Turning PNG’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 into Student-Led Case Studies

By Bernard Yegiora

Week 2 Meeting 3 of PG428 Foreign Policy in PNG continued the important work of translating Papua New Guinea’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 into practical student-led case studies. The unit is co-facilitated with Mr. Lahui Ako and is designed to move students beyond theory and into the real-world policy challenges facing PNG’s foreign relations.

For those who missed the session or would like to review the group presentations and feedback, the Week 2 Meeting 3 recording is available here: https://youtu.be/0ugsM6cmMdM

The meeting focused on presentations from Groups 1, 2, and 3. These groups presented their selected case studies, research questions, key agencies, stakeholders, and initial implementation plans. This followed the previous week’s activity, where students were organised into seven permanent groups and allocated case study topics drawn from the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025.

The purpose of the activity is straightforward: students must engage PNG’s foreign policy not as abstract classroom content, but as a living national policy agenda requiring analysis, prioritisation, coordination, implementation, and review.

Case Study 1: Strategic Bilateral Partnership Prioritisation

Group 1 presented on Strategic Bilateral Partnership Prioritisation. The scenario placed students in the position of a policy planning team within the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 identifies strong bilateral relationships as a key pillar of PNG’s foreign policy. PNG has important relationships with Australia, Indonesia, China, Japan, New Zealand, Pacific Island countries, the United States, European countries, ASEAN countries, and emerging partners.

However, PNG has limited diplomatic, financial, and administrative capacity. It cannot give equal attention to all bilateral relationships at the same time. This creates the need for a practical framework to prioritise bilateral relationships based on national interest, security, economic value, development cooperation, people-to-people links, and regional leadership.

The problem identified in this case study is that PNG’s bilateral engagement risks becoming too broad, reactive, and personality-driven if there is no clear prioritisation framework.

The guiding research question is:

How can PNG develop a practical bilateral partnership prioritisation framework that advances security, economic prosperity, development cooperation, and regional leadership?

This is a central issue in PNG foreign policy. PNG has many bilateral relationships, but not all relationships carry the same strategic weight. Some partners are important for security. Others are important for trade, infrastructure, development assistance, education, health, labour mobility, or diplomatic support. The challenge is not whether PNG should have many friends. The real challenge is whether PNG knows how to rank, manage, and leverage those relationships in line with national interest.

The key agencies and stakeholders for this case study include the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Prime Minister and NEC, Department of National Planning and Monitoring, Department of International Trade and Investment, Treasury, Immigration and Citizenship Authority, PNG diplomatic missions, private sector, provincial governments, and development partners.

The group identified unstable prioritisation as a major policy problem. This is a strong starting point. PNG’s foreign relations have often been shaped by changing political preferences, project-based engagement, donor influence, and short-term diplomatic opportunities. What is needed is a more disciplined framework for identifying which countries matter most, why they matter, and how PNG should engage them.

The Marape government’s current approach provides one useful example. China has been prioritised heavily in economic and infrastructure relations, while Australia remains central to PNG’s security and development cooperation. Indonesia remains critical because of the land border and the West Papua issue. Japan, the United States, New Zealand, India, and other partners also occupy important strategic spaces.

Mr. Ako’s commentary helped broaden the discussion by highlighting practical and historical examples of bilateral engagement, including PNG’s relationship-building efforts with countries such as Peru through APEC-related cooperation. This was an important reminder that foreign policy is not only about major powers. Smaller or less obvious partnerships can also produce practical value when they are properly managed.

The discussion also touched on Israel’s decision to establish its embassy in Suva rather than Port Moresby. This example raises a wider concern about PNG’s diplomatic positioning in the Pacific. If PNG wants to be treated as a serious regional actor, it must be proactive, coordinated, and strategic in attracting diplomatic presence, investment, and policy attention.

Case Study 2: PNG’s Multilateral Engagement and ASEAN Aspiration

Group 2 presented on PNG’s Multilateral Engagement and ASEAN Aspiration. The scenario placed students in the role of a multilateral affairs working group within the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 highlights the importance of effective multilateralism through institutions such as the United Nations, Pacific Islands Forum, Melanesian Spearhead Group, APEC, WTO, and ASEAN.

PNG aspires to strengthen its international voice, seek leadership positions in regional and global organisations, and pursue closer engagement with ASEAN. However, multilateral engagement requires technical preparation, sustained lobbying, diplomatic coordination, policy coherence, and adequate resourcing.

The problem identified in this case study is that PNG participates in many multilateral forums, but its engagement can be inconsistent, under-resourced, and insufficiently linked to domestic policy priorities.

The guiding research question is:

How can PNG strengthen its multilateral engagement and ASEAN aspiration through a coordinated, selective, and well-resourced diplomatic strategy?

This is one of the most important foreign policy questions facing PNG. PNG has long sought to position itself as both a Pacific state and an Asia-Pacific actor. It is a member of the Pacific Islands Forum, Melanesian Spearhead Group, Commonwealth, United Nations, APEC, and other international institutions. At the same time, PNG has maintained an interest in deeper engagement with ASEAN.

The key agencies and stakeholders for this case study include the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Prime Minister and NEC, Department of International Trade and Investment, Department of National Planning and Monitoring, PNG diplomatic missions, Parliament, sector agencies, academia, and regional organisations.

Mr. Ako provided a detailed and practical discussion on the challenges of ASEAN membership. His comments were especially useful because they forced students to think beyond diplomatic ambition and consider institutional cost, administrative burden, and strategic return. Joining ASEAN would not simply be a symbolic foreign policy achievement. It would require serious diplomatic investment, including institutional representation, staffing, coordination mechanisms, and sustained engagement.

The key issue is value for money. PNG must ask whether ASEAN membership would produce greater benefits than its existing engagement through APEC. APEC already provides PNG with opportunities to engage major economies across the Asia-Pacific, including several ASEAN members. For a state with limited diplomatic resources, PNG must be strategic about where it invests its time, personnel, and political capital.

This does not mean ASEAN is unimportant. Rather, it means PNG must carefully assess the value added by each multilateral platform. The same applies to the Pacific Islands Forum, MSG, Commonwealth, United Nations, WTO, and other regional and global bodies. Membership alone does not guarantee influence. Influence comes from preparation, coordination, policy clarity, negotiation capacity, and follow-through.

Group 2’s case study therefore has major policy relevance. PNG’s multilateral diplomacy must be reviewed not only in terms of participation, but also in terms of outcomes. What does PNG gain? What does PNG contribute? How does each forum advance national interest? Which platforms deserve priority? Which require reform in PNG’s internal coordination? These are the hard questions students must continue to examine.

Case Study 3: Border, Maritime, and Cyber Security Cooperation

Group 3 presented on Border, Maritime, and Cyber Security Cooperation. The scenario placed students in the role of a national security working group tasked with implementing the security pillar of the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025.

PNG faces no direct external military threat, but it faces growing non-traditional security challenges. These include transnational crime, illegal movement of people, smuggling, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, cyber threats, climate-related disasters, and border management problems.

The White Paper calls for stronger defence, police, border, maritime, and cyber capabilities. However, security responsibilities are spread across many agencies, creating serious coordination challenges.

The problem identified in this case study is that PNG’s security challenges are cross-border and cross-agency, but implementation is often fragmented across defence, police, immigration, customs, fisheries, maritime, cyber, intelligence, and provincial authorities.

The guiding research question is:

How can PNG establish a whole-of-government implementation framework to strengthen border, maritime, and cyber security cooperation?

This is a critical issue for PNG. Border security, maritime surveillance, cyber threats, transnational crime, illegal fishing, irregular movement, and strategic competition are no longer separate policy issues. They are interconnected national security challenges. For a country such as PNG, with extensive land and maritime borders, weak institutional capacity, and growing exposure to external strategic interests, coordination is not optional. It is core national security business.

The key agencies and stakeholders for this case study include the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of Prime Minister and NEC, PNG Defence Force, Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary, National Intelligence Organisation, Immigration and Citizenship Authority, PNG Customs Service, National Fisheries Authority, National Maritime Safety Authority, National Information and Communications Technology Authority, provincial governments, Australia, Indonesia, the United States, and regional security partners.

Group 3’s presentation focused on coordination challenges and the need for a more holistic implementation framework. The group identified a wide range of agencies and stakeholders, including government departments, security agencies, border agencies, maritime authorities, intelligence bodies, and international partners.

Mr. Ako encouraged the group to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the key agencies involved. He also raised the need to examine the effectiveness of bilateral security partnerships and training programs. This is important because PNG’s security capacity cannot be assessed only by listing partners or programs. The real question is whether those partnerships produce measurable capability, institutional resilience, and operational readiness.

The group was also advised to monitor current developments relating to the proposed National Security Agency Bill and the updated National Intelligence Organisation Act. These developments are directly relevant to their case study because they speak to the future architecture of PNG’s national security system.

From Classroom Activity to Policy Thinking

What made this meeting valuable was that students were not simply describing topics. They were beginning to think like policy analysts. They identified problems, listed agencies, considered stakeholders, proposed research questions, and reflected on implementation challenges.

That is the purpose of the case study activity. Foreign policy education should not stop at explaining theories, concepts, and historical background. Students must be trained to examine policy documents, identify gaps, assess institutional capacity, and propose realistic recommendations.

PNG’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 provides an important teaching tool because it gives students a current national policy framework. However, a White Paper by itself does not implement policy. Implementation depends on institutions, leadership, coordination, funding, monitoring, review, and human capability. These are the issues students are now beginning to confront through their case studies.

The activity also reinforces an important lesson: PNG’s foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy. Weak coordination at home affects diplomatic performance abroad. Limited state capacity affects border security, trade negotiation, aid coordination, and multilateral engagement. Poor prioritisation weakens bilateral relationships. In this sense, foreign policy cannot be separated from domestic governance.

The Way Forward

The next stage for the groups is to refine their research questions, update their stakeholder mapping, and continue monitoring current developments.

Group 1 will need to examine how PNG prioritises bilateral partnerships and whether these priorities are clearly linked to national interest, security, economic prosperity, development cooperation, and regional leadership.

Group 2 will need to compare PNG’s engagement in ASEAN, APEC, PIF, MSG, the United Nations, WTO, and other multilateral platforms. The group must assess not only PNG’s participation, but also the value added by each forum.

Group 3 will need to follow national security reforms closely and examine how PNG can develop a whole-of-government framework for border, maritime, and cyber security cooperation.

All groups must remain flexible. As new information becomes available, they should adjust their research direction, revise their questions, and strengthen their analysis. Good policy research is not static. It develops as evidence improves.

The wider objective is to produce student work that is not only useful for assessment, but also relevant to real policy conversations in PNG. If done properly, these case studies can help students understand the practical challenges of implementing the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 and contribute meaningfully to national discussions on PNG’s place in the region and the world.

PG428 Foreign Policy in PNG is therefore not just a university unit. It is a platform for training future policy thinkers, analysts, diplomats, researchers, and public servants. The work being done by the students is a small but important contribution to building PNG’s foreign policy capacity from the classroom upward.