explore how neutrality might be framed as strength, while also recognizing the resource constraints and political realities that complicate such a strategy.

The lesson concludes by drawing all branches back to a broader reflection on foreign policy decision-making. Students are reminded that framing is not merely a communication tool but a strategic act that carries consequences for PNG’s sovereignty, development, and regional standing. By simulating the choices policymakers face, Lesson 6 cultivates analytical skills that go beyond theory, giving learners practical insights into the high-stakes world of maritime security diplomacy.

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