Mask-off moment: Regional response to PNG defence treaty push reveals truth of multipolar world

Sorry Francis Fukuyama, but your idealistic, optimistic view of the post-Second World War and post-Cold War world is dead and arguably it never existed, despite what you and many academics, diplomats and public officials would have us believe.

Rather the universal and historic constant “law of the jungle” has returned with vengeance, being driven in large part by the rise of former colonial acquisitions, China and India, but equally by nations across the once “developing” world of central and south-east Asia, Africa and South America, which have all begun to awaken seeking to make their mark on the global order.

Where global norms, economics, politics and security were almost exclusively the domain of European and Western nations, we are now seeing the rapid emergence of a multipolar world, driven in large part by the growing economic, political, ethno-religious, historic and strategic ambitions and hangovers of the preceding centuries, challenging the established post-war “rules-based” order and many nations’ place in the world.

Australia, like many “middle powers” long invested in the continuing survival of the US-led global order in particular, is facing the reality of a new, highly competitive and increasingly dangerous world, where our strategic benefactor is no longer unilaterally capable of acting in our best interests.

Conversely, America has at least since the mid-2000s and most definitely since the mid-2010s to come to realise that its time as the undisputed global hegemon is coming to an end and rather abruptly by historical standards, a reality which has only accelerated in recent years, spelling major challenges for Australia in particular.

No longer protected by our once all-encompassing and shielding “tyranny of distance”, Australia is attempting to expand its security blanket from traditional partners, like the United States and the United Kingdom, by expanding our relationships out into the Indo-Pacific.

VIEW ALL

This is seen very clearly in the nation’s efforts to build lasting and robust multilateral relationships with other regional powers, including Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and India in the west; however, these efforts haven’t been confined to the region’s established powers.

Rather, Australia has sought to build security relationships with smaller, less influential, but no less important powers, particularly throughout the South Pacific, most notably of which is the to-date, failed efforts to establish a defensive pact with our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, which has drawn the attention of other regional neighbours.

And herein lies the problem. For all the rhetoric and pontification by successive Australian governments, leaders, diplomats and academics, while physically Australia may be “part” of the Indo-Pacific, our European heritage means we are not “of” the region, and this is something that presents significant challenges for future navigation.

Beijing’s push-back

While many nations across the region (Australia included) have become increasingly concerned and wary of Beijing’s rapid military modernisation and expansion over the past decade and a half, the reality is that the rising superpower has proactively sought to mitigate much of the concern by building a web of robust economic, political and strategic partnerships across the region.

Critical investments in infrastructure across the region, the deft activation of the vast ethnic Chinese diaspora in major centres around the Indo-Pacific, coupled with the voracious demand of China’s own national economy, have all provided opportunities for nations across the region to hitch their wagon to the Middle Kingdom and its meteoric resurgence to global prominence.

Now these efforts haven’t entirely mitigated some of the concerns of regional nations, particularly given Beijing’s increasing efforts to bully, coerce and manipulate international and domestic opinion over claims in the South China Sea, Taiwanese independence and other territorial claims in mainland Asia.

This has only been exacerbated in recent years by increasing military provocations across the region, with even Australia being circumnavigated, prompting panic domestically, albeit briefly, and a greater sense of urgency for Australian policymakers to take action and secure Australia’s national interests.

In the case of Australia’s efforts to secure a defence treaty, to eventually be known as the Pukpuk Treaty with Papua New Guinea, Beijing was quick to express anger at Australia’s efforts, going as far as to claim that the yet-to-be-agreed upon security agreement could “compromise” the sovereignty of the nation.

Typifying this, Beijing’s embassy in Papua New Guinea released a statement on social media, saying, “Spokesperson of the Chinese embassy in PNG: The Chinese side adheres to the principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. We respect PNG’s right to conclude a bilateral treaty with other countries on a voluntary basis. However, such a treaty should not be exclusive in nature, nor should it restrict or prevents a sovereign country from cooperating with a third party for any reason. It should also refrain from targeting any third party or undermining its legitimate rights and interests.”

“We hope that the PNG side will continue to uphold independence and self-reliance, properly handle issues bearing on its sovereignty and long-term interests, and work with China to maintain the sound development of China–PNG relations and mutually beneficial cooperation,” the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson added.

The delay by the Papua New Guinea cabinet comes just a week following Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s failure to secure a $500- million bilateral economic and security agreement with Vanuatu, again in an effort to secure our “Pacific family” and limit the growing influence of Beijing on our doorstep.

Central to the concerns highlighted by the PNG opposition leader, Douglas Tomuriesa, is the belief that the levels of “interoperability” and integration between the two nation’s militaries proposed by Australia in the Pukpuk Treaty would, in essence, violate the nation’s constitution and sovereignty, harkening back to Australia’s time as the “colonial” master of Papua New Guinea.

For some both in Australia and in the region, this has resulted in broader challenges to Australia’s efforts to build a security architecture under concerns it is seeking to disguise pseudo-colonialism under the guise of security.

Enter Indonesia

Australia’s relationship with the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, which is emerging as one of the world’s most consequential powers in the 21st century, which has itself expressed growing concern about Australia’s efforts to build an enduring security ecosystem under the Pukpuk Treaty.

This has been reinforced over the weekend, with the Indonesian Foreign Ministry telling Amanda Hodge of The Australian, “Indonesia respects the right of every country to reinforce its defence system. However, such defence co-operation is expected to avoid escalating geopolitical competition in the region and instead contribute positively to collective efforts to maintain regional stability and peace, which is the shared responsibility of all countries.”

“Indonesia also expects Australia and PNG to consistently uphold transparency in the process of forming this co-operation agreement, as well as to honour their commitment to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of neighbouring countries, including Indonesia,” the foreign ministry statement continued.

It is safe to say that Indonesia’s ambivalence over Australia’s efforts is largely shaped by three distinct yet interconnected factors: the first is Australia’s role in the Konfrontassi in the early-days of the Cold War and its efforts to stop the spread of communism on our doorstep and the ensuing rocky relationship with the Suharto and Sukarno regimes throughout the Cold War.

The second being Australia’s intervention and role in East Timorese independence in 1998, which was responsible for almost bringing the two nations to direct conflagration and would have effectively pushed the United States to actively and assertively intervene in what would have been a costly conflict in Southeast Asia.

Finally, it is Australia’s ongoing concern over the claims of ethnic cleansing, pseudo-civil war and other human rights abuses in West Papua, which has often prompted diplomatic rows between the two nations, once again resulting in Australia being portrayed as what many former colonial states would consider as a case rank hypocrisy given the actions of some colonial powers.

Right or wrong, this reinforces the long-held, but often hidden belief among both policymakers and populations across the region, that Australia’s diplomatic efforts are just the latest incarnation of the Western or European efforts to contain the potential of the rising Indo-Pacific powers through either arrogance, vanity or a combination of the two, while clutching to the belief that the theories espoused by Francis Fukuyama in his book The end of History as immutable and unyielding as gravity.

While we would like to believe that the reality is, we’re now very much living in the early stages of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of civilisations and we have to acknowledge, accept and account for the importance of history.

Final thoughts

This brings me to an inescapable central point: Australia and its policymakers MUST take the responsibility to defend the nation and its interests vigorously and seriously. This means more than any other public policy initiative, not repaying 20 per cent of HECS debt, not our commitment to punitive, self-defeating climate and environmental protection policies, not the sacred altars of Medicare and the NDIS.

I am sorry if that slays a few sacred cows, but it is now necessary.

Australia needs to urgently get serious about securing our own independent capability to defend our security and national interests and how we operate both independently and in partnership with the United States and our other regional partners.

In order to do so, both government and everyday Australians are going to face some hard and truly uncomfortable truths if we’re serious about securing our future.

First, the Indo-Pacific is fast becoming the world’s most hotly contested region. China, India, Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam are flexing new economic, political and military muscle, while Japan and South Korea are reasserting themselves. Competition is no longer looming on our doorstep – it’s already here, and it’s here to stay.

Our “whole-of-nation” strategy must be reset to meet this new reality.

Second, without a sustained surge in investment, reform and long-range planning, we risk more than simply falling behind, we risk being left in the wake of our neighbours’ momentum. If we don’t act now, the next generation of Australians could find themselves living in a nation overshadowed by richer, stronger, more influential powers.

For too long we’ve settled for quick wins and reactive policies. Since Federation, governments have chased the short-term pay-off instead of the long-term prize. But the Indo-Pacific is shifting beneath our feet and business as usual won’t cut it. We need to think ahead, seize opportunities and blunt the threats before they overtake us.

The real question isn’t whether these challenges are coming, they’re already here. The question is when will Canberra finally roll out a bold, detailed plan that rallies industry and the public behind a clear national vision. When will we see a strategy that keeps Australia resilient in the face of sharpening great power rivalry?

With China pressing its influence in the spotlight, Australia has a stark choice: sit back as a bystander or step up as a shaper of the Indo-Pacific’s future. The decisions we make today will decide whether we thrive in this new era or get swept aside by it.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Stephen Kuper

Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.