Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese doubled down on Australia’s commitment to the Pacific. He pulled this off with two key agreements during his recent diplomatic tour. He did want to sign a major new defense treaty with Papua New Guinea. At the same time, he was working to finalize an ambitious Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu. The results fell sharply short, leading to a soft communique instead of the expected signing of treaties.
While in Papua New Guinea, Albanese and Prime Minister James Marape were due to sign a mutual defense treaty. The language of this agreement would require both countries to come to each other’s military aid in the event of military aggression. Rather, they ended with a somewhat looser compact. Albanese even appeared supremely confident about the treaty’s prospects later on. He thinks it’s “absolutely locked in” and that it will be coming down within a matter of weeks.
In Vanuatu, things went the other way. Prime Minister Jotham Napat expressed fierce contention towards the Nakamal Agreement. His issues raised alarm bells amongst Coalition members about specific provisions in the legislation that aimed to limit China’s presence in our critical infrastructure. The politics around these deals expose the tricky mix of regional politics and national sovereignty.
Defence Treaty Hopes Dashed
The announced mutual defence treaty with Papua New Guinea would further strengthen security ties between the two countries. Albanese and Marape had already framed this treaty as the bedrock of Australia’s commitment to regional stability. As their talks ended in a rather uneventful communique, critics were left wondering just how successful Australia had been in securing some very crucial agreements.
Even with this latest setback, Marape was hopeful that a formal signing was not far off. He disputed any outside pressure, including from China, seeking to derail the defence pact. Officials in Papua New Guinea are sounding the alarm. They are wary about the increased role of outside interest that may be seeking to upend the deal.
“Do you really think these pieces of paper are going to hold?” – A Western diplomat
Members of the Coalition are understandably frustrated by this unfortunate diplomatic defeat. They have condemned it as a “serious foreign policy embarrassment” for Albanese. Critics argue that repeated failures in the Pacific undermine Australia’s standing in the region and question whether the current government can effectively navigate the complexities of Pacific geopolitics.
Vanuatu’s Concerns Over the Nakamal Agreement
In Vanuatu, Albanese met a much more hostile reception to the Nakamal Agreement. Prime Minister Jotham Napat highlighted discomfort among his Coalition members regarding provisions perceived as attempts to restrict Chinese involvement in critical infrastructure. This reluctance is symptomatic of wider anxieties around regional sovereignty, solidarity and unity among Pacific nations.
Mihai Sora, an expert on Pacific affairs, noted that “issues around sovereignty and alignment are intensely contested in Pacific countries.” There is a great need for further political preparatory work in these countries,” he underlined. Only then would they be able to make binding commitments to new security partnerships with Australia. Australia saw the Nakamal Agreement as an opportunity to shore up its regional influence. The skepticism around the agreement has evaporated its intended purpose.
“Maybe it’s time to start treating our Pacific neighbours as genuine partners, not security risks we need to strongarm?” – David Shoebridge
Sora underscored the difficulty of building strategic trust with Pacific nations. He stressed that although plan alignment is what Australia wants most, this is typically the hardest element for these countries to provide. Vanuatu has so far been fortunate in how its political waters have been tested. Its leaders are understandably wary of building political coalitions that come at the cost of their autonomy.
Future Prospects for Australian Diplomacy
No doubt Albanese’s government is clinging onto hope despite these blows in PNG and Vanuatu. They hope to complete both compacts in the next few months. They view these agreements as essential to increasing Australia’s strategic clout in the Pacific. This is all the more critical as worries about China’s expanding influence in the region mount.
Chinese state media have condemned Australia’s response to such agreements, accusing it of trying to bully smaller Pacific countries. This non-governmental oversight highlights the precarious tightrope Australia needs to walk while it attempts to achieve its foreign policy goals.
Critics of Albanese’s strategy suggest that a shift in focus towards genuine partnership with Pacific nations may yield better long-term results. They make the case for more investment in institution building and de facto integration before seeking formal trilateral treaties.
“The low-hanging fruit of increased aid spending, more sports diplomacy, and more labour mobility has been harvested,” – Mihai Sora
As Australia pursues its own diplomatic charm offensive, knowing the tensions at play within Pacific countries will be key. Albanese’s administration is hoping to reassure skeptical regional partners that Australia is interested in engagement, not hegemony.
