The Nexus between Vision 2050 and Energy Security Conundrum

Francis Hualupmomi

Introduction
Competition of energy by hegemonic powers in the Pacific region, in particular PNG has the potential to trigger inter-state or intra-state conflict or war. It is predicted that between 2015 and 2020 at macro level, conflict and war is possible between the two major conventional rival powers, US and China, whilst at micro level, civil conflict or war is possible between the state, Multi-national Corporations (MNCs) and disgruntled resource owners. These assumed scenarios posed an energy security conundrum. Therefore it is argued that China and PNG must play an important role in maintaining a ‘balance of power’ in the region through soft diplomacy. This article is an attempt to analyse and forecast future security implications and challenges in quest for energy by China and US in PNG and how these scenarios will affect Vision 2050. This will be approached at macro and micro level.

Political Economy of Energy Security: Competition and Power
Energy is both renewable and non-renewable resources. Non-renewable resources constitute fossil fuels such as petroleum (oil), hydrocarbon (gas), coal, steal, and others whilst renewable resources compose bio fuel such as solar, windmill, and others. The demand for these energy sources is so high compared to other market commodities as indicated by trends. The demand exceeds supply as non-renewable resources are over-consumed by industrialised states mostly NICs (Newly Industrialised Countries) and big economies such as the US, China, Japan, etc. The energy supply bases for the global market economy are mostly from resource-rich regions of South America, Africa, Asia and Pacific.

Historically countries within these regions have been conquered by imperialist powers in quest for ‘scramble of resources’. More precisely, these countries have always been their (imperialists’) national interest. The demand and supply of energy is a function of economic and military power. Energy resources will remain the national interest of any state in the drive towards modernisation and industrialisation.

US, China, Japan are the largest consumers of energy followed by ‘New Comers’, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Indonesia and others. For instance, China is the second largest importer of energy apart from US, especially in oil, as a result of a constant 25 years of economic growth. Its consumption from oil has risen sharply since 1993. Today it imports 40% of oil and its dependence on energy has continued to grow. According to a UN Economic Commission & Social Commission report China accounted for less than 1% of world’s energy consumption (2008).

Increasingly, as countries face rapid economic growth, urbanisation, demographic challenges, and military capability build-up, the appetite for energy will surge and fuel stiff competition among rising powers because of its economic scarcity.

The rise of NICs and or emerging powers such as India, and Pakistan will also spur more fierce and intense competition, which has already create tensions between hegemonic powers in the Asia Pacific region. More over, this scenario can potentially affect the socio-economic growth instigating civil crisis mostly in developing countries as demand for energy exceeds supply.

Macro Level:
The Pacific region in the southern hemisphere is identified by hegemonic powers as the last frontier of resource-rich nations, and in fact PNG alone has been indentified as the key geo-strategic economic base for energy supply in international relations. Therefore, Pacific in particular, PNG is or will be hegemonic powers’ national interest. As far as geo-strategic relation is concerned competition between China and US is absolutely inevitable.

At the macro level, the US assumes traditional hegemonic power in the Pacific through its deputy sheriffs; Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Britain. The end of Cold War delineates scaling down of US’s role in the Pacific with some of its missions being closed, for instance, in Solomon Islands.

Until recently, US increasingly refocus its foreign policy with respect to China’s increasing role in the region. As a result a strategic shift took place in 2008 when US announced to have its military base be relocated to Guam with a strategic objective to contain Chinese expansionism. This was evidenced in 2008 when the then Bush Administration declared the “Pacific Year” as part of its foreign policy. The US has always perceived China as its major threat in Asia Pacific. The region is closely watched by the eagle eyes in order to contain dragon’s infiltration.
In contrary, China has always played a smart game diplomacy through soft diplomacy to secure friendship with an aim to spread its culture and philosophy across borders. Indeed, Chinese diplomacy is based on Confuciasm philosophy of ‘harmonious society’. She promotes this philosophy through soft development Aids unconditionally to developing countries. In so doing, China provides a win-win situation for all actors. In PNG, Chinese foreign direct investment is voluminous. For instance, Ramu Nickel mine, the proposed International Conference Center, and many others.

Consequently, Chinese dominant role in development bilateral relations in the Pacific region has stimulated and accelerated economic growth; while at the same time increasingly instils fear and insecurity to US and its deputy sheriffs in the region. Australia, though a middle power, have competed to protect US backyard through its conditional loans, is still struggling to contain Chinese influence.

Hence, Chinese diplomatic approach in the Pacific in assisting Small Island states such as PNG through investment in energy – LNG Projects - may perhaps be perceived by US as menace as far as regional stability is concerned. More so, whilst US may perceive China otherwise, China is also promoting ‘collaborative diplomacy’ in Pacific to secure its potential energy suppliers of oil, gas, nickel, etc to build its economy, whilst establishing friendship.

Hence from a hegemonic stability perspective it is argued that diverging interests and ideational dynamics can possibly cause inter-state conflict which can trigger possible war. One would also argue that energy diplomacy may oscillate the reconfiguration of hegemonic power relations in the Pacific.

Micro Level:
At micro level it appears that legitimacy crisis and civil war are potential threats to national security as far as energy security is concerned.

First, there is possibility that the disgruntled resource owners may rebel against the state which could trigger legitimacy crisis and civil war. Second, disgruntled resource-rich owner may rebel against the MNCs which can cause civil crisis or possible military intervention (although war is unlikely).

In the former, experiences over unresolved issues relating to energy economy have demonstrated a rebellious scenario. Resource owners in most mining and petroleum projects in PNG have been treated unfairly in terms of redistribution of wealth by the government. Poor Royalties and lack of development services were a great concern. This asymmetry can lead into civil crisis when the people take the ‘rule of law’ into their own hands.
State graft by government officials in siphoning project money covertly into their empires through illegal means can cause legitimacy or civil crisis. For instance, The LNG project in Southern Highlands Province is an assumed scenario. Resource owners in the province have military capability to revolt against the state. The Singirok Gun Report suggested high and semi- powered factory guns owned by the people.

In the latter, civil war between the state and MNCs is highly possible. The operations of Exxon Mobile and G4S in LNG sites have already question the sovereignty of the state and a concern to national security. Exxon Mobil is the richest US Company in the world, which has close relationship with the US government. Exxon Mobile’s presence in PNG is a US national interest as far as its security is concern.

G4S is a highly militarised private mercenary company of US protecting its interest in different Oil fields under various berets. G4S presence also questions its immunity to the state law. The nexus between rebellious resource owners against Exxon Mobile is a threat to US and therefore is deemed as its high priority national security. In the event that the state and G4S fail to contain and stabilize the civil rebellion US military intervention is possible, although it may seem unlikely, however the 1994 Gulf War speaks for itself. There are also other civil crises such as in East Timor, Nigeria, Somalia, instigated by energy competition.

Challenge for Vision 2050
The government’s aspiration to attain ‘Middle Income Country’ by 2050 and thereby, becoming a ‘Wise, Smart, and Happy Society by 2050 may not be not fully released if it does not critically evaluate energy security systematically and respond thoughtfully at a global scale. This new paradigm shift in government thinking is a grand challenge as a nation state in modernisation. It appears that this vision may not achieve its stated gaols and objectives if security issues are not critically conceptualised at grand level. I am of the view that the greatest conundrum will ultimately rest on energy security.

PNG is predicted to see a spiralling economic growth rate of 8% annually with the full economisation of LNG projects by 2014. Although energy projects may transform PNG into a MIC at forecasted growth rate similar to China echoed by some economic analysts, its security implications are incalculable.

Energy security is strategically vital to assess ‘where we are, where we want go and how we will get there’ with energy. This will involve analysing security at macro and micro level that appropriate strategies can be framed to systematically respond thoughtfully to emerging security threats. Security of the state and individual is absolutely vital to fully realise the vision.

Role of PNG-Sino Relations
In order to avoid future conflict or possible war China and PNG will have to play an important role to maintain a balance of power in the region. PNG as an economic and strategic interest of hegemonic powers in the region will have to play a neutral diplomacy within ‘the axis of evil’ whilst China continues to play a soft diplomacy based on ‘collaborative and consensus diplomacy’. China must convince US misperception in its role in the Pacific region. PNG on the other hand must refocus or res-cope its foreign policy to contextualise the regional security perspective.

Conclusion
In conclusion energy security is a national security priority of any state. At macro level, since energy is scarce, competition between rival powers and other emerging powers can cause conflict or war in the region. At micro level legitimacy crisis or civil war is inevitable. It is argued that PNG will become a mere spectator as economic competition between China and US intensifies in the region. These scenarios pose a great challenge to PNG with respect to Vision 2050. Therefore, PNG and China will play an important role to avoid such crisis and maintain a balance of power in the region.

Any views presented here are the author’s own and it does not represent anyone or any organisation. For further information I can be informed through this email address: profdrakes@gmail.com