Anthony Albanese’s government is continuing its efforts to shut out China, by pushing for “defence” ties with Pacific Island states. Bilateral security treaties are being pursued as a matter of urgency.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has that he is open to closer defence ties with Fiji, which “could range from increased interoperability, the sort of training that we are seeing with the Pacific Policing Initiative, being expanded to increased engagement between our defence forces”.
The template, however, would seem to be the Pukpuk Treaty between Australia and Papua New Guinea (pukpuk being the pidgin word for crocodile).
It was reported on September 15 that the PNG cabinet had, despite some hiccups, approved the pact. The PNG cabinet that the treaty is intended “to prepare our militaries to be battle-ready and for a very bad day”. The leaked document envisages a treaty linking the militaries of the two countries.
While the contents of the treaty have yet to be published – the Albanese government is showing itself increasingly secretive – the ABC has seen a copy.
There are also clues about what it contains. PNG Defence Minister Billy Joseph that a provision much like Article 4 in NATO’s founding treaty, obliging member states to consult when any one feels a threat to their territorial integrity, political independence or security, is in the offing.
The existing 1977 Status of Forces framework will be modernised to include a mutual defence obligation, a hefty expenditure on weapons and equipment for PNG, while permitting unimpeded access of Australian Defence Forces to facilities in PNG.
PNG nationals will also be able to be recruited by the ADF, as will Australians wishing to join the PNG Defence Forces.
Despite celebrating 50 years of independence on September 16, PNG has decided to throw a good bit of it away by surrendering the autonomy of its armed forces to Australian influence and control. Such arrangements are advertised as exercises of “interoperability”, consultation and equality, with various domestic processes needing to be observed. In truth, they give Canberra a greater say over what Port Moresby will do with its armed forces and, by implication, its foreign policy.
Such a position also risks involving Australia in a range of security concerns.
Don Rothwell, an international law authority based at the Australian National University, has said Australia will be drawn into PNG-Indonesia border issues arising from West Papua’s struggle for self-determination and “an active independence movement in Bougainville”. He said this “raises issues of PNG’s ‘political independence or security’”.
With the attraction of a pathway to gaining Australian citizenship and the prospect of equal rates of pay as the ADF, there is a chance that PNG will see its own forces depleted while swelling the ranks of the ADF.
International relations commentary rarely does a good line in ironic reflection. A The Conversation, by Ian Kemish, contains platitudes on “deep roots in shared history”, Australia being the “most trusted partner” to PNG and sentimental guff about “partnership and equality”. Port Moresby feels the relationship with Canberra is “unique – the only one that combines proximity, capability and an enduring sense of shared history”.
Michael Shoebridge of the Strategic Analysis Australia think tank the new pact as “a pretty big step”, with PNG saying: “‘Yes we agree, you actually are our security partner of choice and we mean it enough to put it into a treaty’.”
The Australian government is increasingly jittery about China’s regional influence and it has the AUKUS pact to uphold.
Defence Minister Richard Marles on the ABC’s Insiders on September 14 that “PNG is obviously on our northern flank. It really matters that we have the very best relationship we have with PNG in a security sense.”
The need to keep PNG close to Australia’s military interests is supported by hawks such as Mike Pezzullo, the sacked former secretary of the Department of Home Affairs. ٳAustralian Financial Review that “PNG would be in peril were it to be attacked by a foreign power”. He advised that Australia “for the first time in our bilateral relationship, commit to coming to PNG’s assistance in the event of it being attacked by a foreign power”. Any agreement that did not codify such an undertaking “would be, while useful, not reflective of our deep strategic interdependence”.
With each utterance on “sovereignty” from Canberra, officials in Port Moresby would do well to consider the implications of the pact. PNG may have existed as a nominally independent state for 50 years, but that independence is set to come to an end.
[Binoy Kampmark currently lectures at RMIT University.]