When it comes to the Pacific, there are always going to be Australian foreign policy missteps. Due to the sheer size and scope of the unique partnerships with each country, and the increasingly complex set of challenges faced by the region, no one can be expected to get it perfect all of the time. With every mistake, there is an opportunity to be humble, to practice patience and to listen, learn and improve.
Today, Australia’s partnership with Papua New Guinea made another positive step forward with reports that PNG's cabinet has approved the Pukpuk treaty. While the treaty is still not entirely over the line, it shows that again, the events of last month were a misstep more than a failure.
Granted, last month will still probably go down as one of Australia’s largest Pacific policy fumbles in recent history, with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese returning from his visits to Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea empty handed. But there is every chance that in the coming years, the trip will be vaguely remembered as a small hurdle along the path to stronger partnerships with both countries.
Sometimes, Australia’s missteps look so much bigger because of the decades of success on which these partnerships have been built. Other times, it is because Western media enjoys hyping up a story about geostrategic competition to the extent that it causes frustration within the region.
Currently, Vanuatu is contemplating a policing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China only a few weeks after the Nakamal agreement with Australia was left unsigned. MoUs are a good indicator of intent, but there is a dramatic difference between what is essentially a handshake written down, and a formal agreement that would require approval from both parliaments at the highest level.
Along with MoU discussions, China has donated equipment worth around AU$700,000 to Vanuatu; a drop in the ocean compared to the AU$500 million in support outlined in the Nakamal agreement. But it’s not just about comparing Vatu for Vanuatu. The sticking point in the agreement appears to be around conditionality on external partner support. In particular, some groups in Vanuatu are not comfortable with excluding China from certain sectors in the name of the Nakamal agreement.
When it is eventually signed, the treaty will be a landmark agreement for both countries, and therefore any step that brought it closer to reality cannot be considered a failure.
Australia has applied some conditionality to most of its new support to the region over the past two years, most prominently in Papua New Guinea, Nauru, and Tuvalu. But there are others who still enjoy a strong partnership with Australia without that language in place, such as Solomon Islands. In this case, if Australia can’t win over those who oppose the current agreement or do a better job of explaining how and why these conditions are included in the first place, it might have to be willing to compromise further on the language. As a result, the agreement might not deliver as much for Vanuatu as it could, but that is their sovereign choice, which must be respected.
It's important to remember that this isn’t the first time an agreement has come to a halt between Australia and Vanuatu. The Nakamal agreement supersedes the 2022 bilateral security agreement that was signed but never ratified by Vanuatu’s parliament. Australia demonstrated its ability to listen and adapt to Vanuatu’s needs then and will have to do so again in order to finalise a deal as the current political obstacles are unlikely to disappear.
On the other hand, no changes will be required for the Pukpuk treaty to enter into force with PNG. It was, as both Albanese and Marape said, just a matter of timing.
Here, the lesson is probably simpler. Despite it being PNG’s idea to sign the treaty in the week celebrating its 50th anniversary of independence, expectations should have been better managed. There were so many great things about the Australia–PNG partnership to celebrate, but all were overshadowed by the treaty delay.
While we still await the formal treaty, the joint communiqué publicly outlines some of the core principles, which will include a mutual defence alliance – a first for PNG – a recruitment pathway for PNG citizens to enter into the Australian Defence Force, and strong reaffirmation of independence and sovereignty for both parties.
When it is eventually signed, the treaty will be a landmark agreement for both countries, and therefore any step that brought it closer to reality cannot be considered a failure. It will be important to remember that fact when thinking about Vanuatu and any other potential future agreements.
Lost in the noise of the past month’s events were indications from both Fiji and Tonga that they too would like to pursue deeper agreements with Australia. This is another sign that Australia is not failing in the region.
There will be more missteps. But each of these will be along the path to a more resilient and secure Pacific region, brought about by members of the Pacific family. Just like the Pukpuk treaty, these steps should continue to be celebrated.
