In PNG, the Pukpuk Treaty not only strengthens its defense relationship with Australia but also prompts a realignment of Australian strategy, influencing how major powers like China, the United States, and others engage in the region. The treaty demonstrates that small states are not merely reactive; they can take the initiative to defend their interests and manage the challenges of superpower competition.

The Pukpuk Treaty reflects how PNG is repositioning itself strategically due to limited capacity, geographic vulnerability, and internal security pressures. PNG has recognized its weaknesses in defense forces, including border patrol, sea patrols, internal security, police, and the equipment and software of its defense (training, doctrine, etc.).

The treaty will address these gaps by enhancing capacity, fostering interoperability with Australia, exploring recruitment of PNG staff into the Australian Defence Force (ADF), promoting joint training, and modernizing the military. By requesting the treaty, PNG is not merely accepting foreign assistance but choosing a partner and clearly defining the nature of cooperation, with its sovereignty as a central concern.

The political elite in PNG are using the treaty as a tool to influence the broader competition between the great powers. Part of the treaty’s design is a clear strategic counter-pressure by Australia against the rising Chinese influence in the Pacific.

Canberra is concerned that China’s growing influence through trade, investment, infrastructure, or even security arrangements with Pacific nations could pose a threat to Australia along its northern borders. The Pukpuk Treaty thus becomes a key part of Australia’s strategy to secure its neighborhood.

However, PNG is not passive; its foreign affairs ministry explicitly stated that the treaty will not include a third-party cooperation exception, and that PNG retains its constitutional right to engage in defense cooperation with other countries. This balancing act allows PNG to welcome Australian protection and investment while also trying to preserve flexibility in its foreign policy.

The Pukpuk Treaty shows how legal, constitutional, and domestic political constraints can serve as practical tools for small states to influence great powers. In Papua New Guinea, there is an ongoing debate: recently, retired Major General Jerry Singirok questioned concepts of sovereignty, non-alignment, and constitutionality, specifically whether integrating the PNG Defence Force into the ADF structures or adopting Australian military doctrine would be unconstitutional under PNG law.

Papua New Guinea also issued warnings that public consultation, parliamentary ratification, and legal safeguards are practical considerations. These constraints suggest that Australian strategic ambitions are not pursued unconditionally but require negotiation and moderation. PNG is leveraging its internal political processes to ensure its interests are protected. This demonstrates that small states are not merely vassals but hold significant agency through institutional rules, constitutional mechanisms, and civil-military relations.

The treaty reshapes how we view alliances and security in the Pacific. Currently, Australia has only a few formal mutual defense treaties. The Pukpuk Treaty is the first new treaty-level defense alliance in Australia in over 70 years. This indicates a shift from informal security cooperation, training, aid, and soft security towards more formalized mutual defense commitments.

For the Pacific, this means smaller states seeking such formal agreements gain greater bargaining power, more reliable security arrangements, and improved access to resources. It also increases the stakes in global competition. Any formal alliance is likely to provoke countermeasures by other major powers. In fact, China already warned PNG not to sign a treaty that restricts collaboration with other nations and stressed the importance of maintaining sovereignty and decision-making independence.

Being this close to Australia will limit PNG’s options, potentially tying it to Australia’s strategic interests, which may not align with those of PNG, leaving PNG vulnerable to diplomatic repercussions in its dealings with China.

There is also a constitutional risk; PNG’s legal framework might have to balance issues such as dual staffing, foreign military doctrine, foreign operational control, or access to bases. The treaty must protect PNG’s sovereignty while enabling productive cooperation. Additionally, there is a domestic political risk. A perception of lost sovereignty or involvement in an unwanted conflict could provoke public and political instability.

The case of PNG signals that small states are no longer just battlegrounds, but active creators of regional order. By taking the lead and signing such a treaty, PNG clarifies what it requires regarding defense cooperation, sovereignty safeguards, and strategic balance. Using domestic legal procedures (parliamentary ratification, constitutional review, popular debate), PNG ensures that any potential arrangement is stronger than past cooperation and aligns with its long-term interests. Other small states will observe this and may be encouraged to pursue more formal engagements and specific defense partnerships instead of informal or ad hoc arrangements.

Fawad Afridi is an MPhil Scholar at the National Defense University. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

What the Pukpuk Mutual Defense Treaty Tells Us about the Pacific Security Order was originally published on Global Security Review.

The Decline of Bilateral Trust and Regional Diplomacy

The breakdown of already fragile India-Pakistan diplomatic relations was the most immediate strategic victim of the Pahalgam assault. India’s quick charge that Pakistani-backed terrorists planned the assault brought up historical complaints. Within days, both countries cancelled diplomatic talks, visa access, and expelled officials.

While Islamabad reacted by stopping trade, suspending the Shimla Agreement, and restricting its airspace to Indian flights, New Delhi repudiated the Indus Waters Treaty—long thought a bedrock of bilateral cooperation. These responses show a rising lack of confidence between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Formal diplomatic channels are now frozen, therefore removing avenues for crisis de-escalation. Especially along the unstable Line of Control, an area quite prone to miscalculations and without institutionalized communication. The assault has not only weakened confidence-building initiatives but also confirmed every country’s geopolitical position, hence lowering the probability of near-term rapprochement.

Rising Nationalism and Domestic Political Fallout

Both India and Pakistan used the Pahalgam disaster as a political fulcrum. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India used public anger to support its strong-on-security image. The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi reacted with militarized rhetoric and increased security operations in Kashmir. Among Indian voters, the story of avenging the martyrdom of civilians solicits a strong appeal and increases the political capital of Modi’s desire for greater internal security, including increased police authority in Kashmir.

The government of Pakistan characterized India’s claims as slander and a diversionary strategy. Denying complicity, Pakistan’s government mobilized internal support against fear of Indian aggression, accusing India of orchestrating a “false flag” strike. These stories polarize both sides and provide little space for moderation or bilateral diplomacy. The assault strengthened a populist-nationalist cycle in which every government raises internal power by means of external dangers.

Strategic Setbacks and Economic Disturbance

The Pahalgam attack has several financial repercussions. Most directly, Kashmir’s tourist industry suffered. An attack on tourists diminished confidence precisely when the area was recovering from low confidence in security by tourists. Cancellations of travel already resulted in significant losses for local companies relying on tourism—hotels, guides, and transporters.

The psychological effect of the assault will dissuade not only internal mobility but also investment in Kashmir’s faltering economy. Regionally, the decrease of commercial connections between India and Pakistan, already limited since 2019, further compromises economic integration.

Visa cancellations by Pakistan and restriction of flight access interfere with trade flows and logistical infrastructure. In industries like energy and infrastructure needing cross-border collaboration, the diplomatic conflicts have a cooling impact on foreign direct investment (FDI). Multilateral projects like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), already under pressure from India-Pakistan rivalry, now confront an existential crisis. Stagnation and lost chances for cooperation, especially in commerce, water sharing, and digital connectivity, hurt the regional economy.

Increasing Social Division and Insecurity

The attack’s societal effects are equally grave. It set off a flood of anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim feeling in India. Some right-wing Indians see the whole Kashmiri community as terrorists. Among Indian Muslims and Kashmiris, the incident has heightened feelings of alienation and helped to create a divided national identity. In the days following the assault, reports of harassment, stereotyping, and hate speech skyrocketed.

The government’s counter-narrative of Indian aggression also generated nationalism and skepticism about cross-border communication in Pakistan as well. As distrust rises, civil society projects encouraging people-to-people communication struggled. Both cultures are thus being driven into echo chambers, where polarization and rhetoric distort nuance and cause more chaos.

Issues in Counterterrorism and Security Realignment

The Pahalgam incident shows major shortcomings in regional security systems. The attack exposed India’s shortcomings in intelligence and the protection of soft targets. The Indian government reacted by dispatching more soldiers to Kashmir, raising checkpoints, and vowing to eradicate the last militant networks. Such actions, however, can irritate locals and aggravate conflicts.

The assault also highlights a tactical change in insurgency strategy, specifically the intentional targeting of visitors and civilians to undermine the narrative of peace. This implies a desire to create broad concern and provoke a socio-political response, marking a departure from assaults primarily directed at military or security institutions.

Counterterrorism initiatives, therefore, must evolve to fit this evolving threat profile by balancing military responses with intelligence-based interventions and community involvement. On the other hand, Pakistan is attracting more outside attention over the existence of terror organizations inside its borders. The assault raises questions about Islamabad’s claims to be a responsible actor and could compromise its attempts to draw international investment or receive preferential treatment from organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The scenario calls for a recalibration of Pakistan’s internal security strategy to neutralize non-state actors and reassure the world community of its commitment to counterterrorism.

Regional Cooperation in Crisis

The Pahalgam incident could set off a shift in South Asia’s regional security framework despite the grave effects. Though India and Pakistan vary, the entire regional community, including Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, has a stake in preserving stability. These nations may suggest fresh security pacts emphasizing crisis management and counterterrorism; bring back SAARC talks; or work together to encourage de-escalation.

Furthermore, countries like the United States, China, and the Gulf states have a special chance to intervene quietly. The United Nations’ appeal for caution and regional collaboration emphasizes the prospect of global involvement in lowering tensions. After all, it was between India and Pakistan that many analysts thought would see the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945—prior to Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats over Ukraine. Civil society, think tanks, and academic conferences can also help to fill the diplomatic vacuum by providing frameworks for communication, conducting collaborative danger assessments, and promoting cross-border awareness.

A Crossroads for South Asia

Undoubtedly, the Pahalgam terror incident altered South Asia’s security scene. Its effects are being felt well beyond the blood-soaked fields of Kashmir—disturbing governments, economies, and cultures throughout the subcontinent. It has revived old conflicts, exposed new weaknesses, and challenged regional players to face the fragility of peace.

Within this uncertainty is a chance to rethink security in terms of trust, inclusion, and cooperation rather than only in military ones. South Asia’s challenge is to make sure this tragedy propels a more stable, secure, and cooperative regional order rather than just another chapter in a cycle of retribution that always has the chance of going nuclear. Whether that vision comes true relies on the decisions its leaders make in the next weeks and months.

Arman Ahmed is the Founder and President of Dhaka Thinks, a Research Analyst at the Spykman Center, and a Research Fellow, International Council on Human Rights, Peace, and Politics. Views expressed by the author are their own.

The Pahalgam Attack and Its Impact on South Asia’s Security Landscape was originally published on Global Security Review.