PNG Must Tread Carefully Between China and Australia on Digital Infrastructure

-

By Bernard Yegiora

Key takeaways
• Internet infrastructure is now a strategic national asset, not just a technical service.
• PNG must avoid binary alignment in digital infrastructure decisions involving China and Australia.
• A multi-partner, institution-led approach is essential to protect sovereignty, security, and development outcomes.

Introduction: internet infrastructure is now strategic

For PNG, the internet is no longer simply a tool for communication. It is part of national infrastructure tied to economic development, state capacity, service delivery, and security. Decisions about who builds, finances, or supports digital systems are therefore strategic choices.

As geopolitical competition intensifies in the Indo-Pacific, digital infrastructure has become a key arena of influence. PNG finds itself navigating between major partners, particularly China and Australia, both of whom see telecommunications as central to regional stability and national security.

This is not a situation PNG can avoid. But it must be managed carefully.

Reuters report on plans for Google to develop subsea internet cables in PNG under Australia’s defence partnership framework, highlighting the growing strategic importance of digital infrastructure in the region.

Revisiting PNG’s Huawei experience

Debates about digital infrastructure and geopolitics in PNG did not emerge recently. Earlier discussions around Huawei and telecommunications development already reflected the intersection between development priorities and strategic considerations.

In Australian Ignorance and PNG–Huawei Deal (2018), I examined how external reactions—particularly from traditional partners—shaped the discourse around PNG’s telecommunications decisions.
👉 https://theyegiorafiles.blogspot.com/2018/11/australian-ignorance-and-png-huawei-deal.html

In The Huawei Issue and Its Impact on PNG (2019), the discussion focused on how telecommunications cooperation was increasingly viewed through security and influence lenses, raising policy questions for PNG’s infrastructure decisions.
👉 https://theyegiorafiles.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-huawei-issue-and-its-impact-on-png.html

In Huawei behind PNG’s digital rise (2021), the emphasis shifted to documenting the practical outcomes of telecommunications expansion, including developments linked to the National Broadband Network and the Kumul Submarine Cable System, and their role in improving connectivity and digital economic activity.
👉 https://theyegiorafiles.blogspot.com/2021/01/huawei-behind-PNG-digital-rise.html

Taken together, these articles trace how PNG’s digital development has unfolded through a combination of domestic priorities, external partnerships, and evolving geopolitical pressures—underscoring why digital infrastructure decisions must be approached carefully and strategically.

Huawei and PNG’s digital expansion

PNG’s recent digital growth did not occur in isolation. Telecommunications expansion has been shaped by domestic initiatives, donor-supported programs, and partnerships with external technology providers. Among these, Huawei played a visible role in supporting network development and telecommunications capability during the early 2020s.

This contribution should be understood in developmental rather than ideological terms. Infrastructure providers—whether from China, Australia, or elsewhere—operate within broader geopolitical and commercial ecosystems. Their involvement reflects both technical capacity and strategic interest.

Recognising Huawei’s role in PNG’s digital expansion is therefore not about endorsing one partner over another. It is about acknowledging that connectivity improvements emerged through multiple partnerships, each carrying opportunities as well as strategic implications.

What has changed since

Since the early Huawei debates, several developments have reinforced the strategic nature of digital infrastructure:

  • growing reliance on internet systems for governance and economic activity

  • increased concern over cybersecurity and data sovereignty

  • intensified competition among major powers over telecommunications systems

  • recognition that connectivity underpins national development pathways

In this environment, digital systems function as critical infrastructure, not optional services.

The strategic dilemma for PNG

PNG faces a dual challenge.

On one hand, the country urgently needs expanded digital infrastructure to support development, education, commerce, and service delivery.

On the other hand, infrastructure partners operate within strategic competition. Telecommunications projects may therefore carry geopolitical interpretations beyond their technical purpose.

This creates a dilemma:

  • development needs require rapid infrastructure expansion

  • security and sovereignty concerns require careful evaluation of partnerships

Balancing these pressures requires structured policy thinking rather than reactive decisions.

Signing and rollout phase of the NBN project in 2013, where Telikom PNG partnered with Huawei to expand nationwide broadband infrastructure and support e-government and digital connectivity initiatives.

What PNG must avoid

Binary alignment

PNG should avoid framing digital infrastructure decisions as a choice between China and Australia. Such framing reduces policy flexibility and strategic autonomy.

Politicised infrastructure decisions

When telecommunications projects become politicised, technical evaluation risks being overshadowed. Infrastructure decisions must begin with performance, sustainability, and national benefit.

Reactive policy shifts

Ad hoc responses to external pressure undermine credibility and disrupt long-term planning.

Policy direction: a careful path forward

If digital infrastructure is a strategic asset, PNG’s response must also be strategic.

Multi-partner engagement

PNG should maintain engagement with multiple partners to spread risk and strengthen negotiating leverage.

Technical evaluation before political positioning

Infrastructure proposals must be assessed on technical, economic, and operational grounds before geopolitical interpretations shape decisions.

Institutional oversight

Major infrastructure decisions require structured review mechanisms within government, supported by technical expertise and inter-agency coordination.

National digital strategy

PNG needs a coherent long-term framework guiding infrastructure expansion, cybersecurity, data governance, and partnership selection.

Sovereignty in the digital era

Internet infrastructure is now tied to national sovereignty. Reliability, control, and resilience shape a country’s ability to govern, communicate, and respond to crises.

For PNG, this does not mean rejecting partnerships. It means engaging them on terms that prioritise national interest, transparency, and sustainability.

Small states often face pressure to align. Strategic maturity lies in maintaining relationships while preserving independent decision-making.

Conclusion: development, security, and balance

PNG’s digital future will be shaped by decisions made today. Internet infrastructure sits at the intersection of development, security, and geopolitics. The country must therefore proceed carefully when navigating between partners such as China and Australia.

The lesson from PNG’s experience with Huawei and telecommunications expansion is clear: infrastructure decisions are rarely neutral. They carry economic, strategic, and political implications.

PNG’s task is not to choose sides, but to choose carefully—grounding decisions in institutional analysis, technical evaluation, and national interest.

In the digital era, caution is not hesitation. It is strategy.

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

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

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