Australia, explained.
PNG PM James Marape with Anthony Albanese's hand on his shoulder during a joint press conference in Canberra on Monday 6 October (David Gray/AFP via Getty Images
“The righteous choose their friends carefully, but the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 12:26
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
PNG should ratify the Pukpuk Treaty and move beyond a self-limiting mantra of “friends to all”PNG should ratify the Pukpuk Treaty and move beyond a self-limiting mantra of “friends to all”
After three weeks of lingering anxiety, the historic Pukpuk Treaty has been signed between Papua New Guinea and Australia. The agreement will now be put to domestic approval processes, where PNG’s Prime Minister James Marape needs to convince the rest of his citizens, and their elected representatives, that this treaty is worth ratifying.
Papua New Guinean reactions to the treaty have been telling. While concerns raised against it are valid, they aren’t substantive enough to justify a reversal from ratification.
For almost half a century, PNG has abided by the principle of “friends to all, enemies to none” to guide its foreign engagements. But, as Aristotle reputedly warned, “a friend to all is a friend to none”, and PNG risks confronting a reality of 50 years of missed opportunities to foster genuine relationships with its partners.
Dissenting voices overlook the fact that PNG’s foreign policy has been undergoing a review since 2024. The “friends to all, enemies to none” approach has led PNG to be reactive in its attempt to accommodate competing interests in its territory and broader region. The shift in foreign policy will see PNG lean towards pragmatism. This new approach will place PNG’s domestic needs at the centre of all decisions to engage externally, and serve as the yardstick to measure the value of what is offered in return.
To this end, the Pukpuk Treaty aligns with this renewed approach. It serves a deeper domestic purpose to bolster PNG’s military capabilities to serve its constitutionally mandated functions. Marape was frank during the media address a few weeks ago when the treaty was first due to be signed – PNG’s defence capacity is not at a level it can protect itself.
This treaty is not a loss of sovereignty – it’s a demonstration of how to exercise and bolster it.
The scale of this task must be appreciated. PNG’s approximately 3400 active servicemen and women are currently expected to maintain the territorial integrity of its 2.4-million-square-kilometre exclusive economic zone and 824-kilometre land border with Indonesia – that’s one soldier for every 700 square kilometres of national space.
Personnel numbers are also comparatively lower than its Pacific counterpart, Fiji, which boasts approximately 6500 personnel. Even Singapore, often cited by PNG politicians and commentators as an exemplar of governance and development, maintains 51,000 military personnel for an area that is 628 times smaller than PNG’s national territory.
Adding military personnel alone won’t rectify the issues, and this is where partnerships for capacity building are needed to fill the gap. PNG’s defence capability needs a lifeline, and this treaty is a step in the right direction.
The mantra of “friends to all” is preferred by those who are reluctant to commit PNG to regional security responsibilities beyond its shores. The simple truth is that fulfilling PNG’s national security needs requires deeper, more selective, partnerships than PNG has had prior to this treaty. Selectivity, if not exclusivity, is a prerequisite for building strategic trust.
Arguments to preserve the “friends to all” mantra deflect scrutiny from the limitations of PNG’s current foreign policy settings, rather than offering a serious alternative for navigating these issues and the shifting strategic landscape.
Where Australia views China as its biggest security threat, PNG’s security threats are localised. This does not obviate the value of the treaty. These challenges are addressed through the Bilateral Security Agreement which is focussed on policing. This should not be taken as a reason to overlook PNG’s military needs, nor does the treaty diminish the work already underway under that agreement.
The mutual defence provisions don’t require an automatic call to defence of one another, and inconsistencies in threat perception don’t equate to a breakdown in collaboration. This was demonstrated most recently at the UN General Assembly, where Australia extended recognition of Palestine, while PNG was one of ten countries to vote against, alongside the United States.
Expecting that PNG will therefore be obligated to align with friend groups is juvenile, and both countries’ foreign policies have matured well past that.
The shifting goalposts around definitions of “sovereignty” mean that the debate will never truly be settled once and for all. For some, sovereignty means protecting the territory and borders – in which case, this treaty is the logical approach to achieve this. For others, sovereignty means allowing PNG the freedom to choose its partnerships. Well, this is PNG making that choice.
Crowds at the Papua New Guinea 50th Anniversary of Independence celebrations in Lae, PNG (Rodney Braithwaite/Defence Imagery)
There are concerns about fallout in the relationship with China. It’s reported that China has respected PNG’s attempt to demarcate the roles of this geopolitical love triangle. Defence and security with Australia, new market prospects with China.
However, China’s reaction to the joint communique was also telling. In a social media post, China urged PNG not to sign a deal that excludes or restricts third parties. But this brings into question whether China also has military intentions with PNG – because how would this defence treaty affect economic relations with China?
PNG should ratify the treaty as a first agenda item after its 50th birthday. This treaty is not a loss of sovereignty – it’s a demonstration of how to exercise and bolster it.
About the author
Oliver Nobetau
Oliver (Oli) Nobetau is Pacific Islands Program Director at the Lowy Institute.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
