Reading PNG’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 Through the Four Levels of Foreign Policy Analysis

By Bernard Yegiora

PNG’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 is more than a statement of diplomatic priorities. It is a strategic document that seeks to explain how PNG should understand its place in the world, define its national interests, organise its foreign-policy institutions and translate policy commitments into practical action.

A useful way to analyse the White Paper is through Allan Gyngell and Michael Wesley’s four levels of foreign policy making: the strategic, contextual, organisational and operational levels.

Gyngell and Wesley’s four interrelated levels of foreign policy making—strategic, contextual, organisational and operational—which operate simultaneously in shaping foreign policy decisions and implementation.

These four levels should not be treated as separate stages in a linear process. Gyngell and Wesley argue that foreign policy making occurs simultaneously across all four levels. Each level performs a different function, but all are interconnected. Focusing on only one level produces an incomplete understanding of how foreign policy is actually formulated and implemented.

Applied to PNG, this framework helps us move beyond simply summarising the White Paper. It allows us to ask four more demanding questions:

What does PNG want? What conditions shape its choices? Which institutions are responsible? How will the policy be implemented?

The strategic level: What does PNG want?

The strategic level concerns the broad direction of foreign policy. It includes national interests, values, long-term objectives, general policy commitments and official statements such as White Papers and ministerial speeches.

Gyngell and Wesley explain that strategic policy is where foreign policy appears at its most purposeful and authoritative. At this level, governments define how they see the country’s position in the world, identify the national interest and set general parameters for future action.

The PNG Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 performs precisely this function.

Its central theme is “Strategic Partnerships for Security and Economic Prosperity.” It presents foreign policy as an instrument for protecting sovereignty, advancing national security, promoting economic prosperity and improving the wellbeing of citizens. The White Paper also retains PNG’s foundational doctrine of “Friends to All, Enemies to None,” while adapting it to a more contested international environment.

The strategic level is most clearly reflected in the White Paper’s vision, values and principles. It states that foreign policy must draw on Melanesian culture, Christian principles, constitutional democracy, human rights, accountability and the rule of law. It also establishes several core principles, including sovereignty, reciprocity, peaceful coexistence, multilateral engagement and the need for foreign policy to serve domestic development.

One of the most important strategic principles is that foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. This means PNG’s international engagement should not be separated from national development. Diplomatic relationships, development assistance, trade agreements, security partnerships and regional engagement must ultimately contribute to domestic outcomes.

The strategic level therefore asks whether PNG’s external relationships are aligned with its core national objectives.

For example:

• Do bilateral partnerships strengthen PNG’s security and economy?
• Does participation in regional organisations advance national interests?
• Are development partnerships aligned with PNG’s priorities?
• Does PNG’s engagement with major powers preserve its sovereignty and policy independence?

The White Paper also sharpens the meaning of “Friends to All, Enemies to None.” It does not suggest that all relationships should receive equal attention. Rather, PNG should give greater weight to countries and institutions that align with its interests and values. This introduces strategic prioritisation into PNG’s traditional universalist approach.

The contextual level: What conditions shape PNG’s choices?

The contextual level concerns the domestic and international environment in which foreign policy decisions are made.

According to Gyngell and Wesley, contextual analysis determines what is at stake in a policy issue. It requires decision-makers to assess costs, benefits, opportunities, constraints, competing interests and the relationship between one policy issue and another.

Context is essential because foreign policy does not operate in isolation. A policy that appears desirable at the strategic level may be difficult, costly or politically sensitive in practice.

The White Paper provides a detailed account of PNG’s contemporary policy environment. Internationally, it describes a world marked by uncertainty, geopolitical competition, technological change, climate pressures, economic disruption and a movement towards a more multipolar international system. It specifically identifies strategic competition between the United States and China as a defining feature of the Asia-Pacific region.

The Pacific itself has become an arena of increased strategic competition. This has created opportunities for Pacific Island countries, including greater diplomatic attention, infrastructure funding, security cooperation and development assistance. But it has also created risks. PNG and other Pacific states may face pressure to align with competing powers, accept external priorities or respond individually rather than collectively.

The White Paper therefore places PNG in a difficult strategic context. PNG wants strong relations with Australia, China, the United States, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, ASEAN countries, Pacific neighbours and other partners. Yet these relationships do not always operate harmoniously. Major powers may have competing security, economic and political objectives.

The contextual level requires PNG to assess each issue carefully rather than relying only on general slogans.

For example, a proposed security agreement cannot be judged solely on the basis that it offers equipment or training. It must also be assessed in terms of sovereignty, strategic dependence, regional perceptions, institutional capacity and its possible effect on relations with other partners.

Domestic context is equally important.

The White Paper identifies law and order, governance, corruption, institutional weakness, human-development deficits, skills shortages, climate vulnerability and the high cost of doing business as continuing national challenges. It also recognises that PNG’s young population, abundant natural resources, strategic location and position between Asia and the Pacific create substantial opportunities.

These domestic conditions shape foreign policy priorities. PNG seeks infrastructure investment because domestic infrastructure is inadequate. It seeks education and training partnerships because of human-capital constraints. It seeks security assistance because of policing, border, maritime and cyber-capacity gaps. It pursues economic diplomacy because it needs investment, jobs, markets and downstream processing.

The contextual level therefore explains why the White Paper gives such strong attention to security, trade, development cooperation, climate diplomacy, education, institutional reform and strategic partnerships.

It also exposes the central tension in PNG foreign policy: the country has substantial strategic importance but limited institutional and administrative capacity.

The organisational level: Who is responsible for delivering foreign policy?

The organisational level concerns the institutions, bureaucratic structures, resources and decision-making arrangements through which foreign policy is made.

Gyngell and Wesley describe this level as involving both the use of existing organisational structures and the allocation of political and bureaucratic resources to particular issues. Urgent and important issues may require new coordination mechanisms, additional resources or the direct involvement of senior leaders. Less urgent issues are usually handled through existing bureaucratic routines.

The PNG White Paper gives considerable attention to this level.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is identified as the central agency responsible for overseeing and implementing foreign policy. However, the document also acknowledges that foreign policy cannot be delivered by the Department of Foreign Affairs alone. Defence, police, immigration, trade, Treasury, National Planning, fisheries, agriculture, education, climate-change agencies and provincial authorities all have external responsibilities.

This is why the White Paper repeatedly calls for a whole-of-government approach.

At the highest level, the Prime Minister, the National Executive Council and the Minister for Foreign Affairs make the most important foreign-policy decisions. The Central Agency Coordination Committee provides senior bureaucratic coordination, while the Department of Foreign Affairs is expected to serve as the central channel for managing international engagement.

The White Paper also acknowledges that existing coordination is not always effective. It identifies weaknesses in communication between government agencies, insufficient consultation with provinces and limited regular engagement with businesses, churches, civil society and universities.

These are organisational problems, not merely diplomatic ones.

A country may have sound strategic policies but still fail if its institutions cannot coordinate, share information or allocate resources effectively. The White Paper recognises this risk and proposes institutional reforms, including:

• increased staffing for the Department of Foreign Affairs;
• improved ICT and secure communications;
• enhanced professional training;
• a new Foreign Service Act;
• the establishment of a Diplomatic Academy;
• more transparent appointments;
• specialist officers attached to overseas missions; and
• stronger parliamentary oversight.

These reforms are central to the White Paper because organisational capacity determines whether strategic intentions can be converted into policy outcomes.

The proposed Diplomatic Academy is particularly important. It could strengthen professional training, institutional memory, policy research and engagement between government, academia and the wider foreign-policy community. However, its success would depend on adequate funding, a specialised curriculum, merit-based staffing and clear links to the operational needs of the foreign service.

The operational level: How will policy be implemented?

The operational level concerns the detailed, day-to-day work of foreign policy.

Gyngell and Wesley explain that operational policy making involves monitoring developments, implementing policy and managing detailed activities through diplomatic, bureaucratic, media and other channels. It is often cautious, incremental and highly dependent on strategic guidance, contextual judgement and organisational resources.

This is where the White Paper must move from aspiration to delivery.

Operational foreign policy includes:

• diplomatic reporting;
• bilateral negotiations;
• ministerial visits;
• treaty implementation;
• trade promotion;
• consular services;
• participation in international organisations;
• public diplomacy;
• development-partner coordination;
• border cooperation;
• security arrangements; and
• monitoring and evaluation.

The White Paper’s eight pillars provide the broad operational agenda. These cover bilateral relations, multilateralism, sovereignty and security, economic diplomacy, development cooperation, national branding, diplomatic reform, and leadership and coordination.

Each pillar contains specific future directions.

For example, under bilateral relations, PNG intends to prioritise close neighbours, security partners, development partners and countries with strong economic potential. Under multilateralism, PNG intends to review its membership in international organisations, pursue ASEAN membership and strengthen its leadership role in the Pacific.

Under economic and commercial diplomacy, the government proposes specialist trade commissioners, greater support for downstream processing, improved trade agreements and stronger promotion of investment and tourism.

Under diplomatic reform, the White Paper proposes better-resourced missions, improved consular support, expanded staffing and clearer performance measurement.

These are operational commitments. Their success will depend on whether they are assigned to responsible agencies, funded through the budget, incorporated into corporate plans and measured through credible performance indicators.

The White Paper also calls for the reinstatement of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ regular Foreign Affairs Review and annual reporting to Parliament. These mechanisms are important because implementation must be monitored. Without regular evaluation, signed agreements may remain inactive, diplomatic missions may operate without clear priorities and government agencies may pursue inconsistent external agendas.

Operational effectiveness is therefore the ultimate test of the White Paper.

A policy may be strategically sound, contextually informed and organisationally well designed, but it will still fail if missions are underfunded, officers are poorly trained, agreements are not implemented or agencies do not communicate.

The four levels are interconnected

The major value of the Gyngell and Wesley framework is that it prevents us from analysing foreign policy through only one dimension.

The strategic level tells us what PNG wants.

The contextual level explains the domestic and international conditions shaping its options.

The organisational level identifies who has responsibility and how resources are arranged.

The operational level shows how policy is translated into concrete action.

These levels operate together.

For example, PNG may identify ASEAN membership as a strategic objective. At the contextual level, it must assess the economic, diplomatic and political benefits, as well as membership obligations and regional expectations. At the organisational level, the Department of Foreign Affairs and relevant economic agencies must coordinate the accession process and allocate expertise. At the operational level, diplomats must negotiate, prepare documentation, attend meetings and demonstrate compliance with membership requirements.

Similarly, PNG may define economic diplomacy as a strategic priority. Contextual analysis must identify markets, domestic constraints and trade opportunities. Organisational arrangements must clarify the roles of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Investment, Treasury, Customs and overseas missions. Operational implementation then requires trade negotiations, market research, investment promotion and support for PNG exporters.

A weakness at any level can undermine the entire process.

A framework for evaluating the White Paper

The four levels also provide a practical framework for evaluating the implementation of the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025.

At the strategic level, the question is whether government decisions remain consistent with the White Paper’s national interests, values and declared priorities.

At the contextual level, the question is whether policies are based on accurate assessments of domestic conditions, regional dynamics and geopolitical risks.

At the organisational level, the question is whether the Department of Foreign Affairs and other agencies have the authority, skills, funding and coordination mechanisms required to act.

At the operational level, the question is whether the government is actually implementing, monitoring and evaluating its diplomatic commitments.

This framework shifts attention away from announcements alone. Foreign policy should not be evaluated by the number of overseas visits, agreements signed or diplomatic statements issued. It should be evaluated by whether those activities advance national security, economic prosperity, institutional development and the wellbeing of Papua New Guineans.

Conclusion

The PNG Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 is fundamentally a strategic document, but its success will depend on developments across all four levels of foreign policy making.

Its vision is ambitious. It seeks a confident, sovereign and outward-looking PNG that uses strategic partnerships to promote security and economic prosperity. It also recognises the realities of geopolitical competition, institutional weakness and limited national capacity.

Gyngell and Wesley’s framework helps us understand that writing the policy is only one part of the process. Strategic direction must be supported by sound contextual judgement, effective organisational arrangements and disciplined operational implementation.

The critical issue is therefore not simply whether PNG has produced a good Foreign Policy White Paper.

The real question is whether the country can build the institutional capacity, policy coordination and operational discipline required to turn that White Paper into national practice.