PNG, Israel and Australia: From Training Support to Defence Partnerships and Rising Power

-

PNG’s evolving security relationships have begun to converge in a way few predicted. With the Defence Treaty now signed with Australia and deepening diplomatic ties with Israel, Port Moresby faces a pivotal decision: should PNG sign a similar Defence Treaty with Israel, or settle for a structured cooperation framework? Recent statements such as “Israel is happy to help PNG” on the The National and past reports of security partnerships with Israel mentioned on PNG Facts sharpen this question.

The Christian identity of PNG plays a far greater role than mere symbolism. Many in the country view Israel not only through a religious lens but as a partner whose values they share. Serving alongside the Israel Defense Forces, should a treaty be agreed, would not contradict PNG’s spiritual or moral foundations but reinforce them. Combined with a Defence Treaty with Australia, it could cement PNG’s identity as a Western-aligned, values-driven nation.

Yet distance and geopolitics complicate the calculus. Israel operates in a region riven by ongoing conflict; its security policy is shaped by decades of combat situations, many involving questions of human rights and accountability. A Defence Treaty with Israel would risk dragging PNG into international controversy. For example, earlier reports—such as those from PNG Facts in 2013 about Israeli support for PNG Police and Defence—reflect past willingness to cooperate in security training. But those were limited in scope. PNG must decide whether it wants open-ended obligations or focused assistance in specific domains.

This is where a Defence Cooperation Agreement becomes a wiser path. PNG has precedent for such cooperation: back in 2013, reports surfaced that PNG Police and Defence were set to benefit from Israeli training and equipment.Such collaboration, when clearly defined and limited, delivered value without binding PNG to full strategic or military obligations. More recent disclaimers—such as “Israel is happy to help PNG”—signal that Israel remains ready to assist in areas of mutual interest.

If PNGDF and NIO are to benefit, focus should be on HUMINT and SIGINT, cybersecurity, maritime patrol, and drone-based surveillance. These were among the domains hinted at in earlier Israeli cooperation reports. Re-engaging on those fronts under a formalized cooperation agreement (not a treaty) could deliver real improvements in capability without the burden of strategic over commitment.

Diplomatic visibility matters as much as operational capability. PNG’s support for Israel in the UN, its Jerusalem embassy, plus its treaty with Australia, all contribute to a reputation of consistency and loyalty. If PNG secures Israeli cooperation in policing, defence training, or intelligence, that loyalty becomes tangible. It transforms PNG from a vocal supporter into a security partner—and regional observers will notice.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape attends the opening of PNG’s embassy in Jerusalem, a move underscoring Port Moresby’s deepening alignment with Israel despite international controversy. (ABC News: Haidar Jones)

From the perspective of power metrics like the Lowy Asia Power Index, combining a Defence Treaty with Australia and meaningful cooperation with Israel offers PNG leverage. Australia solidifies its foundational security role; Israel offers niche capabilities that Australia cannot always provide. Together, this enhances PNG’s resilience, defence profile, and diplomatic capital. PNG could see significant gains in ranking if it plays this well.

In the end, the question is not whether PNG can trust Israel, but whether PNG wants to be treated not as a follower, but as a partner. With past precedent, clear signals from both governments, and domestic institutions ready to absorb assistance, PNG has every reason to lean into cooperation—but with caution. A Defence Cooperation Agreement appears the most balanced path: gaining the perks without the full weight of a Treaty.

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