Israel, PNG, and the Question of Security Loyalty

By Bernard Yegiora

PNG’s foreign policy has long been guided by the principle of “friends to all, enemies to none.” Yet, as the geopolitics of the Pacific intensify, Port Moresby increasingly finds itself navigating difficult trade-offs between loyalty, sovereignty, and pragmatism. One area where this tension is visible is in the way PNG positions itself on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and whether that loyalty could translate into tangible security cooperation with Israel.

On October 8, 2024, The National reported PNG’s renewed pledge of support for Israel, reaffirming the country’s long-standing loyalty in international forums.

Australia, PNG’s closest defence partner, has taken a more cautious and calibrated approach to the Middle East. Canberra generally aligns with Western positions, balancing its alliance with the United States with sensitivities in the Arab world. PNG, on the other hand, has consistently demonstrated strong loyalty to Israel, including at the UN. This divergence in foreign policy outlook raises an important question: if PNG were to seek Israeli assistance to strengthen its security, how would Australia react?

The Defence Treaty currently under negotiation with Australia is designed to boost PNG’s land, maritime, and air defence capacity. Australia sees itself as the primary security guarantor for PNG, and in return expects Port Moresby to avoid introducing competing external actors that could dilute the depth of the partnership. In this context, Israeli engagement—even if well-intentioned—could create unease in Canberra.

It is worth noting that PNG has already tested this path before. In 2013, then–Prime Minister Peter O’Neill signed a cooperation agreement with Israel covering defence, security, and intelligence. Despite the political symbolism, the agreement never moved beyond the declaratory stage. No enduring programs or large-scale exchanges followed, and today there is no evidence the agreements remain active. This underscores the difficulty of turning diplomatic loyalty into operational security partnerships.

Israel, for its part, would likely welcome closer ties with PNG, but such engagement would remain selective and transactional. Tel Aviv’s comparative advantage lies in defence technologies, intelligence systems, and niche training programs. Israel might also seek to capitalize on PNG’s consistent support at the UN, reinforcing the idea that loyalty abroad can yield technical dividends at home. However, Israel does not have the resources or strategic bandwidth to match Australia’s scale of investment in PNG’s defence sector.

For PNG, the risks are clear. Overplaying the Israel card could alienate Australia at a time when the Defence Treaty is still being consolidated. It may also send the wrong signal to other partners, particularly China, that PNG is sliding further into Western-aligned security networks. Given PNG’s delicate balancing act in the Pacific, any move that narrows its diplomatic space should be carefully weighed.

At the same time, there are opportunities. Supplementary Israeli assistance could diversify PNG’s defence relationships without undermining Australia’s primary role. Targeted support in areas such as drone surveillance, cyber defence, or counterterrorism training would strengthen PNG’s security toolkit. Symbolically, demonstrating loyalty to Israel could also reinforce political ties that successive PNG governments have valued for religious and ideological reasons.

The challenge is narrative management. PNG must frame any Israeli assistance as complementary and niche, rather than a substitute for Australian support. It must avoid public rhetoric that reduces foreign policy to a transactional exchange of loyalty at the UN for defence concessions. Instead, the emphasis should remain on PNG’s sovereign right to diversify its partnerships while maintaining the primacy of its relationship with Australia.

In the end, PNG’s loyalty to Israel does carry implications for its broader defence diplomacy. But as the failed and now inactive 2013 cooperation attempt shows, symbolic declarations do not automatically yield concrete results. With careful calibration, Port Moresby can manage the risks and extract modest benefits without jeopardizing its most critical security partnership. The key lies in ensuring that Israel is seen as an additional friend, not as an alternative patron, in PNG’s evolving defence landscape.