Setting PNG’s Diplomatic Priorities: Student Perspectives on Bilateral and Multilateral Engagement

-

By Bernard Yegiora

How can PNG translate its foreign-policy ambitions into practical outcomes with limited diplomatic, financial, and administrative resources?

This question connected two student presentations in PG428 Foreign Policy in PNG at Divine Word University. Drawing on the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025, Group 1 examined strategic bilateral partnership prioritisation, while Group 2 explored PNG’s multilateral engagement and ASEAN aspirations.

The presentations moved beyond identifying desirable international relationships. Students considered the coordination, institutional responsibilities, and resources needed to make those relationships deliver benefits for PNG.

Group 1’s proposed implementation framework links PNG’s Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 with national development priorities, highlighting coordination between the Department of Foreign Affairs, diplomatic missions, national agencies, and provincial and local-level governments.

Case Study 1: Strategic Bilateral Partnership Prioritisation

Theophilus Aikung presented on behalf of Group 1, addressing the question:

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

The group’s starting point was a practical constraint: PNG maintains important relationships with many countries but cannot give every partnership equal attention at the same time.

The presentation drew on the Foreign Policy White Paper 2025 and Medium-Term Development Plan IV to examine how diplomatic priorities could be connected to national development objectives. It highlighted limited resources and weaknesses in coordination between government departments as obstacles to implementation.

The group recommended strengthening diplomatic missions, improving interdepartmental coordination, and developing relationships at provincial and community levels. Its emphasis on community-to-community diplomacy widened the discussion beyond formal exchanges between national governments.

These recommendations raise an important implementation question: how can national foreign-policy priorities connect with the needs and capabilities of provinces and local communities? International partnerships become more meaningful when their benefits can be identified in the places where people live and work.

A practical prioritisation framework should therefore explain both why a partner deserves diplomatic attention and what PNG expects to achieve through that relationship.

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

Cosmas Hafak presented on behalf of Group 2, addressing the question:

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

The group identified inconsistent participation in international forums, limited funding, and weak coordination across government agencies as key challenges.

Its central recommendation was to develop a whole-of-government multilateral implementation plan within 12 months, led by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The proposed plan would provide clearer direction for PNG’s multilateral priorities and its pursuit of closer engagement with ASEAN.

The value of this proposal lies in connecting diplomatic ambition with agency responsibilities and implementation. Effective participation requires preparation before international meetings, coordination during negotiations, and follow-up afterwards.

The presentation also raised a broader question about selectivity. PNG needs to determine which forums and initiatives warrant sustained attention, based on their relevance to national interests and the resources available. International visibility has greater value when it supports identifiable domestic outcomes.

Mr. Ako’s Feedback: Clarifying Institutions and Processes

Following the presentations, Mr. Lahui Ako provided feedback on institutional mapping, coordination mechanisms, and process flows.

His comments encouraged students to identify more clearly which agencies should lead, which should support, and how their work should connect. This is a critical step in moving from a recommendation to an implementable proposal.

Mr. Ako also highlighted the importance of involving the department responsible for provincial and local government affairs, given its connections with subnational administration. This reinforced Group 1’s attention to provincial and community-level engagement.

His observations about public-service practices and training capacity brought an operational perspective to the discussion. A policy framework needs capable officials, workable procedures, and sustained coordination to produce results.

Questions About Implementation and Accountability

The class discussion tested the practicality of the groups’ recommendations. Students raised questions about coordination mechanisms, implementation risks, measuring policy outcomes, and the capacity required to support PNG’s ASEAN aspirations.

These questions sharpened the distinction between proposing a strategy and demonstrating how it would work. Who would take responsibility? How would agencies coordinate? What resources would be required? How would progress be assessed?

Some questions were carried forward for written responses and further discussion at the following session, giving the presenters an opportunity to develop their answers.

Connecting Foreign Policy with National Outcomes

Together, the case studies demonstrated the importance of matching PNG’s international ambitions with institutional capacity.

Bilateral partnerships and multilateral engagement are interconnected. Relationships with individual countries can support PNG’s objectives in regional and global forums, while those forums can provide opportunities to strengthen bilateral cooperation.

For students, the exercise provided a practical opportunity to examine foreign policy through national interest, resource allocation, institutional coordination, and accountability. The presentations and subsequent discussion showed why implementation deserves as much attention as policy formulation.

Watch the Presentations and Discussion

The Zoom recording features both group presentations, Mr. Ako’s feedback, and the class discussion.

Watch the PG428 case study presentations and discussion on YouTube

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