PNG needs US assistance, but the deal is a bad one.
The issue with the PNG-US deal is no that it doesn’t benefit PNG. In fact if negotiated well it will be very beneficial to PNG.
PNG has a huge exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or sea boundary. PNG doesn’t have the capacity to monitor its EEZ. This results in exploitation of our marine resources, especially tuna, via illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing. Basically, we lose millions of Kina, if not billions, through IUU – foreign vessels steal our resources.
A ship rider agreement will allow PNG authorities to better monitor our EEZ using US technology and capabilities.
PNG is prone to natural disasters, and with climate change, these threats will become more frequent in years ahead. PNG can benefit from US technology, training in preparedness and response, as well a capabilities such as air transport when needed.
However, the problem with this deal is that it seems rushed, and lacks proper consultation if the leaked draft is anything to go by. Dr Bal Kama, a constitutional lawyer points out at least 4 points of contention, which ranges from eroding sovereignty to pitching ourselves against China by licking a side – the US. We are compromising our sovereignty and neutrality. And both are a very slippery slope.
The signing of the deal needs to be postponed. I’m attaching a link to Bal’s article below if anyone is interested in reading why this deal is a bad one in its current form.
When Kiribati left the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) after the PIF failed to honor a gentleman’s agreement to let the PIF leadership rotate to a Micronesian nation, Fiji brought Kiribati back to PIF.
This gentleman sitting on the floor is the Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka. After becoming the prime minister in late 2022, he went to Kiribati, and sat on the grass. Him and all his delegation, and even invited the travelling Fiji media to sit on the grass in the sun and ask Kiribati for forgiveness on behalf of the PIF.
Rabuka single handedly brought Kiribati back to the PIF , not by rationalising with Kiribati, by adhering to Pacific way of apologising: showing remorse by sitting in the sun, on the grass. There were appeals before that from the PIF but the Micronesians refused, and they were even ready to form their own regional organisation.
Rabuka saved PIF’s unity in the face of destabilising geopolitical competition so foreign powers don’t use the division in the PIF for their political gain. In the face of geopolitical rivalry, we can gain more as a united region than as loose individual units in this vast Ocean.
Rabuka then came to PNG. Visited the Governor General (GG) and sat on the floor. He made sure his travelling delegation did the same. Our GG, a symbolic figure of the quickly diminishing and irrelevant colonial power half way across the world, sat on his chair. No reciprocity for our fellow Melanesian.
Because the King sits on his throne, as a symbol of his superiority, his representative must sit on the chair. Even if this is not what the GG was thinking at the time, it can easily appear that way. The GG and his advisors are so out of touch with our own reality.
We have become so detached from the Melanesian concept of respect and reciprocity. I’m Melanesia, when our guest sits on the floor, we go down and sit on the floor with him as a way of saying “we are equals.” It’s a way of making the guest comfortable in our home or in this case our country.
Of course you wouldn’t do that if you consider yourself as the King’s representative.
Why are we so impressed by the Western ways anyways? We do we love the chair over the mat?
Aren’t we supposed to be recognising that our Melanesian values are equal, if not superior to the values of the colonial power that raised the Union Jack in Hanuaba in 1884, and declared Papua a British protectorate.
A colonial power which then transferred the whole eastern half of island of New Guinea (Papua and Niugini) to Australia who, by 1974, didn’t even establish universities to train a bureaucracy capable of running an independent country.
When the first Papua New Guineans were elected to the 1972 House of Assembly, the male white Australian representatives retained the veto power and deprived any real law making power from the indigenous representatives.
Yes, that’s the type of institution that we think is still relevant by keeping the Governor General’s seat in PNG. We see it necessary to remember these injustices committed by the colonial powers by keeping a royal representative in PNG. Least we forget how great inhuman treatment is. To the point when a fellow Melanesian sits on the floor, we keep the King’s position secure at the top.
KEY ISSUES WITH PNG-US SECURITY AGREEMENT AS LEAKED: DELAY SIGNING UNTIL FIXED
I am writing this here instead of an article given time limitation and for the many PNG audience currently interested in this subject.
PNG and US governments are said to sign an unprecedented security agreement for US forces to be operating in PNG (possibly this week!). A draft agreement was leaked last week which was not denied by either governments.
Unless the leak document is false, the provisions as they are presents the following four (4) issues the Marape Government and the State of PNG needs to consider (additional to those already raised by others).
4 KEY ISSUES
Diminishing Sovereignty – Issue with Articles 3, 9
The draft provisions invites a foreign military access to PNG infrastructure, set up base, embed directly or indirectly within PNG agencies, and to strategise their geo-political interests without any legal control of PNG. That gives rise to various issues, first of which is legally immunity. It essentially surrenders a foundation of PNG sovereignty.
The two often common pillars of state sovereignty are political and legal. A country needs to be in full control of these pillars to proclaim itself as a Sovereign nation. The founding fathers of PNG realized this earlier on in early 1975. The draft Constitution for an independent PNG was presented to the legally and colonially created House of Assembly to be accepted as the country’s Constitution. However, the forefathers refused that arrangement and created themselves a body called the Constituent Assembly and passed the Constitution through that Constituent Assembly. It was a body that did not have any legal basis as far as the colonial statute was concerned. That is, it was an illegal body.
Yet, the Speaker of the House of Assembly that spearheaded the formation of the Constituent Assembly was adamant that the Constituent Assembly was necessary to “break any ties that may exist between Papua New Guinea and Australia…so that we may draft our own legislation”. In this instance, the drafting and passing of the PNG Constitution.
The reason for such an action was that the House of Assembly was a creature of the Australian Parliament under the PNG Act; hence, allowing it to enact the PNG Constitution and the provisional legislation in preparation for Independence would mean ‘the links to Australian law would not be clearly broken’. PNG cannot be truly sovereign because its legal roots will be draped in an Australian-created legal institution. Hence, the forefathers have to cut that link, despite its illegality under the colonial laws, in order to truly cement PNG’s legal sovereignty.
The outcome was that the Constitution was ‘home-grown’ and ‘home-delivered’. Such was the extent the forefathers of this nation went to defend the sovereignty of the country.
Governor Luther Wenge reminded PNG of these historic ideals in the 2005 Supreme Court case challenging the immunity granted to the Australian Federal Police (ECP Case).
This US-PNG Security Agreement should also be viewed through these lenses and asked – is this Agreement chopping away some control by PNG politically and legally or constitutionally over activities within its territories by a foreign entity? If the answer is YES, even in the smallest bit, then the PNG government will need to reassess the Agreement.
A constitutional challenge could also be launched which could be adverse to the PNG government as well as to US’ prestige and soft power image in PNG and the Pacific region (as the case for Australia in 2005).
PNG could become a target in a War – Issue with Articles 3, 5
Bilateral relations of social, political and economic/trade are normal statecraft. Military relations are, however, not normal because they project certain threat perceptions and by doing, create alliances and identify potential enemies, either state or non-state actors. Hence, states are often cautious and carefully consider all aspects before entering into military bilateral relations.
At the lower end of a military relation are simple exchanges and personnel training between two countries. At the higher and more serious end are use of facilities by the foreign force, having a base, operating forward military exercises, and having its strike weapons based in or passing through the host country.
All of that becomes even more serious when the host country does not have any control over the activities of the foreign force within its territory and using its infrastructures.
Why is that serious?
Apart from the affront to sovereignty and constitutionality issues, a lack of effective control over foreign forces by the host country could result in the foreign force conducting adverse, aggressive, or counter actions against another state while inside the host country. It can be direct military actions or through espionage, and other forms of gaining strategic advantage. A basic example was the Pakistan-US defence agreement in which US assets operate in Pakistan to conduct operations in neighbouring countries.
This will directly open the host country to becoming a theatre of threat and therefore will need to be neutralised. A recent 2022 example is Iraq where Iran bombed a military base in Iraq, accusing it of hosting US military personnel who used the base to enable adverse actions against Iran. Such retaliation risks the lives of innocent citizens of the host country.
Based on the leaked US-PNG Agreement, this risk is evident. The leaked document allows for US to operate in PNG without any enforceable PNG control, which means they can potentially be based here and project military actions elsewhere targeting another State while on PNG soil. If that happens, it will ultimately render PNG a target of any retaliatory action from the third State.
Diminishing morale and legitimacy for PNG justice, legal and security architecture/institutions – Issue Articles 3, 5 and 9
The entire justice and legal system, security architecture including military and police and border agencies are founded on the uncompromising believe that they are the sole authorities legitimately charged to enforce and subjugate ALL persons within the territory of PNG to PNG laws – either domestic or foreign. It is a linchpin in their morale and a source of public confidence in their operations – that they can reach anybody, anywhere, anytime within the territory of PNG.
However, having a foreign force or a group of foreign citizens operating outside of this umbrella can undermine these institutions, creating negative perceptions that these institutions, despite their constitutional authorities and powers as enforcers of sovereignty, are at the whim of the government who can decide their limits. It can create the negative perception that there is in fact a higher, superior authority beyond the reach of the PNG laws and these institutions.
Such perceptions can have negative implications on institutional legitimacy, morale and undermine the efforts made to build public confidence in the domestic institutions.
US experience elsewhere in the world
The Agreement US intends to sign with PNG is similar to agreements US has with some other countries such as Japan, South Korea and those in the middle-east in which US has unimpeded access to certain infrastructures and have immunity from local laws. In the Pacific, US have unimpeded establishment in Guam and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Now, what’s the difference with PNG?
Simply, all these countries have a very different security and threat outlook and historical connection with the US. PNG does not. Japan surrendered to the US during WWII, South Korea is technically still at war with North Korea and US is the guarantor of security for certain middle east countries in their highly volatile conditions.
PNG is none of that. So, any argument that such Agreement happened in other countries so therefore it can happen in PNG is completely misguided and seriously erroneous.
It would disrespect PNG and suggests possible belittling.
CONCLUSION
These are some initial assessments based on the leaked draft agreement. The context of PNG is different and demands that these and other issues raised by people informed on the subject are carefully considered. This includes PNG’s current position as a non-aligned state in the international Non-Aligned Movement and its so-called “friends to all, enemies to none” foreign policy. If the government is interested, I join with others in offering my availability for further discussions/consultations.
The conclusion here is not to stop the agreement. There are obvious benefits to having close relations with the US as it is with China and other major powers.
The discussion here is simply to point out some potentially serious failings or future challenges that are likely to arise from the proposed Agreement, at least as evident from the leaked document.
The US should by now realise PNG is not like any other country in the Pacific they encountered, and PNG government should be well informed of all the concerns to realise there is more still to be done to advance this Agreement if it is at all necessary.
Any excuse that the US force will only be in country for a short while is misguided. Once entrenched, it’ll be difficult to unwind so it is better to get things right from the start.
The US Secretary of State is said to arrive on Monday 22 May, tomorrow, but a sovereign, proudly independent PNG, is under no obligation to fast track or rush this Agreement when there are serious questions raised by its people.
As President Biden unashamedly demonstrated with his postponed trip to PNG, things can wait or be deferred. In like manner, even the most powerful country, can wait until PNG gets it right.
For all the good things Prime Minister Marape and his government have done, it will be a remiss to be accused of betraying the trust of the people by establishing what appears to be a problematic Agreement as far as the leaked document is concerned, which at its very heart, if not addressed, may ultimately undermine PNG’s interests.
END……..
Dr Bal Kama, Adj Asst Professor, UC Faculty of Business, Government and Law
The PNG Ombudsman Commission has reported receiving an “avalanche of complaints from the public and will treat each complaint accordingly.” This saga was different from the past I’ve observed since I became interested in PNG politics. Apart from the rise of internet and social media in making issues go viral, for this particular case, Papua New Guineans not only complained, but also shared the Ombudsman Commission’s email addresses, and some drafted and shared templates on how to lodge a complaint.
We hope this case sets a precedent, so citizens can continue to hold their leaders accountable. Even if JT gets to walk away a free man, one thing is clear: the people know how to lay their complaints with the Ombudsman Commission. One can only hope that the Ombudsman Commission (OC) is well funded, and is not undermined by politics. The newly established but yet to be operational Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) will be another organisation citizens can lay their complaints. The difference between the Ombudsman Commission and ICAC is that whilst OC can investigate and recommend for a tribunal to conduct further investigation for a possible dismissal of the leader, ICAC has power to arrest and prosecute.
Repost from the Ombudsman Commission website:
“On 15 May 2023, The Ombudsman Commission met with the Hon. Justin Tkatchenko BEM, OL, MP, Member for Moresby-South following the public outcry regarding his daughter Savannah’s “flaunting” of her attendance to the Coronation of King Charles III as reported in various international media outlets in the region and as a heavily trending topic on social media.
The Commission in performing its constitutional duties and responsibilities as provided under Sections 218 and 219 of the Constitution and in being responsible for the supervision of the Leadership Code (Division II.2) reminded the leader of his duties and responsibilities under Section 27 of the Constitution.
Whilst the Commission acknowledges that statements made to the media in describing Papua New Guineans as “Primitive Animals” were made as a reaction to his daughter receiving online abuse from internet trolls, Hon. Justine Tkachenko, BEM, OL, MP has a mandated duty that is assumed when he takes leadership office and it continues through the entire tenure of that office.
In safeguarding its purposes and functions under the respective laws, the Ombudsman Commission has already received an avalanche of complaints from the public and will treat each complaint accordingly.
Leadership Function of the Ombudsman Commission
As Hon. Justine Tkachenko, BEM, OL, MP is a leader subject to the Leadership Code, in the supervision of the enforcement of the Leadership Code, the Commission’s operations are embodied in the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership (OLDRL) with quite distinct procedures for investigations as guided by its standard operating procedures (SOP).
The Commission is obliged to investigate all complaints either on its own initiative or on complaint by any person. It is also obliged by law to accept and investigate all complaints on alleged or suspected misconduct in office by a person to whom the Leadership Code applies unless, in its deliberate judgment, it decides not to do so because:-
(a) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith; or
(b) the complaint has been too long delayed to justify an investigation; or
(c) the subject matter of the complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission; or
(d) its resources are insufficient for adequate investigation, where it may defer or discontinue an investigation for any of the same reasons.
In all its investigations, the Commission may make such inquiries as it deems appropriate to establish the relevant facts giving rise to the complaint and to form a view on the merits by conducting investigations in an impartial and non-adversarial manner.
In meeting with Hon. Justin Tkatchenko BEM, OL, MP, the Ombudsman Commission reminded him of Section 27(3)(a)(b) of the Constitution that as a public figure, his first responsibility is to the people he represents or on whose behalf he is working.
A Leader’s first loyalty must be to his office and not to himself and that responsibility must override self-interest. The Commission in its endeavour to promote good governance and accountability from its Leaders reiterates to all leaders that their loyalty to the office must spring from their genuine concerns for the country.
It is always expected of a patriot that he will put his country’s interest before his own. In the event of any conflict of interests, the interest of the people he serves must prevail over his own personal interest, the higher the office held in state the more serious the office holders responsibility.
The Commission would like the public to understand that in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions, it is not subject to direction and control by any person or authority.
Additionally, as much as the Commission desires to address the public concerns immediately and keep everyone informed on the “public outcry” for the Commission to deal with Hon. Justin Tkatchenko BEM, OL, MP”, the Commission is subject to confidentiality of all its investigations and has a duty to protect its independence, impartiality and integrity at all times in the process of discharging its Constitutional duties and functions hence it is not obliged to notify anyone of the progress of any of its investigations.
The Commission is required by law to observe the principles of natural justice and general fairness very highly, especially to those subject to the investigations, before making a finding at the conclusion of an investigation.”
We did it. The politicians can win some of the time, but in the long run, the people always win.
From East Sepik Governor Alan Bird to popular TikTok figure and influencer Steven Kilage, the use of the phrase “as a father I understand” to rationalise Justin Tketchenko’s branding of critics primitive animals. It’s a pity the “as a father I understand” group doesn’t realise that JT hasn’t actually apologised yet.
The “as a father” group don’t seem to understand is that both JT and his daughter don’t seem to regret the potential abuse of funds. The fact that JT has sympathisers without being accountable first is troubling.
If JT comes out and says “I apologise for using the state resources to fund my daughter’s trip”, and her daughter does the same, Papua New Guineans will accept the apology.
What do these guys think Papua New Guineans are: some cold-hearted senseless primitives who wouldn’t accept a genuine apology?
Papua New Guineans haven’t accepted the apology because JT hasn’t apologised for what the main cause of the fuss is about: the potential abuse of state resources.
There are fathers who lost their daughters due to lack of life saving drugs in rural PNG. What do we say to these fathers? Do we say they should understand JT’s defence of his daughter despite being non-apologetic?
There are many fathers who are struggling to raise their daughters right in this corrupt nation. What do we say to them? That’s it’s okay to abuse public funds so long you can defend your actions and that of your daughter “as a father” in public?
What’s the new standard? Normalise a potentially corrupt act so our children also see it as normal?
To see the kindness and forgiving hearts of PNG first JT must unreservedly apologise for abusing state funds, and resign as MP, or apologise and refund the money back to the state. Half of the country will potentially understand the “as a father” narrative if he does that.
Have some respect to the decent fathers in PNG, and apologise without trying to justifying stupidity.
Academia Nomad 