Like every other area of public policy, Papua New Guinea foreign policy probably deserves a mixed review after twenty-five-plus years — though one in which the balance is all the more positive because of the comparative lateness with which foreign policy-making became a Papua New Guinean responsibility, the relative speed and completeness with which the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs was localized, and the manner in which early achievements have generally been sustained (while some diplomatic missions and consular posts have been closed, Papua New Guinea has not deliberately breached any treaties or gone back on other international agreements, although the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea found in 2005 that one, the treaty providing for the Enhanced Co-operation Program (ECP) with Australia, was inconsistent with the Papua New Guinea Constitution and had, therefore, to be considerably revised).
It is also important to note that, while the Department’s functions have, in certain respects, been cut, the scope of its activities has grown, notably (though not only) in the way that the presence of neutral, regional monitors and the United Nations observer mission in support of the Bougainville peace process has given foreign actors, relations and so policy a fresh domestic dimension.
Implementation of the agreed arrangements for managing foreign relations in consultation and cooperation with the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) under the terms of the Bougainville Peace Agreement and the constitutional provisions giving them legal effect will, in future, require the Department of Foreign Affairs to set up and remain mindful of the procedures required to allow the ABG to participate in specified aspects of Papua New Guinea’s international relations in accordance with the Agreement.
As in other areas of public policy, major initiatives have often come from within — or, at least, from the minister and the Department, including diplomatic missions and consular posts abroad. The distinction promoted in the Foreign Policy White Paper between the basic approach (for the generation) of foreign policy and the particular emphases, preferences and catchphrases of successive governments and individual ministers has facilitated continuity and incremental development in key areas. The growing professionalization of the Department of Foreign Affairs, including the gradual increase in the appointment by cabinet of heads of mission and post from within, has supported the process in practice.
Though it is hard to document the case in detail — and there have been occasional departures — the pattern of steady growth (at least, until the cuts necessitated by the overall budgetary situation since 1997) has been supported by the way in which the making and management of what might be loosely described as the political aspects of foreign policy has generally occurred in a context where other materially important factors have also been taken into account, especially foreign aid, trade and investment. In a very particular sense, the latter have provided the ballast which has helped to restrain any tendency to the kinds of extravagances that have occurred (and then required even greater subsequent cutbacks) in other newly-independent, developing countries.
The experience of the Department of Foreign Affairs also underlines the importance of serious commitment to capacity building after recruitment — generally positively, but, in certain respects, negatively, when circumstances have imposed unusually serious limits on the availability of funds and personnel.
The sensitivity of the Department’s responsibilities required an unusually early, firm and determined commitment by management to complete localization. The same sensitivity — which includes the role the Department plays in relation to foreign aid — makes it a difficult model to explain and promote more widely within the Papua New Guinea system of government. It is, therefore, perhaps of limited utility in seeking support for building capacity in other areas of public policy.