Comments

The Australia -PNG Security pact will have alot of Socio Economic benefits for PNG. This deal may be a challenge to the Sovereignity of PNG, however every PNG government since 1975 have failed to Build the PNGDF and create vast employment opportunities for the thousands of tertiary Graduates and school leavers. This Defence pact will be a golden opportunity for PNG youth to find employment abroad and gain exposure and quality experience serving in a world-class military abroad. And they will also have an opportunity to further pursue their desired education qualifications easily accessible abroad, with the benefit of gaining Australian citizenship while service in the ADF. PNG also needs to beef up its military and this is a great opportunity. There is high rate of armed tribal conflict, and a strong PNGDF with modern hardware will be able to support Police operations to disarm armed tribal groups in the highlands and effectively police the big land, sea and air borders.

The treaty is delayed, not signed yet, as PNG leaders review concerns. Likely to be debated in parliament soon. PNG is currently at a risky step to sign the treaty with Australia, which also challenges founding father, Michael Somare's neutral foreign policy being “friends to all, enemies to none” policy and keeping the military in very small size to guard our boarders. However, the dialogue prematurely triggered China now issuing early warning to PNG.

The Pukpuk Defence Treaty: Strategic Gains or Sovereignty at Stake? As Papua New Guinea marks 50 years of independence, the signing of the Pukpuk Defence Treaty with Australia signals a new chapter in bilateral relations. Named after the Tok Pisin word for crocodile, the treaty outlines five core principles that aim to deepen defence cooperation between the two nations. While the agreement promises modernization and strategic benefits, it also raises critical questions about sovereignty, foreign policy alignment, and long-term national interests. What PNG Stands to Gain The treaty offers several tangible benefits for Papua New Guinea: 1. Defence Force Modernization The ongoing partnership with Australia will enhance the capacity of the PNG Defence Force (PNGDF), particularly in areas such as cybersecurity and electromagnetic warfare—domains where PNG currently lacks infrastructure and expertise. This collaboration is expected to uplift operational standards and improve national security readiness. 2. Regional Security and Border Protection PNG faces persistent challenges from transnational threats, including human trafficking, illegal fishing, drug smuggling, and weapons trafficking. The alliance with the Australian Defence Force (ADF) strengthens PNG’s ability to monitor and secure its borders through joint operations, intelligence sharing, and surveillance support. 3. Career Opportunities for PNG Citizens A notable and exciting provision of the treaty allows qualified PNG citizens to join the ADF with equal pay and benefits. This opens up pathways to employment, skills development, and potentially Australian citizenship, offering improved living conditions and professional growth for many Papua New Guineans. The Ambiguity of Mutual Defence Despite these benefits, the treaty’s first core principle raises concerns due to its vague wording: “A mutual defence alliance which recognizes that an armed attack on Australia or PNG would be a danger to the peace and security of both countries.” Unlike traditional military alliances that clearly define obligations—such as NATO’s Article 5—the use of the word “recognizes” lacks clarity. Does this imply automatic military support in the event of an attack, or merely a diplomatic acknowledgment of shared concern? Without explicit commitments, PNG may not be guaranteed assistance during a crisis, leaving room for political discretion and strategic ambiguity. Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy Retired PNGDF Commander Peter Ilau has voiced concerns about the level of integration between the two defence forces, questioning who truly holds ownership of the PNGDF. As PNG deepens its defence ties with Australia, there is a risk of dependency and external influence over national security decisions. This could erode PNG’s ability to act independently and shape its own defence posture. Foreign Policy Contradictions The fourth core principle of the treaty appears to conflict with PNG’s long-standing foreign policy of being “friends to all, enemies to none.” If interpreted restrictively, it may limit PNG’s ability to engage in military partnerships or exercises with countries other than Australia. This could undermine diplomatic flexibility and reduce opportunities for cooperation with key economic partners. Retired Commander Jerry Singirok warns that such realignment could jeopardize foreign investment, particularly from China and Japan, which have played significant roles in PNG’s economic development. Restricting military engagement with these nations may send unintended signals and risk destabilizing the very investments that sustain the country. A Call for Strategic Clarity While the Pukpuk Treaty offers promising avenues for defence and development, it must be approached with strategic foresight and transparent consultation. Treaties of this magnitude should involve robust public discourse, expert input, and parliamentary scrutiny to ensure they align with PNG’s long-term interests. As we reflect on our journey since independence, it is imperative that we make decisions that strengthen—not compromise—our sovereignty. Politics will always be politics, but sovereignty is everything.

Dr Aqorau breaks new ground by raising serious, long festering issues of donor dependency and “owning our future". With respect to the latter the public trust doctrine is particularly relevant and has enormous relevance for Pacific island microstates. Intergenerational equity has received scant attention. Information and intelligence asymmetry in our relations particularly with Australia and New Zealand (just for a start) is another item in the ‘long festering’ cluster. The prospect of seabed mineral mining in expanded maritime jurisdictions being increasingly dangled before us as an opportunity for ‘development’ is really plunder disguised as so called “development”. Theres more, much more.

Nice piece, folks, and hope you are all well. You have me now questioning to what extent we are actually also a civil society organisation or some form of unique enabler in that space, both in Australia and regionally, given our various activities.

Thank you, very well put. I believe that in Western Pacific countries, civil society actors are the under utilised sleeping giant that holds the key to turning youth unemployment and essential service delivery around. It is time to mobilise that resource.

Thanks for sharing Blaise. Glad to hear about your cocoa plantings. I completely agree with you! To learn more about the Family Farm Teams, see: https://www.canberra.edu.au/uc-research/faculty-research-centres/csc/livelihoods-and-learning-for-sustainable-communities/family-farms-teams-program#:~:text=The%20Family%20Farm%20Teams%20(FFT,to%20develop%20their%20family%20farm. Tom

Thanks Colin, and you're right it is more than 4 times: I use the NSO estimate of 11.8 million in 2021, and the 2011 census population growth rate of 3.1%. However, Devpol's population estimates are more conservative and therefore lower. The PM announced earlier this year that the 2024 census would be released today, though I haven't heard any announcement as yet. I have heard from friends within the NSO that the population figure is in the high 10 millions which government isn't happy with. Remains to be seen.

I am in paid employment, but have gone ahead into planting 1 hectare of the new hybrids clone seedlings from Tavilo. The plantings are now 8 months old. I'd like to do another hectare of clones. I am a firm believer that cocoa farming should be a family thing, as stated in this article.

PNG's population was less than 3 million at Independence, so it is now more than four times that size. It has been roughly doubling every 20 years. At this rate it will exceed Australia's population some time in the next 50 years. That could be a bit of a tipping point.

You are completely missing the point of the article. Nobody here is arguing about whether George Veikoso is from Fiji — of course he is, his artist name literally says “Fiji.” What we are talking about is the music, the naming of the genre, and how it should be remembered. Fiji’s style of music didn’t originate solely in Fiji — and it shouldn’t be labeled “Polynesian reggae” either — because island reggae is a shared Pacific sound. Its roots are Jamaican, and every island in Oceania has embraced and shaped it in its own way. That is exactly why we celebrate it as Pacific Island reggae. Your comment sounds unnecessarily divisive and outside the point of the discussion. Please slow down before making remarks that lean toward individualistic, separatist thinking — the kind of ideology that aligns with the Trump-style “us vs. them” agenda. That mindset is not healthy for our region. Yes, we all have our unique identities, and that is why we are working to dismantle colonial labels like Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia. We can respect differences and celebrate shared culture. Music and policy should bring us together as one Pacific family. Don’t get snobbish or arrogant about separating Fiji from the rest of Pasifika just because of relative economic development. Remember that Fiji’s development is rooted in multiculturalism — the mix of communities, including Indo-Fijians, has driven ambition, competition, and growth. This article is about the legacy of Fiji’s music, its positive power, and its rightful naming. If you want to argue about roots, we can talk about George’s upbringing in Hawai‘i, which likely had an even greater influence on his music. But that’s not the point of this conversation.

Each Sovereign States in Oceania to its own, thanks very much. Too often only few loud voices in the Region wants to dictate the rules of how each Sovereign States in Oceania ought to be clumped together as this article iterates. George Veikoso is from Fiji. Period. Give credit to Fiji. Thank you. Nothing wrong with that. Our Team Viti do broadcasting in Aotearoa NZ 🇳🇿 under Radio Viti e Aotearoa. Guess who strangles them from using Sere vaka-Viti | Fijian Language lyric songs ON AIR via streaming? Some wannabees tagged Pasifika..... claiming to hold rights to Indigenous Fijian Language Music just because they have links to George Veikoso. Do us a favour and stop morphing us as one group of peoples in Oceania. Each Sovereign States in Oceania is different from another. Let's respect each other's space and stop conflating each Sovereign States Identity in Oceania. Each to its own IDENTITY❗️✍️