Senior government sources said they were confident the treaty would be signed, if not during Albanese’s PNG visit, then soon after.
Albanese said the idea that Australia would just “sit back and watch” if PNG was under attack “ignores the history … between our two great nations”.
Anthony Albanese and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape on the Kokoda Track last year.Credit: nna\daniel.jeffrey
Pacific Minister Pat Conroy, who is also in PNG, told ABC radio he was confident the treaty would be signed.
“This is an important affair and we’ll get to it tomorrow,” he said.
Kurt Campbell, who served as former president Joe Biden’s top Indo-Pacific adviser, said it was not surprising there were last-minute challenges with the treaty, suggesting Chinese influence could be involved.
“I think it suggests that this is a region at strategic play, and that China is relentless, and they use all venues of engagement to try to block and block initiatives like the ones that Australia has initiated,” he told the National Press Club on Tuesday.
“The politics of the Pacific are increasingly contested, and the great game is afoot…I do not believe that China’s pattern of engagement or practices among the Pacific Islands in any way will halt or diminish.”
Campbell said he was impressed by the way Australia had stepped into the gap left by the US in the Pacific since Donald Trump’s return to office, describing its initiatives to bolster ties with PNG as “ingenious and important”.
Oliver Nobetau, project director of the Lowy Institute’s Australia-PNG network, said that as PNG politicians were based throughout the country, it was possible logistical problems would delay the signing of the treaty until after Albanese departs PNG.
“Albanese will attract a lot of criticism if two Pacific agreements fall through in seven days,” he said. “He’s under pressure.”
Nobetau added: “The PNG government should really have organised this beforehand, but I think the agreement is too important to fall through. It has bipartisan support in PNG.”
Mihai Sora, the Lowy Institute’s Pacific director, said prime minister Marape would see it as a failure if he did not get the treaty through the cabinet during Albanese’s visit.
“This is the pinnacle governments of both sides are reaching for,” he said. “If they miss it now, who knows when it will come up again?”
Joanne Wallis, a professor of international security at the University of Adelaide, said she was concerned the treaty’s mutual defence clause could pull Australia into a conflict over the PNG province of Bougainville, which has committed to becoming an independent nation by 2027.
She also pointed out that PNG has defence units posted on its border with Indonesia, raising the question of how Australia would respond if a conflict broke out between PNG and Indonesia.
Loading
She added: “The ‘China card’ shouldn’t be a blank cheque that excuses the government from making the case for the PNG treaty (or the Nauru or Tuvalu treaties) to the Australian people, particularly to justify the potential costs. No one in government or elsewhere has provided a clear account of how realistic it is that the Chinese could build a military base in the Pacific.”
In wording similar to the ANZUS Treaty Australia signed with the US and New Zealand in 1951, article four of the draft agreement between Australia and PNG states: “In the event of a security related development that threatens the sovereignty, peace or stability of either party, the parties shall consult at the request of either party and consider whether any measures should be taken in relation to the threat.”
The treaty goes on to say: “Each party recognises that an armed attack on either of the parties within the Pacific would be dangerous to each other’s peace and security and the security of the Pacific, and declares that it would act to meet the common danger, in accordance with its constitutional processes.”
