Internationalisation of Higher Education: A Foreign Policy Blind Spot in PNG

-

Francis Hualupmomi’s 2015 essay on the internationalisation of higher education was one of the first attempts to explain why PNG has struggled to harness education as a tool of diplomacy. He noted that while political, economic, diplomatic, and security issues dominate foreign policy, higher education cooperation is rarely prioritised. This neglect has created a blind spot: PNG risks underutilising one of the most powerful instruments of influence in the modern era — education.

In today’s world, internationalisation of education is no longer a marginal academic concern but a central component of foreign policy. Countries like China, through its scholarship and language programs, or the United States with the Fulbright Program, use higher education as a deliberate strategy to project soft power, cultivate elites, and build long-term influence. Australia, PNG’s closest neighbour, has long pursued similar goals through the Australia Awards, which provide hundreds of PNG students with scholarships each year. These awards are framed as development assistance, but they also serve Canberra’s strategic interest by ensuring PNG’s future leaders are connected to Australian institutions and values.

Domestically, some progress has been made. The National Higher and Technical Education Plan 2021–2030 (NHTEP) lays out a long-term vision for the sector. It identifies five strategic goal areas: governance, teaching and learning, research and development, resourcing, and partnerships. The plan envisions “a vibrant higher and technical education system that is innovative in responding to and sustaining national development aspirations in the age of the knowledge economy”. These are necessary reforms, but they remain largely inward-looking.

Excerpt from the National Higher and Technical Education Plan (2021–2030) outlining Strategy 1 under Goal Area 5 (Partnerships), which emphasizes fostering stakeholder interactions through policies, industry collaboration, and international partnerships, with measurable KPIs for capacity building and strategic engagement.

The NHTEP sets ambitious targets. Enrolments are expected to grow from 42,778 in 2021 to over 84,000 by 2030. Meeting this demand requires significant investment in infrastructure, digital learning, and workforce development. Crucially, it also requires international partnerships. Goal Area 5, which focuses on partnerships, highlights collaboration with domestic and foreign stakeholders in areas such as curriculum, scholarships, research, and infrastructure. Yet the plan treats these partnerships as technical arrangements, not as matters of statecraft.

For foreign policy makers, this distinction matters. If the NHTEP is implemented without a foreign policy lens, PNG risks expanding access but failing to strategically position itself in the regional knowledge economy. Internationalisation should not only be about filling scholarship quotas but about advancing PNG’s standing in diplomacy, trade, and regional leadership. This is especially true as foreign governments — China through its scholarships, and Australia through the Australia Awards — already view education as an entry point for influence.

The alignment between domestic plans like the NHTEP and PNG’s foreign policy is therefore critical. Vision 2050 demands a pipeline of 16,000 graduates annually to transform the economy. But this target cannot be achieved without deliberate global partnerships that are negotiated as part of foreign policy, not left to chance. Coordinating the Department of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology (DHERST) and the Department of Foreign Affairs to jointly manage international education cooperation is no longer optional — it is a strategic necessity.

Embedding higher education internationalisation into foreign policy would also allow PNG to better leverage the skills and networks of returned scholars. Too often, graduates from foreign scholarship programs — whether from China or the Australia Awards — return without a structured pathway to contribute to diplomacy, innovation, or policy development. The NHTEP calls for stronger research, resourcing, and partnerships. A foreign policy framework could take this further by ensuring that international alumni become part of PNG’s broader diplomatic and economic strategy.

Hualupmomi’s warning a decade ago remains urgent. The NHTEP he help wrote as acting secretary for DHERST has created a domestic roadmap for reform, but unless it is integrated into foreign policy, the blind spot he identified will persist. For PNG’s foreign policy makers, the task is clear: elevate higher education internationalisation from a sectoral reform agenda to a core pillar of foreign policy. In doing so, PNG can turn education into a strategic asset that serves national development, strengthens sovereignty, and enhances the country’s regional and global influence.

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