PNG’s Middle East policy problem: decisions without expertise

-

By Bernard Yegiora

PNG has taken several significant diplomatic steps into the Middle East over the past two years. First came the decision to open an embassy in Jerusalem in 2023. Then followed efforts to deepen relations with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) through visa-free travel arrangements and discussion of stronger trade links centred around Dubai. Now, as tensions escalate across the Middle East – including the expanding confrontation involving Iran – PNG’s leaders increasingly find themselves commenting on a region that is among the most complex geopolitical arenas in the world.

Yet there is a structural problem at the centre of this emerging foreign policy engagement. PNG is making consequential diplomatic moves in the Middle East without a strong domestic base of expertise to understand the region.

This gap is increasingly visible across several recent developments.

The Jerusalem decision

PNG opened its embassy in Jerusalem in September 2023, becoming the first Pacific Island country to establish a diplomatic mission in the city. The decision placed PNG in a small group of states that recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

A screenshot from my blog article “Why Should Hamas Listen to PNG?” It examined the diplomatic timeline between PNG, Israel, and Hamas—from PNG’s decision to open its embassy in Jerusalem in September 2023 to the regional escalation following the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The article raises a broader question about reciprocity in diplomacy: if PNG ignored one party in the conflict, why would that party now listen to PNG’s calls for peace?

Jerusalem, however, is not simply another diplomatic location. Its status lies at the heart of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and remains one of the most contested issues in international diplomacy. For decades, most countries have located their embassies in Tel Aviv in order to avoid taking a position on the sovereignty dispute.

The PNG government framed the decision largely through a religious and symbolic lens, emphasising the country’s Christian identity and historical ties to the biblical narrative. But the Jerusalem issue is fundamentally geopolitical rather than theological. It sits within a wider matrix of territorial disputes, international law, regional security competition, and global diplomatic alignments.

A decision of that scale would normally be preceded by extensive policy debate and research analysis. Yet PNG has very few scholars specialising in Middle Eastern politics or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The absence of a strong academic conversation meant the decision was largely discussed through political and religious narratives rather than strategic analysis.

Trade diplomacy with the UAE

PNG’s outreach to the United Arab Emirates reflects a different motivation: economic diplomacy.

The government has promoted the UAE relationship as a gateway to global markets. Dubai’s role as a major aviation, logistics, and financial hub makes the Gulf an attractive partner for a geographically remote economy such as PNG. The visa-waiver agreement signed between the two countries is intended to facilitate travel, investment, and tourism.

In principle, strengthening economic ties with the Gulf can make sense. But the question is not whether engagement with the UAE is desirable. The question is whether the engagement is being supported by sufficient strategic analysis.

There is little publicly visible research produced by PNG universities or think tanks examining the economic and geopolitical implications of a deeper PNG–UAE partnership. Issues such as regulatory risks, investment structures, geopolitical tensions in the Gulf, and exposure to regional instability rarely appear in domestic policy debates.

For countries with mature foreign policy institutions, trade diplomacy of this kind is normally supported by academic studies, policy papers, and strategic assessments. In PNG, that analytical infrastructure remains limited.

The widening Middle East conflict

Recent regional developments highlight why expertise matters.

The conflict landscape in the Middle East has become increasingly volatile. The Gaza war has reshaped regional politics. Tensions involving Iran, Israel, and the United States have raised the possibility of broader escalation. Non-state actors and proxy networks add additional layers of complexity to the security environment.

Understanding these dynamics requires specialised knowledge of the region’s political systems, ideological movements, and strategic rivalries. Without that expertise, governments risk interpreting events through simplified narratives or external media frames.

In PNG, commentary on Middle Eastern developments often relies on international news coverage rather than locally generated strategic analysis. This makes it difficult for policymakers to independently assess the implications of regional developments for PNG’s diplomatic interests.

A broader policy capacity issue

The deeper issue is not the specific decisions taken in Jerusalem or the UAE. Rather, these developments expose a structural weakness in PNG’s foreign policy ecosystem.

The country has relatively strong expertise on Pacific regional politics and development policy. But systematic knowledge of other strategic regions – including the Middle East – is extremely limited within PNG’s universities and research institutions.

Think tanks such as the National Research Institute play an important role in domestic policy debates, but research on global geopolitical regions remains scarce. As a result, policymakers often operate without the analytical support networks that exist in larger countries.

This matters because foreign policy decisions increasingly require governments to navigate complex international environments that extend far beyond their immediate region.

Why knowledge matters

Diplomacy is not only about relationships and symbolism. It is also about understanding the strategic environments in which those relationships operate.

Opening embassies, negotiating trade arrangements, and commenting on international conflicts all send signals about a country’s diplomatic positioning. Without deep regional knowledge, those signals may be shaped more by short-term political considerations or external narratives than by long-term strategic thinking.

PNG does not need to become a Middle East power. But it does need the intellectual infrastructure to interpret developments in regions that increasingly influence global politics and economics.

Building the expertise

If PNG intends to expand its global diplomatic engagement, it must invest in building the knowledge base that supports such engagement.

That means encouraging universities like the University of PNG or Divine Word University to develop research on global strategic regions, supporting think-tank capacity in international affairs, and fostering partnerships with foreign institutions that specialise in regional studies.

Developing expertise takes time. But the alternative is a foreign policy that reacts to global events rather than anticipates them.

The larger lesson

PNG’s recent engagement with the Middle East – from the Jerusalem embassy to the UAE relationship and the challenges posed by regional conflicts – reveals a deeper lesson.

The country is stepping into a strategically complex region without yet possessing the analytical capacity needed to fully understand it.

The issue is not whether PNG should engage the Middle East. Engagement is inevitable in a globalised world.

The real question is whether PNG will build the intellectual foundations necessary to ensure that its foreign policy decisions are guided by knowledge rather than assumption.

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