PNG Bilateral Relations and Strategic Priorities: Students Apply the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025

-

By Bernard Yegiora 

As part of PG428 Foreign Policy in PNG, students recently completed Database Activity 2, focusing on PNG’s bilateral relations and the question of strategic partnership prioritisation.

Week 6 of PG428 Foreign Policy in PNG, featuring Topic 4 on Somare’s influence and Database Activity 2 on PNG’s major bilateral relationships under the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025.

The activity was based on an important principle contained in the PNG Foreign Policy White Paper 2025: PNG must maintain strong bilateral relationships while ensuring that its external engagements continue to serve the country’s national interests.

For a country like PNG, this is not simply a question of maintaining diplomatic relations with as many countries as possible. PNG has limited diplomatic, administrative and financial resources. It must therefore make strategic choices about where to concentrate its diplomatic attention and how different bilateral relationships contribute to security, economic prosperity, development cooperation and regional influence.

Seven Relationships, Seven Group Analyses

The class was organised into seven groups, with each group examining one of PNG’s important bilateral relationships.

The countries and relationships considered included Australia, Indonesia, China, Japan, New Zealand, the United States, and Pacific Island countries, with particular discussion of the Solomon Islands relationship.

Students were asked to move beyond simply describing these relationships. Each group assessed its assigned bilateral relationship according to several practical foreign policy considerations:

  • the overall importance of the relationship to PNG;
  • security interests;
  • economic and trade benefits;
  • development cooperation;
  • people-to-people relations;
  • risks and constraints;
  • and the level of strategic priority PNG should give to the relationship.

This approach required students to think like foreign policy practitioners rather than simply describe bilateral ties.

Different Partners, Different Strategic Value

The presentations demonstrated that PNG’s bilateral relationships serve different purposes.

The discussion on Australia highlighted the depth of the historical relationship, security cooperation, development assistance, economic connections and extensive people-to-people ties. At the same time, students raised questions about dependency and whether the benefits of the relationship are always sufficiently reciprocal.

The Indonesia presentation placed particular emphasis on the shared land border, security cooperation and the economic potential of PNG’s western border region. One recommendation proposed the development of a PNG-Indonesia border economic development zone that could transform the border from primarily a security concern into an area of economic opportunity.

Students examining China discussed its growing importance as a trade, infrastructure and development partner. They also identified concerns relating to economic dependency, unequal benefits, transparency and the need for PNG to ensure that major economic engagements generate tangible national benefits.

The presentation on Japan emphasised its longstanding role as an important development and economic partner. Japan’s relationship with PNG was also considered in the broader context of growing strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific.

For New Zealand, students discussed development cooperation, security engagement and people-to-people links while also considering the broader challenge of dependence on external development assistance.

The United States group examined cooperation in areas including maritime security, critical minerals, infrastructure, the digital economy, development assistance and trade. Students identified opportunities for PNG to seek greater access to the US market while strengthening cooperation in maritime security and other strategic areas.

The discussion of Pacific Island relations, particularly Solomon Islands, highlighted the importance of geographic proximity, cultural connections, trade, investment and PNG’s wider responsibilities as one of the largest states in the Pacific Islands region.

From “Friends to All” to Strategic Prioritisation

One of the central issues emerging from the activity was the relationship between PNG’s traditional foreign policy principle of “friends to all, enemies to none” and the need for greater strategic prioritisation.

Maintaining friendly relations with many countries does not necessarily mean that every relationship must receive the same level of diplomatic attention.

Some relationships have greater implications for national security. Others provide stronger economic opportunities, development assistance, market access, infrastructure or educational opportunities. Neighbouring states may require particular attention because of borders, migration, transnational crime and shared security concerns.

Strategic prioritisation therefore does not require PNG to abandon its traditional foreign policy approach. Instead, it requires the country to determine where particular partnerships fit within its national interests and allocate diplomatic resources accordingly.

This distinction is increasingly important as PNG operates within a more contested Indo-Pacific strategic environment.

Students as Foreign Policy Analysts

The purpose of the database activity was also pedagogical.

Rather than simply reading the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025, students were required to apply its ideas to actual bilateral relationships. They had to examine evidence, identify interests, assess risks, make comparisons and recommend policy priorities.

The presentations were followed by questions and comments from other students. These discussions raised further issues relating to border security, government coordination, economic reciprocity, development dependency, trade imbalances and the implementation of foreign policy commitments.

These are precisely the kinds of questions policymakers must confront when translating a foreign policy document into practical diplomacy.

For students of International Relations, understanding foreign policy therefore requires more than knowing what governments say. It also requires examining how states prioritise relationships, allocate limited resources and negotiate competing national interests.

Watch the Class Discussion

The recording of Database Activity 2: PNG Bilateral Relations and Strategic Priorities is available on my YouTube channel.

Watch the recording here:
PG428 | PNG Bilateral Relations and Strategic Priorities

The activity forms part of our continuing effort in PG428 Foreign Policy in PNG to use the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 as a practical framework for analysing contemporary PNG foreign policy.

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

Security as a Concept: Why the Debate Still Matters

-
Image
By Bernard Yegiora Security remains one of the most powerful and contested ideas in international relations. It shapes budgets, institutions, political priorities, and ultimately determines who receives protection and who does not. Yet despite its centrality, the meaning of security is neither fixed nor universally agreed upon. In a recent seminar presentation, my students examined how the concept of security has evolved beyond its traditional military focus. Drawing on Paul Williams’ Security Studies: An Introduction and the broader framework associated with Barry Buzan, the discussion explored how security now extends into political, economic, societal, and environmental domains. This expansion has significantly reshaped both scholarship and policy practice. Seminar 1: Reframing Security in International Relations — examining how the concept of security has evolved from traditional military concerns to include human, economic, societal, and environmental dimensions. For much of the...
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