The Bougainville Peace Agreement, signed in 2001, ended a major Pacific conflict and set terms for Bougainville’s autonomy and a future independence referendum. Despite a 2019 vote strongly favoring independence, ongoing disputes have delayed progress, risking future tensions between Bougainville and Papua New Guinea.

This year (2024) marks 23 years since the Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA) was signed, ending the longest and deadliest conflict in the Pacific since the end of the Second World War. A Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the BPA comprises of a complex set of measures that include a new form of territorial autonomy, unique in Papua New Guinea (PNG) for the people of Bougainville, a supervised weapons disposal and demilitarisation process, and a non-binding referendum on independence, to be held no earlier than ten years and no later than 15 years after the election of the first Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG), all to be provided for under major amendments to the PNG Constitution.

The referendum, which was held in November-December 2019 saw a 97.7 percent vote in favour of independence over the alternative of greater autonomy.  The referendum itself was sanctioned by the PNG Constitution, conducted to the highest standards, and certified to have been free and fair by international observers.

Post Referendum Consultations and Implementation of Autonomy Arrangements

In the more than four years since the referendum took place, the two governments have engaged in consultations as required under the terms of the BPA and the PNG Constitution. Consultations, which were initially delayed due mainly to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, have since become mired in disputes on technical issues, particularly on the manner in which the PNG Parliament will decide on the next steps following the referendum outcome.

Also, critical other measures to support the full implementation of the autonomy arrangements contained within the BPA have slowed, leading to a situation where the Autonomous Bougainville Government lacks critical infrastructure, institutions, and the financial and human resource capacity needed to sustain any future independent state.

Implications for the next phase of the peace process

All of this has implications for the next phase of the Bougainville peace process. By any measure, the BPA has been remarkably successful in preventing civil war recurrence. But as consultations continue on the issue of independence, there is a real risk that continued delays could lead to heightened tensions between the PNG government and the ABG, and even a possible return to conflict.

In the three main consultations that have taken place over the course of the last three years, the ABG has remained steadfast in its view that the referendum result should be honoured, and simply accepted and endorsed by the PNG Parliament. The National Government has, on the other hand, maintained the view that independence is not a certainty, and that under the BPA, the final decision-making authority is vested in the PNG Parliament, and that Parliament’s decision could include a political settlement other than independence.

Bougainville’s political future

Underscoring all of this, then, is what form Bougainville’s political future will take. With discussions becoming increasingly focussed on the mechanism for a vote, the opportunity for the two governments to discuss alternative options for a political settlement, or to perhaps identify some form of middle ground, appears to have been lost. And this could have implications when the time comes for the Parliament to deliberate on the referendum result.

Under the terms of the BPA, the PNG prime minister and the Bougainville president co-chair the Joint Supervisory Body (JSB). The JSB oversees arrangements in relation to all aspects of the BPA, providing a mechanism for consultation and dispute resolution. Following the most recent meeting of the JSB in Port Moresby on 6 May, the two governments agreed to seek the support of the United Nations in engaging a neutral moderator. While the decision to seek outside support should be welcomed, the narrow focus proposed for the moderator’s terms of reference in the final resolution of the meeting restricts the role of the moderator to just those matters related to the parliamentary tabling and decision-making process, rather than more substantial discussions on what form Bougainville’s future might take.

Differing perspectives

In his opening address to the JSB, Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama spoke to the history of Bougainville, and the “deal that was made” to end the civil war by way of the BPA. He forthrightly put forward the position that, when the agreement was reached, it was done so on the basis that the decision of the referendum would be honoured, even though it would require a final decision to be made by the PNG Parliament.

In his own opening address, Prime Minister James Marape asserted the decision making authority of the PNG Parliament, noting that the government’s hands are tied in negotiating any form of political settlement, including independence, before parliament has its say.

In many ways, this argument runs counter to history. In the case of the BPA, then prime minister, the late Sir Mekere Morauta, committed to the BPA in the full knowledge that it would require very significant amendments to the PNG Constitution. In this way, some might argue that the Executive Government is empowered to agree to a future arrangement at least in principle, before any such arrangement is put to Parliament for a final decision, or for deliberation of constitutional change.

The need for continued dialogue and a negotiated final political settlement

As leaders look to the future, there is a need for more honest conversations about what form Bougainville’s political future should take. While the opposing views on the manner of the decision-making process gives some cause for concern, it also offers an opportunity for genuine dialogue on options and models that could guide a future PNG-Bougainville relationship.

This could include an arrangement where Bougainville charts a path forward as an independent state using a staged and sequenced approach, but under a free association-type model with PNG, not unlike arrangements between some Pacific Island States and the United States of America and New Zealand. This would allow the very strong social and cultural ties that bind PNG and Bougainville to remain intact, while providing the Bougainville leadership the opportunity to participate as a member of the international community of states, with certain assurances around areas of support negotiated as part of any agreed model. Indeed, some might say such an approach is critical given the very significant challenges that Bougainville continues to face in economic and social terms.

Arguably, this approach could offer a “win-win” for the two parties to the agreement, where Bougainville achieves its goal of becoming an independent nation state, and the PNG Government is able to say that Bougainville remains a part of or linked to PNG, albeit under an alternative form of arrangement.

Whatever the outcome, the peace process has reached a critical juncture. The decisions taken in the coming months could have significant implications, possibly even undermining what until now has been regarded as one of the most successful peace processes of modern times.

The challenge for those leading consultations is to find a compromise that does not undermine the will of either side, and which, in a true spirit of Melanesian tradition, brokers compromise, understanding, and an enduring partnership for the future.

Kevin Pullen is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University.  His research is focussed on the design and implementation of the Bougainville Peace Agreement.

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.