South Pacific:Papua New Guinea’s Foreign Policy: Framing through Rugby
Kryssia Campos
The political elite of Papua New Guinea has long faced the challenge of outlining a defined foreign policy. By implementing a transparent National Interests Analysis, the Government could better frame and resource a strategy with coherence, longevity, and structural resilience. Port Moresby's foreign relations with the region and the wider world have historically been shaped by bold and charismatic personalities instead of clear policy direction.
In 2024, the Australian Government, alongside the Papua New Guinea Government, announced the process to form a new National Rugby League team in Port Moresby. This form of soft power and public diplomacy is an appealing one, however, there are serious questions posed by linking an elite-driven policy with commercial interests to national security and foreign relations.
Towards a National Interests Analysis
In foreign relations, governments such as Australia and New Zealand are required to provide transparent national interest analysis frameworks. This process releases documents such as the defence and foreign policy White Papers to the public. The benefit of such a stance ensures foreign policy enters robust and scrutinized debate both in Parliament and in the wider public. A strong example of the benefits of the NIA was the release of the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper. The report described Australia’s partnership with Papua New Guinea as ‘enduring’ and an acknowledgement that the “developments in PNG have substantial implications for Australia, including our defence, border security, health security and economy”.
“Friend to All” Era
Amid the current geopolitical and geoeconomic uncertainty in the Indo-Pacific, Papua New Guinea's role as a substantive leader in the Pacific Islands Forum calls for long-term strategic thinking on regional priorities. In this sense, the implementation of an NIA would inform PNG's foreign relations to enter greater bilateral and multilateral agreements in key areas such as trade, climate and security. This challenges the tendency for short-term, elite-driven policy arrangements in foreign relations that lack a clear direction toward sustainable prosperity and development.
A continuity of foreign relations is Papua New Guinea’s membership in the non-aligned movement in 1993. This multilateral position demonstrates the stance of smaller states to remain neutral in international crises. Framed through “friends to all, enemies to none”, PNG, like Samoa, has navigated its foreign relations through this stance, hedging the international system. Yet, the convergence of geopolitical competition across Micronesia and Melanesia is testing this stance of neutrality.
Members of the Pacific Island Forum, such as the Solomon Islands, have signed complex bilateral security agreements with China. As a result, this has disrupted the regional status quo of remaining neutral in international affairs. Australia has sought to provide counter-offers as the region's security partner of choice through a $190m security package to the Solomons under the new Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele. Aligning the PNG Rugby Team as a soft power incentive to leverage a new bilateral defense and security agreement with Port Moresby further challenges the era of “friend to all, enemy to none”.
Symbolic Leverage of Soft Power?
The $600 million NRL expansion into Port Moresby has been heavily criticized for maintaining an elite-driven foreign relations policy rather than addressing key priorities in the national interests of PNG. Captain of the Rugby team, the PNG Hunters, Ila Alu, viewed the deal as an “exciting time” for the country. He expanded that it “gives an opportunity for many young boys with their passion in rugby league to pursue their dreams”.
To counter, Senior Analyst of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Blake Johnson, suggested that “sports partnerships and assistance should remain separate from security, otherwise well-meaning sports initiatives and Australia’s reputation will be tarnished”. This ties into the politicisation of the NRL as a form of diplomatic leverage to bolster bilateral defence relations between the two neighbouring States. Moreover, the NRL would remain a serious stakeholder from the 2028 season onward and would be seeking commercial imperatives rather than this purely being a diplomatic exercise.
Yet, there are ongoing debates that $600m to develop PNG’s rugby team to enter the NRL would be better spent on aid and development programs. With further questions around an exit strategy of stakeholders from NRL Australia, both Governments and other investors, if the expensive exercise becomes corrupted and a financial liability. As such, the announcement seems a purely symbolic exercise rather than a substantive foreign policy proposal to address the development and resiliency challenges facing PNG.
Strategic Visions vs Local Realities
Papua New Guinea remains in the firm view of addressing non-traditional security challenges, prioritising policing, surveillance and border protection over military power for deterrence capability. Although historically, Papua New Guineans and Australians have forged a unique identity during the Battle of Isurava and the Kokoda Trail during WWII. These competing strategic priorities of neutrality and efforts to address policing provide uncertainty around the defence agreement tied to the NRL deal.
Local realities across Papua New Guinea are grim, as 2024 proved to be a test for its people, given violent riots and looting in Port Moresby. Black Wednesday was fueled by the cost of living, rural decay and failure to provide opportunity and development programs for young people. These local realities have been framed as a “law and order” issue, leading to simplistic responses for more aid to policing programs. The $600m NRL deal has led to further distrust among local communities that this foreign policy is purely elite-driven and short-sighted. The implementation of a transparent National Interests Analysis to address and provide a cohesive strategy to address a combination of development challenges, economic growth and climate resiliency would ensure a stronger leadership mandate at the Pacific Island Forum.
