Gatekeeping or Safeguarding? The Pukpuk Treaty

Mijica Lus | South Pacific Fellow

Image sourced from Shelly Collins via Unsplash

Named after the Tok Pisin word for crocodile, the Pukpuk Treaty evokes strength, protection, and resilience. Beyond its symbolism, the agreement raises a broader regional question: in strengthening defence ties between Australia and Papua New Guinea, is security being expanded across the Pacific, or increasingly concentrated within select partnerships? This is not a question of intent. Both countries have made clear their commitment to regional stability and security. Rather, it is a question of structure, inclusivity, and long-term regional implications of an evolving Pacific security architecture.

A Shift Toward Bilateral Security Arrangements

The Pukpuk Treaty marks a significant shift in Australia–Papua New Guinea relations, elevating defence cooperation to an unprecedented level. It formalises longstanding ties and expands joint military exercises, intelligence sharing, logistical support, and training pathways. In doing so, it signals a move toward deeper operational integration between the two countries.

While this development reflects a natural evolution of partnership, it also reflects a broader trend in the Pacific: growing reliance on bilateral security arrangements. These agreements are increasingly shaping the distribution of defence capabilities, training opportunities, and strategic coordination are distributed across the region.

For smaller Pacific nations, this shift raises important questions about balance and access in a region where security challenges are shared but capacity is uneven.

Uneven Security Architecture and Regional Tensions

Many Pacific states face overlapping vulnerabilities, from climate-driven instability and rising sea levels to limited defence infrastructure, geographic isolation, and constrained fiscal capacity. Yet they are often not central to high-level bilateral security arrangements.

This dynamic creates a structural tension. While partnerships like the Pukpuk Treaty strengthen the capabilities of participating states, they may also concentrate access to resources and strategic cooperation within a limited set of relationships. Over time, this may contribute to increasingly uneven security outcomes across the Pacific.

This is particularly significant because regional security threats, such as illegal fishing, transnational crime, natural disasters, and climate-induced displacement, do not respect national boundaries. If only some states have enhanced capacity to respond, regional resilience becomes fragmented rather than collective.

The result is not simply a question of fairness, but of effectiveness. A region where security capacity is unevenly distributed is also a region where vulnerabilities can be displaced rather than resolved.

Agency, Influence, and Regional Participation

At stake is more than access to defence cooperation; it is also the question of agency. For Pacific nations, security is not only about protection but about the ability to meaningfully shape the systems and decisions that affect them. When strategic partnerships are concentrated among a limited number of states, they can subtly reshape influence within regional forums such as the Pacific Islands Forum and maritime governance mechanisms, where broad representation underpins legitimacy.

These dynamics extend beyond defence alone. Security arrangements are increasingly intertwined with economic priorities, infrastructure development, and disaster preparedness planning. Participation in bilateral frameworks can therefore influence access to broader development outcomes, shaping how resources and support are distributed across the region.

In this sense, the Pukpuk Treaty sits within a wider regional architecture that distributes power, resources, and opportunity. Ensuring that smaller states are not marginalised within this structure is therefore not only a question of fairness, but of regional stability.

Toward a More Inclusive Security Framework

Ensuring that bilateral agreements strengthen rather than fragment regional security requires a more inclusive approach. This does not mean abandoning bilateral partnerships, but embedding them within wider regional frameworks that extend benefits beyond individual states.

This could include expanding access to training programs, coordinating capacity-building initiatives, and strengthening regional defence cooperation mechanisms to ensure smaller states remain engaged in emerging strategic developments. Shared maritime surveillance initiatives, joint task forces, and regional disaster response coordination are practical ways to ensure that capability is distributed more equitably.

Greater coordination also offers efficiency gains. Aligning overlapping initiatives reduces duplication, maximises limited resources, and improves response capacity across the region. For development partners, this is as much a question of operational effectiveness as it is of equity. 

Pacific Voice and Local Security Realities

Equally important is the role of Pacific voices in shaping security frameworks. Security is not experienced only at the state level; it is lived within communities. From traditional land and sea stewardship practices to community-led disaster response systems, Pacific knowledge continues to play a critical role in resilience.

Embedding these perspectives into formal security planning ensures that agreements like the Pukpuk Treaty are not only strategically coherent, but locally grounded. This strengthens legitimacy and ensures that regional security reflects the realities of those most directly affected by climate and geopolitical pressures.

Conclusion: Security as a Shared Regional Architecture

The Pukpuk Treaty is more than a bilateral defence agreement; it is a lens through which to understand how security is evolving in the Pacific. Its success will not only be measured by the depth of Australia–Papua New Guinea cooperation, but by whether it contributes to a more balanced and interconnected regional security environment.

If approached carefully, such agreements can strengthen not only individual partnerships but the collective resilience of the Pacific. However, if their broader regional implications are not carefully considered, they risk reinforcing uneven patterns of access, capability, and influence.

Ultimately, the challenge for the region is not whether security cooperation exists, but how it is structured, and whether it contributes to a genuinely shared Pacific security architecture rather than a collection of parallel and unequal relationships.

Born on Ngunnawal–Ngambri Country and raised in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, Mijica Lus is a young Pacific-Australian advocate passionate about storytelling, regional diplomacy, and elevating the voices of the Pasifika diaspora. She is the Founder of the Aurosokwo Project, an initiative creating digital storytelling pathways for young people across PNG and the Pacific to share their experiences, shape narratives, and influence decision-making. Mijica’s work focuses on youth empowerment, climate justice, gender equality, and strengthening people-to-people connections between Australia and the Pacific. She has collaborated with community organisations, youth networks, and policy stakeholders, and has represented diaspora communities in national dialogues, including engagements at Parliament House. She is a council member with the Australian Red Cross and President of the United Nationals Young Professionals, ACT Chapter. With a commitment to bridging cultures and amplifying Pacific perspectives, Mijica hopes to contribute thoughtful analysis and lived-experience storytelling to YAIA’s South Pacific portfolio.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. AI tools were used by this author for grammar checks but all content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.