Talking about threats, according to the leading realist thinker of the 20th century Hans Morgenthau, “Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintain, and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action.” (Morgenthau 1965:194).

Recently, the former US National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden revealed information about the spying activities conducted on PNG soil by Australian secret agents working for Australian Signals Directorate (ASD).

Why is Australia spying on PNG? Everyone will have their own opinion but the undermining factor will surely come down to Australia’s national interest, whatever it may be.

Thus, PNG cannot rely completely on Australia for security neither can it trust her because in realism, the fact that all states must pursue their national interest means that other countries and governments can never be relied on completely.

As security threats from the outside are mounting, PNG must raise its security capabilities in order to protect its territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

The downsizing of our Defence Force personnel has served its time. We are now in the 21st century and as such, we need to be prepared militarily to face this dynamic and ever changing global arena along with its threats.

I commend Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and the PNG Defence Force for coming up with the White Paper 2013 which promises to upgrade our military capacity in the area of land, naval and air.

Thanks Francis for your insights. I have often wondered whether Australia will continue to see Papua New Guinea in the same way as it did say in the 10 years after independence.

Australia has pursued a strong multicultural policy, so that its population make-up is changing. The bonds formed through war and colonial ties will slowly die out. Maybe grandchildren of service men and women will have that connection.

But immigrants into Australia after 1975, whose children get educated and assume leadership position in Australia may not see anything special in Papua New Guinea beyond a useful partner for geo strategic interest in securing Australian borders. Perhaps the same can be said for Papua New Guinea too.

It is therefore important that events celebrating bonds formed through war are concurrently celebrated such as remembrance day on 23 July, commemorating Australia's engagement at Kokoda.

Papua New Guinea is the only Pacific country that has a land border and as much as it resents not colonial overtones in bilateral relationship with Australia, it must cultivate its relationship carefully.

There is general distrust of Indonesia over West Papua and Australia appears to be the obvious choice to help PNG secure its borders.

Chris, interesting observation.

In terms of the balance of power in the region excluding US and other Asia powers, I consider Australia as a regional hegemon.

The hegemonic role its plays in the region is not as assertive as the US but it does have a paramount influence on what happens in the region.

The regional policing efforts in Solomon Islands, its occasional diplomatic fights with Fiji and its tag as the leading aid giver in PNG all place Australia at the apex of the regional power pyramid.

The 'Snowden' leak about Australia's spying operations in PNG also displays another dimension of Australia's capability in the region. No other Pacific country can match apart from New Zealand.

I think Bernard Yegiora's comment is absolutely correct. Nations always have and always will pursue their own best interests.

My only quibble is Bernard's use of the term "regional hegemon" to describe Australia.

I think that the word hegemon has lost its original meaning, being simply the assertion of leadership, to become a de facto term to describe or imply something much more sinister, being the total domination of others.

I really struggle to see Australia as having even the slightest ambition to be a hegemon as that term is now understood and used, regional or otherwise.

Certainly, Australia can and should assert leadership in a region full of new, small, often very poor and, almost invariably, indifferently led micro-states.

That said, as a nation, Australia has not shown a marked disposition towards imposing itself upon others in the region.

Such actions do not fit very well with our well known national proclivity for preferring mateship and a few beers around a barbeque to seeking to dominate others (except in sport, or course).

The firm but low key approach taken by General Sir Peter Cosgrove when he led Australia's intervention in East Timor is reflective of how we like to do business: no-one stormed ashore, guns blazing, sending a terrorised population screaming for the hills.

Instead, our troops quietly came ashore and set about establishing law and order with the absolute minimum of force involved.

The amiable but astute Cosgrove rapidly established good relations with the key local leadership and strove to ensure that they felt included in and could influence what happened.

So far as I can tell, the most important thing we did immediately after securing the peace was to set up hospital and health services.

Once Pax Australis was firmly established, I have no doubt that a barbeque and a few beers rose rapidly to the top of the agenda.

Compare this with how the USA or Russia tends to do business and I think that my point will be clear.

This article makes some useful comments about the PNG-Australian relationship but, to my mind, Francis misconstrues or simply misses a few important points about the relationship.

For a start, so far as I can tell, it was never the case that successive Australian governments regarded PNG as a "colony" in the proper sense of that word.

For example, the TPNG administration's long term recognition for and preservation of traditional land ownership, was certainly not a feature of a genuine colonial outlook.

Bear in mind that this was the case when, legally speaking, Aboriginal people were not deemed to have even occupied Australia, much less owned any land.

In relation to defence, Australia has had an assistance program in place for the PNG Defence Force for as long as I can remember.

Given PNG's strategic significance it clearly is in Australia's interests that PNG has a competent and effective Defence Force.

The prevailing ill discipline and poor quality of PNG troops is not due to lack of information or training, but to the broader cultural influences like the wantok system and endemic corruption that pervade PNG society and which continue to do it a great deal of damage.

The rise of the influence of Chinese, Malay and other foreign interests in PNG is concerning to me, in so far as business in those countries seems much less concerned about the damaging impact of its activities on environmental, political and social structures (relatively speaking!) than is the case for western countries.

To me, the biggest single problem for PNG in its relationship with Australia is that it simple doesn't figure on the political radar nearly enough.

Apart from "old stagers" like me, eco-tourists and those hardy souls who enjoy torturing themselves walking the Kokoda Track, few Australians have any but the vaguest notion about where PNG is, much less its real and important historical, military and economic significance.

This is hugely frustrating to those of us who care deeply about what happens to PNG and its people.

Quite how this problem is to be overcome I do not know, but activities like the Crocodile Prize and PNG Attitude (which is presumably on the Foreign Affairs and ASIS "watch lists") can only help.

Yes Francis, a threat to PNG is a threat to Australia. Japan was only a stone's throw away from Australia during WW2.

Australia should focus attention to improving the PNG Defence Force. In view of our special bond, PNG soldiers will always die side by side with Australian and New Zealand soldiers as did the Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels.

PNG-Australia geopolitical relationship goes further back than 1975, "lest we forget" WWII.

Ignoring the contribution of Australia to PNG agriculture thru kiaps and didiman/meri would be a really poor show.

Assistance is all too often referred to as money and the purchase of large machinery and infrastructure and ignore the intellectual and long term collegial working relationships between peers in both countries.

As for the case of rice, arguments about large scale adoption this crop are no longer a sole agricultural agenda but more to do with economics, land use and financing.

Rice is a political crop.