Reaching communities beyond Pacific capitals must remain at the heart of journalism as technology creates new ways for the region to share its stories, says Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Opening the 8th Pacific Media Summit in Savusavu, Rabuka said the vast distances separating Pacific communities should not prevent people from being informed, heard and connected.

The summit theme, “Reaching the Remote: Media and Digital Innovation for a Connected Blue Pacific,” reflected a challenge that was bigger than technology.

• READ MORE: Rabuka urges Pacific media to verify facts, warns over rise of AI
• Other PINA reports

“Connectivity is more than just technological issue. It is a development issue. It is an inclusion issue. It is a resilient issue,” Rabuka said.

For communities far from major centres, he said access to reliable information could affect their ability to access services, participate in national discussions and respond during emergencies.

Rabuka said this was particularly important during cyclones, floods and other disasters, when accurate and timely information could save lives.

He urged Pacific journalists to go beyond reporting from capital cities and document what was happening in communities across the region.

“Reaching the remote means reaching the people,” he said.

Pacific responsibility
Rabuka said Pacific reporting also had a responsibility to take the region’s own experiences to wider audiences.

He pointed to issues including climate change, oceans, fisheries, natural resources, poverty, inequality, economic pressures and transnational crime as matters that needed to be reported through the experiences of Pacific communities.

“These are not simply statistics. They are stories about people, families, communities and livelihoods,” he said.

He said the Pacific should not be defined only by outside reporting.

“The Pacific should not only be spoken about. The Pacific must also speak for itself,” Rabuka said.

While technology could expand the reach of Pacific journalism, Rabuka said it also created greater responsibility for journalists to maintain professional standards.

He warned that information could reach thousands of people before it had been properly checked, while artificial intelligence, synthetic content and digital manipulation were creating new challenges for newsrooms.

Stronger media literacy
Rabuka said journalists needed to verify information and citizens needed stronger media literacy to assess what they see and hear.

“We need citizens who can question what they see and hear. We need journalists who can verify information and we need newsrooms that can adapt to new technologies while protecting professional standards,” he said.

He also linked responsible journalism to the role of the media in a democracy, saying journalists must continue to question institutions, investigate issues and hold those in positions of power accountable.

Rabuka said disagreement between governments and the media was normal in a democracy and should not prevent dialogue.

Instead, he said, differences should encourage better questions, better information and better decisions.

The Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Pacific Centre for Communications and Journalism, through a partnership between Fiji National University and the Fijian Media Association (FIMA).

The centre will provide a platform for professional training, research, regional cooperation and the development of future Pacific media leaders, with a focus on digital journalism, media literacy and the responsible use of emerging technologies.

Rabuka said strengthening Pacific journalism would require cooperation between governments, media organisations, civil society, academia, development partners and stronger regional media networks.

He said the goal should be a media sector capable of adapting to technological change while retaining the professional standards that underpin public trust.

Prishanta Sharma is a third-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific (USP), Laucala Campus. She was sponsored by PINA and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to participate in a pre-summit workshop in Savusavu.

One of Fiji’s most prominent traditional and political figures is warning the country’s lawmakers “not to approve” two major bilateral agreements with Australia.

In early July, the Fijian and Australian prime ministers signed the Vuvale Union and the Ocean of Peace Alliance (Veitacini Treaty), marking a major upgrade to relations between the two nations.

The Vuvale Union is a broad political and economic framework, while the Veitacini Treaty is the specific defence and security pillar within that wider strategic partnership. Both governments have hailed the agreements as “significant” for future Fiji-Australia relations.

• READ MORE: Lau chief raises concern over Fiji treaties

Australian PM Anthony Albanese said that signing the agreements was “one of the most significant endeavours” Australia had undertaken with any country.

Fiji and Australia say the agreements will strengthen cooperation on security, economic development, climate resilience and regional stability.

However, Ratu Tevita Mara, a paramount chief of Lau Province, is urging the Fiji Parliament to withhold approval of both agreements “until the people of Fiji have been given a full, fearless and independent account of what these treaties commit our nation to”.

“Both treaties were signed in Suva on 6 July 2026. Under our [2013] Constitution, neither binds Fiji until Parliament approves it, and both are now before Parliament’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence,” he said in a media statement.

‘Friendship must never require blindness’
“This is the moment — the last moment — for Fiji to examine them properly. Once ratified, they cannot easily be undone.”

He said the examination of the agreements needed to be given sufficient time, independent advice and public participation.

“Let me be clear: this is not a rejection of Australia. It is a defence of Fiji,” he said.

He described Australia as a “valued friend” but noted that an arrangement “presented in the language of family and cooperation” must still be read line by line.

“We must not accept terms whose deeper consequences become apparent only after Fiji is bound.

“Friendship must never require blindness. Cooperation must never become subordination. And no government has the right to gamble with the sovereignty of future generations.”

Ratu Tevita, who is one of the deputy chairs of Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturaga), is calling on the Great Council of Chiefs to meet to discuss the issue.

Last Saturday, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto was in the middle of a speech when he stopped talking, wiped his eyes with a small towel, and apologised to the crowd.

“I am sorry,” he said. “I just remembered our brothers and sisters in Palestine. They are being slaughtered, they are bombed, they are attacked again and again. And we seem powerless to help them.”

He was speaking at Pondok Modern Darussalam Gontor in Ponorogo, East Java, one of Indonesia’s oldest Islamic boarding schools, marking its 100th anniversary.

• READ MORE: Indonesian president chants ‘Free Palestine’ at reception
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

Later, the Palestinian ambassador gave him a keffiyeh, the scarf that symbolises Palestine. Prabowo cried again, then chanted “Free Palestine” several times, saying a strong Indonesia can help its oppressed “brothers and sisters.”

It was an emotional moment. But Palestinians in Gaza do not need tears from a school celebration in East Java. They need action.

Start with what Prabowo still seems to believe should happen to Palestine: a two-state solution, the old idea that Israel and a Palestinian state can exist side by side in peace, and the official position of most governments for 30 years.

But does anyone who matters still actually want it?

No longer trust a plan
Palestinians do not, not in the form it has taken for decades. After two years of bombing that flattened Gaza and killed tens of thousands of people, most no longer trust a plan that leaves their security and borders in the hands of others.

Israel does not want it either. Israeli leaders have expanded settlements in the West Bank for years, cutting Palestinian land into pieces too small and scattered to ever become a real state.

So, when a leader cries and repeats “two-state solution,” we should ask him plainly: after everything the world has watched in Gaza, do you still believe Israel wants peace?

A United Nations commission of inquiry has documented what it calls genocide there. Tears mean little if the plan behind them is the same formula that failed for 30 years.

If the two-state solution is dead, silence is not the answer. A real solution could mean equal rights for everyone between the river and the sea, in one state. It could mean a Palestinian state with real borders, a real army, and control of its own resources, not the walled-off pieces offered so far.

Prabowo Serukan “Free Palestine” dan Dikalungi Keffiyeh oleh Dubes Palestina

Baca di https://t.co/eb1EK6hS2z pic.twitter.com/SIlYusMkha

— Kompas.com (@kompascom) September 19, 2026

What matters most is who decides. A solution designed for Palestinians in a boardroom, not with them at the table, is not a solution.

That is also the problem with the “Board of Peace,” set up by world leaders to oversee Gaza’s future once the fighting quietens down. A board made mostly of foreign powers, without Palestinians in control of their own land.

This is not liberation
It is not liberation, but another arrangement where outsiders decide the fate of a people who have already had enough decisions made for them. Indonesia has a proud history of standing against colonialism, and supporting this goes against everything it claims to believe.

But the deepest problem is closer to home. While Prabowo cries in public for Palestine, Israeli companies continue quiet business on Indonesian soil. Ormat Technologies, an Israeli-founded energy company, won a geothermal concession in Halmahera, North Maluku, earlier this year, and is now developing it.

If the President is serious, he needs to look at his own country’s companies, mines and energy concessions, and ask: are we still doing business with the people responsible for Gaza?

Indonesia is the largest Muslim majority country in the world, with real economic weight and moral standing on this issue. It does not officially recognise Israel and has long supported Palestine at the UN.

That gives Prabowo something rare among world leaders: the credibility to actually do something, not just say something.

A scarf wiped across wet eyes will be forgotten by next week. A serious investigation into which Indonesian entities still profit from ties with Israel, followed by real consequences, would not be.

Neither would it be forgotten if Prabowo used Indonesia’s voice to push for a real solution, instead of recycling a peace process that has already failed.

Crying is human. Leadership is different. Palestinians have watched enough leaders cry for them while nothing changes.

If Prabowo wants his tears to mean something, he should turn them into policy: investigate the companies his own country still does business with, and back a future for Palestine that Palestinians actually choose.

• Indonesia also has a decolonisation issue since 1969 over its Melanesian provinces in the Papuan region — known as West Papua among Pacific nations.

Dr Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat is the director of the Indonesia-MENA desk at the Centre for Economic and Law Studies (CELIOS) in Jakarta and a research affiliate at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore. He spent more than a decade living and traveling across the Middle East. Republished from Middle East Monitor.

Thousands took part in today’s Greenpeace-led March for Nature in the heart of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Tāmaki Makaurau.

Critics of the coalition government’s controversial proposed Conservation Amendment Bill say this would allow selling off of conservation land, weaken environmental protections, and put short-term profit ahead of people and endanger the future of the planet.

“If Prime Minister Christopher Luxon wants a fight over conservation land, he has one,” said Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Dr Russel Norman, a former Green Party MP.

“This huge turnout today shows people are not prepared to stand by while a government tries to rewrite conservation law to make those places easier to exploit.”

Organisers of the rally — partnered by Forest and Bird — in Albert Park followed by a march down Queen Street say 35,000 people took part.

Placards and banners declared “Honour Te Tiriti [of Waitangi],”More hoot, less loot,” “Hands off conservation land”, “You can’t rehabilitate exploited land”, and “I’m $hane . . . bribe me!” in apparent reference to an unpopular minister.

Plenty of Palestinian flags were among the marchers. This rally coincided with the 155th consecutive week of protest over Israel’s genocide in the besieged Palestinian enclave of Gaza.

• Photographs: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report
  
• More images/videos

Greenpeace March for Nature

1 of 16

“If Luxon wants a fight over conservation land, he has one,” he said. “This huge turnout today shows people are not prepared to stand by, while a government tries to rewrite conservation law to make those places easier to exploit.”

Greenpeace was supported at the march by Forest and Bird.

“The message to every political party from the people of New Zealand is clear — if you stand up for nature, we will stand with you, but if you sell off our conservation land, weaken environmental protections or put short-term profit ahead of our future, we will not stand by and let it happen,” said Forest & Bird policy and advocacy group manager Richard Capie.

Greenpeace claimed about 35,000 people attended the protest, although police reported a maximum of 6000, with no incidents resulting.

This story was first published on

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman in New York joined by Democracy Now! cohost Juan González in Chicago. Hi, Juan.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Hi, Amy, and welcome to all of our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world.

AMY GOODMAN: “The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us by the end of the decade.” That was the warning last week from former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon that set off an escalating debate over how to regulate increasingly powerful AI systems.

• READ MORE: AI is creating new billionaires at a record pace
• Other AI reports

Coxon spoke to the BBC:

COXON: So it’s not at all an exaggeration to say that the people who were involved with both founding these companies and building the tech believe there is a possibility of human extinction.

And many of the people who are sort of deep in the weeds on actually coding the thing believe that there is like a greater than 10pc chance or even greater – some smaller, but they all have different numbers – for a probability that humans might die.

And they all keep this in their head on a daily basis while working on the technology.

AMY GOODMAN: Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei also called for the pace of development of artificial intelligence models to slow down. In an essay, he wrote that within six to 12 months a swarm of AI agents could be capable of taking over the entire internet and cause hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.

He wrote, “The scale of damage would continue to increase from there if AI becomes more powerful without the necessary guardrails.” But President Trump has rejected growing calls for placing regulatory guardrails on the AI industry and has called concerns over AI a “hoax”.

On Monday, Trump called Jensen Huang, the CEO of the computer chip maker Nvidia, while Huang was speaking at an AI summit in Los Angeles. Huang put the president on speakerphone.

PRES. TRUMP: The data centers are great and they make people wealthy and they make states wealthy and it’s the oil of the next 20, 25 years. It’s bigger than the Internet.

And the AI, you know, much more so. And they are just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don’t want to see it happen.

And that could be political people; it could also be China. And we’re not going to let that happen. It’s a hoax. And [crosstalk]—

JENSEN HUANG [laughs] You’re right. We’re not going to let that happen, sir.

AUDIENCE: [applause]

PRES. TRUMP: No, we’re not going to let it happen. The robots are not going to be taking over the world.

AMY GOODMAN: As the debate over AI intensifies, the award-winning journalists and writers Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor have a new book out today that is connected to all of this. It is titled End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World.

It examines how wealthy elites, including tech CEOs, are preparing for the end of the world even as they contribute to growing inequality, political instability, wars and the climate crisis. They will join us in a minute but first, here is a short excerpt from a video that was released with the book.

ASTRA TAYLOR: End-times fascism is not a monolith. It’s a dangerous and fractious alliance of three main groups.

NARRATOR: Religious end-timers.

ROBERT JEFFRESS: From the very beginning it has been clear that god has a special plan and purpose for the nation of Israel.

NARRATOR: Tech end-timers.

SAM ALTMAN: You know, I think AI will probably like most likely sort of lead to the end of the world. But in the meantime there will be great companies created.

NARRATOR: Ethnonationalist end-timers.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: America is fighting with Israel for a common goal – to protect our future, to protect civilisation against these barbarians.

PERSON: That was a good take right there.

PERSON: Seig fucking Heil, let’s fucking go!

PERSON: You would prefer the human race to endure, right?

PERSON: Uh—

PERSON: You’re hesitant.

PERSON: Yeah, well, I—

PERSON: End-times fascists haven’t just given up on liberal democracy. They’ve given up on the possibility of a shared future for all of us.

PERSON: The most powerful people in the world –

PERSON: – are preparing for the end of the world –

PERSON:  – an end they themselves are both accelerating –

PERSON: – and profiting from.

ELON MUSK: [laughs]

PERSON: We have imagined Armageddon so many times it can almost feel inevitable. Except it’s not. So, which side are you on?

PERSON: The side of bunkering down, abandoning Earth and profiting from apocalypse? Or staying loyal to this planet and its people—

PERSON: Who are you aligned with? Who are you protecting?

PERSON: – and making life here better?

‘End Times Fascism’      Video: Democracy Now!

AMY GOODMAN: A short video released in conjunction with the new book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World written by our guests in studio for the hour.

Naomi Klein, award-winning journalist, documentary filmmaker, best-selling author of a number of books including Doppelganger and No Logo and The Shock Doctrine. Naomi Klein is also an associate professor and co-director of the Centre for Climate Justice at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Astra Taylor is an award-winning writer, activist and documentary filmmaker, the co-founder of the Debt Collective and author of several books including The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart and The People’s Platform: Taking Back Power and Culture in the Digital Age.

Thanks so much for spending the hour with us. Naomi, start off with a title, start off with End Times Fascism, why you chose this.

NAOMI KLEIN: First of all, thank you for having us here, Amy. It’s great to be launching the book on Democracy Now! It just came out this morning, as you said. And I think we have a long tradition of launching books together. We decided to call it End Times Fascism because we are trying to understand what is the same and what is different about our moment of far-right extremism.

We know that far-right parties with lineages to the fascists of the 20th century are rising to power around the world. We just saw a fateful election in a German state, the first time the far right has won an election since the Second World War. We’re seeing very disturbing polls in France, for instance.

And we’re seeing more and more open fascist expressions in the United States from very powerful people in government and in tech.

But we don’t believe that this is simply a rerun. We don’t believe that history repeats on a loop. We believe that we’re in something more like a sequel where the logics of fascism, which are the logics of dehumanisation, of othering, of racial supremacy and hierarchy, are now being applied in a time of global existential crisis. This is not news to Democracy Now! listeners and viewers that we live in a time of a climate breakdown and collapse.

We have tools like nuclear weapons, that were not known to Hitler and Mussolini, that have the ability to inflict apocalyptic levels of violence that were beyond their reach.

Fascism always emerges during times of systemic crises, and it actually emerges as a way to protect capitalism from systemic change. So if we think about 20th century fascism in Europe after the First World War, there was a rising socialist response to the wreckage of the First World War and then to the Great Depression.

And fascism rises up — we call it “capitalism threat response” or “capitalism with bared teeth” — to make sure all of that popular public anger is pivoted toward the scapegoat. In our time, as we see these global crises — that could lead to systemic change or there can be this what we are calling “end times fascist” response that says, “let it burn,” and now it’s a fight for who’s going to survive the future.

Now it’s about building — as you saw in that film that we were fortunate to work with a great team of filmmakers on — it’s about building the bunkers and the rocket ships and the escape hatches. For religious end-timers, it’s literally about the bunker in the sky; it’s about the idea of the rapture.

But that is almost like a template for these more secular stories that are also a kind of a rapture, but we call it in the book a “wealth rapture”. If you’ve got resources, you can rapture yourself away from the impacts of those threats that we are all in. So that’s why we call it End Times Fascism. It hasn’t won yet.

The reason we wrote the book is because people are fighting back. And we think if we are able to look at this very frightening reality with clear eyes, the more it is exposed to the light, the less popular it is because in fact those people cherish our one and only home and want to stay and want to make it better.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Naomi, how is this different, for example, if in the 1950s and 1960s when at the height of the Cold War there were Americans, especially upper-class Americans, building bomb shelters, convinced that there was going to be a nuclear war, and the rest of the population eventually began to organise in an anti-nuclear movement that peaked in the 1980s and that led really to capitalism being forced to restrain itself to some degree in terms of arms control treaties?

Why is this different than back then?

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, Juan, I guess it’s different because the people we’re calling end-times fascists are systematically dismantling that precise international infrastructure. One of the things that all those three factions all agree on — whether it’s the religious fundamentalists, the tech extremists that we heard from in that video, or the ethnonationalists — they don’t agree on everything but they all agree they want to get rid of the United Nations.

They all believe that that is the sort of antichrist of their story. Sometimes they literally call it the antichrist. And that chapter that you are describing, which we write about in the book, Juan — and I would actually love to bring Astra into the conversation because she went pretty deep into this research on the history of bunkering in the United States and how people shifted the tide, because we actually think that’s a really inspiring story that we need to know better.

Can I bring in Astra, my incredible co-author?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Sure.

ASTRA TAYLOR: Thank you so much. Again, thanks for having us. Yeah, it is — very quickly, in the 1950s, the government policy was to encourage people to build their own bomb shelters in their backyard, and that was the response to the nuclear threat. Only around 1 percent, 2 percent of households did that, in part because people revolted at the idea of protecting themselves and letting their neighbors perish.

And there was a massive debate in magazines like TIME magazine, LIFE magazine that was around the idea of “gunning thy neighbor”. People said, “We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to be hiding in a hole in the ground with guns pointing outwards and turning the people we care about away.”

That is part of the genesis of the movement for nuclear disarmament. It was ordinary people who put the right solution on the table, which is let’s get rid of nuclear bombs; let’s not turn on each other and bunker down. There’s a lesson in that for today.

NAOMI KLEIN: It’s so interesting because what they understood at the time is like either you bunker — either you just protect you and yours — or you get at the root cause of the crisis and you say, “Actually, we can’t live with these weapons.” Right? It’s just—”It’s too dangerous.”

As you both know, the nuclear disarmament movement had tremendous successes. In many ways, we argue in the book that it was a victim of its own success because many people in the disarmament movement believed that they had won so many victories that now the people in charge were just going to finish the job, because so many thousands of nuclear warheads were successfully disarmed that it seemed like there was a new era.

The majority of the stockpiles were disarmed but not enough, and now there is a rearming and AI is being embedded in the nuclear arsenal. Which is why at the end of the book we call for a triple disarmament movement.

In fact, Juan, we have something that you might be interested in — a new coinage in the book — which is “the Stephen Miller test”. Basically the argument that we’re making is that eventually, the most powerful tools, the most powerful weapons, will meet the worst people in the world, and if you don’t want those tools to find themselves in the hands of Stephen Miller, then the tools should not exist.

That applies to nuclear weapons. It applies to AI. It applies to the wealth concentration itself, which we believe should be now understood as a WMD. That this level of wealth that has accumulated at the top of our economy has itself become a weapon of mass destruction.

And so we need to be disarming the wealth bombs, the tech bombs, and of course, the bomb-bombs. Because we are now seeing that these very dangerous, completely immoral people who seem to have such a casual attitude — and we see this from Donald Trump’s most recent post, just a kind of shrug in the face of apocalypse — they will find — they exert a magnetic pull towards one another.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to follow-up and ask either one of you if you want to answer this, because I did read the book in the last couple of days and really found it to be tremendously well written. At the same time, though, there were some concerns I had. For instance, there is very little mention of the rise of a multipolar world, of how the rise of East Asia, especially, the shift of the world’s industrial working class to China, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, along with Brazil and Mexico — in the view of many, that is the single biggest impediment to US economic dominance, of the capitalist markets’ expansion.

And that’s also the biggest threat that many of these end-timers, as you label them, are concerned about. They are concerned about China, yet China and its impact on US hegemony and capitalism is not mentioned at all in the book.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I think that the threat of China is really, really central to the unimpeded AI rollout. It’s really the only argument they have. We do write about that in the book, but you’re right, it’s not the central focus of the book. We are more focused on the United States and the way in particular this is being pushed through Latin America, because we think there — and Europe.

But the threat of the multipolar world I do think is central, because the only argument that Donald Trump really has in the face of the threats that are now being articulated from inside the house, from inside the companies, is “But China, but China; if we don’t build it, they will.”

It’s completely untrue that deregulated AI has to be built the way it’s being built or else China will build it. China is much more open to regulating these technologies, to rules within the multilateral system. It’s the US that has been blowing up these agreements.

And when the Doomsday Clock was reset this year, it was a really — I mean, it’s always pretty harrowing, but this year it was particularly so; they moved it forward four seconds — and described not just the threats, whether it was biological weapons, nuclear weapons, AI, but the way the US government under Donald Trump was going after all of the international agreements that governments like China had been a party to, and just saying, “We don’t need them.”

So I think it’s the tools and the dismantling of any attempt to constrain those tools.

ASTRA TAYLOR: It’s also about the narrative that the people in power are telling themselves. We’re tracking how there’s a certain embrace of apocalyptic narrative, of Armageddon, of the end times, that doesn’t — every government in the world doesn’t have that narrative, right? It’s something that’s very powerful in certain branches of the United States political class, in Israel, in parts of Latin America.

We’re not saying that it applies to every country around the entire world, and so that’s one reason that that isn’t — there are some very powerful international players that aren’t central to the thesis.

AMY GOODMAN: Astra and Naomi, you write about Peter Thiel, saying, “Today a staggering number of his former colleagues and acolytes occupy powerful positions in every part of the Trump Administration. The most consequential of them is JD Vance.” If you can explain, who is Peter Thiel? What does it mean to have his inner circle populating the inner circle of the United States?

And talk about all of these figures that are so much in the news now, that were standing behind President Trump during his inauguration, people who were opposed to him before, who took him off their platforms. We are talking about people like Jeff Bezos, people like Mark Zuckerberg and others.

ASTRA TAYLOR: Yes. Peter Thiel is a powerful billionaire and venture capitalist who has been in Silicon Valley for a long time. He is part of the PayPal mafia so he founded PayPal with David Sacks, who was Trump’s former AI and crypto czar. And also Elon Musk, of course, who is now the president of SpaceX; everybody will know him.

Peter Thiel is quite interesting because he has been on the far right very proudly for a long time since he was an undergraduate at Stanford when he and David Sacks actually wrote a book against political correctness. And he has been on the vanguard of being very much against democracy, very — quasi-libertarian but now just explicitly authoritarian — and has written things like “Democracy and freedom are incompatible.”

He was one of the first figures in Silicon Valley to come out for Trump in 2015.

And as we write in the book and, as you said, many of his protégés are now in positions of power and the most influential one is JD Vance. JD Vance has written about how his life changed when he saw Peter Thiel give a lecture. This lecture inspired Vance to go to Silicon Valley to become a venture capitalist — not a very illustrious one — and that’s where he met critical figures who would fund his political rise, including Thiel who gave what was a record-breaking donation of $15 million and kind of launched and made possible Vance’s bid to become a senator of Ohio.

And it was Peter Thiel who also brokered the meeting at Mar-a-Lago where Vance was able to apologise for calling Donald Trump “Hitler”. So Vance is of course one of those figures who used to be opposed —

AMY GOODMAN: Explain that? That Vance said —

ASTRA TAYLOR: Yeah, Vance was once — he was once for green energy. He was against Donald Trump who he said misleads people and offers empty promises like building a wall which won’t actually improve people’s lives. But he’s also quite an opportunist, and Peter Thiel brokered peace among those two, and now we know Vance as the VP.

J.D. Vance is also critical in our book because he is who helped bring together the AI industry and Donald Trump. We remember from Donald Trump’s first term that he was against Big Tech. He was railing against Big Tech all the time. Thanks to JD Vance who hosted a dinner at David Sacks’ house, Trump got on the AI train. It was a fundraiser but it was also a pitch session.

Vance’s Silicon Valley brethren told Donald Trump that AI would be good for the economy but it would be very good for the fossil fuel sector. And now we see that the Trump administration is all in on AI and not much else.

So when we look at the famous image of the second Trump inauguration and we see all those tech execs given their front seats and they’re lined up, our position is that it was the promise of generative AI eating the economy that actually turned them fascist and caused this incredible alliance with the Trump regime that we’re seeing.

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, that alliance has served them incredibly well. It has produced the first trillionaire. It has produced companies that are claiming valuations roughly equivalent to the entire US economy. And what they wanted from Donald Trump was exactly what they got: a frontier.

You hear this phrase used all the time now — ”frontier AI” — but if you think about what a frontier is, a frontier is a Wild West. It has no rules. And what they were upset about under the last administration was that there were some, you know, not radical, very simple rules like you have to label deepfakes, guardrails against precisely the scenarios that they are now talking about in terms of integration with weapons systems, and the prospect of a rogue AI.

So all of this was on the table years ago. There were discussions at the United Nations.

It’s interesting that they’re always using China as the bogeyman of why they have to roll out AI without rules. China has many more rules regulating AI than the United States has,
including rules around not allowing children to have these like personal relationships with AI where there’s confusion about whether or not you are talking to a friend or a robot or a therapist or whatever it is.

First of all, that’s a lie, and that’s just the fact that people are not educated about what China is doing that is allowing people to fall for this line of, like, “Oh, no, if we don’t do it, China will.” They just simply don’t know how China is regulating this.

But one of the things I’ve been thinking about is — and we have to be aware of how active this push was for the frontier, because now of course these CEOs are all coming forward and saying “Please regulate us, we’ll regulate ourselves, we know we need to be regulated,” as if they weren’t the ones who not only demanded this Wild West frontier but bankrolled it and created the strategic alliance with Donald Trump so that he would deliver it to them.

And now they’re realising, “OK, maybe we’ve gone too far and have to look more credible.” And Donald Trump is going, “No way.”

Why is he saying, “No way”? Because he has tanked the entire US economy and the only thing he has going for him is the AI stock bubble, and he’s terrified of this bubble bursting all over him before the midterm elections or before the next presidential.

He also is very invested in it personally. He’s richer than he has ever been because of the rampant corruption of this administration, the money he has made from crypto but also many different ways that he and his family are invested in AI.

So that’s why he’s doing these frantic things like calling Jensen Huang on stage to say, “Don’t worry, we’re not going to do anything.”

But if you’ll allow me, I was really struck because there’s this myth that — these sort of parables of the technology slipping out of the hands of the men who built it, right? The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Frankenstein. Creating a monster right?

That’s the myth that they’re all telling. “Oh no, we’ve created this powerful monster. It’s out of our hands and now it’s going to destroy us.” I would argue that that myth really is coming true but the monster is not AI; it’s Donald Trump.

They created Donald Trump, he is their monster, he’s out of control and he just won’t stop. And they’re like, “Wait a minute, maybe it is going too fast.”

[MUSIC BREAK]

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman with Juan González. We are spending the hour with Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, co-authors of the new book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World. I want to go back to the video that was released in conjunction with the book.

NAOMI KLEIN: On a mountaintop in the dead of winter, a group of faithful men gathered an audience to share their vision. They had seen a gleaming city bathed in golden light.

The city would be filled with buildings so beautiful they would seem to float above the earth as if descended from heaven. Their vision already had a name.

PERSON: New Gaza.

JARED KUSHNER: So, we’ll see if these things work. They never usually work.

NAOMI KLEIN: The mountaintop in question was the resort town of Davos. The faithful men presenting their vision were US real estate moguls Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, this is a very exciting day. See, I’m a real estate person at heart and it’s all about location. Look at this beautiful piece of property.

PERSON: Let’s just plan for catastrophic success.

NAOMI KLEIN: Out of the horrors of a live-streamed genocide, an exclusive paradise was about to emerge fully formed.

PERSON: We’ve already started removing the rubble and doing some of the demolition.

AMY GOODMAN: Part of the video that was released with the book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World. It is by Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor. I want to talk about Gaza right now. We are coming off — in Venice right now you have two Israeli filmmakers, Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham, who just came out with a film called NAZA and now members of the Israeli government are threatening to take away their citizenship, and it was based on the commentary of high-level Israeli officials, unnamed, talking about the killing in Gaza deliberately. Naomi Klein?

NAOMI KLEIN: Yeah, and the use of AI to do so. I actually haven’t seen the film. I’m definitely looking to see it. But it underlines what we already know thanks to Palestinian journalists at huge personal cost in the documenting of a livestream genocide.

AMY GOODMAN: Over 250 of them killed in this last two years.

NAOMI KLEIN: And as we say in the film, this is the story that the Trump administration is telling, is that out of apocalypse there will be this paradise. There will be what they are calling “New Gaza”. We begin the book with it because it is such an extreme distillation of the story.

And I believe it’s the most dangerous story ever told. It’s a biblical story. It’s deeply encoded in our culture whether we’re religious or not. And the story is first comes the flood, first comes the apocalypse, first comes the mass death — and out of the mass death, the great cleansing, the fury of god, comes the golden city, the paradise, for the chosen few.

That story, which — it’s the story of the flood and the ark; it’s told in its most violent form in the book of Revelation — for people who believe in it literally, it has confused the difference between bad and good. It has kind of flipped the switch, where when we see the things in our world that should be warning us, telling us we need to act, we are in a time of crisis, it is an emergency — whether it’s climate disasters, whether it’s covid, that things are breaking down — that what is seen instead are signs.

“Oh, no, what it means is that we’re entering the end times.” And while that may be bad for many people, it’s actually very good for the chosen few.

That’s why we started with this myth of New Gza . . . there is no paradise that is coming out of the apocalypse in Gaza but that is the story that the Trump administration is telling. It’s a privatized paradise that they’re proposing to build. They are using this kind of biblical narrative but of course it’s all for profit because it’s the Trump administration. They want to build luxury condominiums over a mass grave. And you saw there that it’s a literal story.

We do think that the Board of Peace is significant in the sort of evolution of the privatisation of the state, the fact that the Trump Administration is not just attacking the United Nations and defunding the United Nations but trying to replace the United Nations with something called the Board of Peace, which Trump would be head of for life, that they would control — they would give themselves immunity.

This is part of what we mean by bunkering, by escaping. It’s like they see the state as a mine site. They see the United States as a place that they can extract from. Not just extract wealth and resources — and we’re watching them do that — but also extract other things that matter to them, like legal immunity. Right? I mean, the Board of Peace gives them that.

So that’s why we start with that. And it brings together these different parts of the coalition. Because there are religious extremists, both Christian Zionists and messianic Jews, who really do believe that Gaza, Iran — mean that the Messiah is coming. Like the more violent, the better.

And you’ve covered on the show officers in the US military lodging complaints that their officers are telling them that they should welcome apocalyptic levels of violence in Iran because it means that Jesus is returning.

But it’s not just the religious extremists. It’s also the secular versions of the story. We don’t think Trump believes in the biblical version of this story, but we do believe he believes in a kind of a wealth rapture. And when you see those AI-generated images of new Gaza and Trump sharing them, you can see how these stories have distorted his brain.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In the little time we have left, I’m wondering if you could talk a little bit about the resistance movements, the people’s movements against this growing fascism, and also perhaps deal with some of the critiques of let’s say of Marxists like John Bellamy Foster, who basically insists that the fascist movement in the United States, the mass base of it is really the middle class, those people driven out by the Walmarts and the Targets from small businesses, and franchisees and others who have been driven down by the growth of these top-end monopoly capitalists and who have now turned to a fascist movement for their salvation.

ASTRA TAYLOR: To answer the second part first, fascism is always a movement of the injured powerful. It is a movement that creates vertical solidarity between political and corporate elites and people who are not the worst off but feel that they’ve lost status and directs their sense of insecurity downwards further towards vulnerable scapegoats — towards immigrants, towards trans kids, towards feminists — instead of upwards at the oligarchs and the politicians.

So that’s how we understand Elon Musk buying X or what was Twitter, right, is that it was a way for him to control a media ecosystem and help direct that rage downwards at the left and at the vulnerable instead of letting it be harnessed towards people like him.

So I think that that’s right, if fascism creates what we call a vertical solidarity to protect capitalism, to protect the status quo. That’s certainly true of fascism in the past and it’s certainly true today.

What we have to do to build the resistance is create that horizontal solidarity, to not scapegoat the vulnerable, to build our own coalition and find our own unusual bedfellows. I think you see that in the resistance to fascism that’s growing in the United States and around the world.

One thing — Naomi said this — the people we’re tracking — end-times fascism is not a coherent ideology necessarily. It’s not a monolith. It’s a fractious alliance of these three groups: the religious end timers, the tech accelerationists, the ethnonationalists.

But what they have in common is this sense that things are going to be increasingly unstable. We say that they’re both building their arks and they’re causing the floods. They’re accelerating collapse. They’ve decided to just bring it on and abandon this shared world in their various fantasies about bunker nation or ascending to heaven or the digital class.

So the resistance fundamentally needs to be grounded in a desire to stay here on Earth, to commit to this place. We describe them at one point in the book as traitors to creation. And we don’t use that word “traitors” lightly. We are saying they’re not traitors to the flag or the nation but actually to life on Earth, to our shared humanity, our shared planet.

And I think we see that commitment to what we call “hereness” in the book in the movement against data centers that is sweeping the nation, in the resistance to ICE where people are saying, “No, I’m going to defend my community, defend my neighbors” and people standing up and fighting for labour rights, which fascists are always attacking.

Fighting for the environment, fighting against detention centers.

And so we see the resistance growing all over the world, but I think that the data center revolt is the main one for us because it really draws new lines and shows people — is bringing people together who a year ago or a couple of years ago might have been fighting over culture war issues.

Now they’re saying, “Well, actually, we have a lot in common because there’s a class of people who actually want to replace us with robots. Maybe we should be on the side of humanity against the machines.”

NAOMI KLEIN: Including those small business people, Juan, who you were referring to. This is why it really is an opportunity to form those new alliances. Because Donald Trump has betrayed many of the people who did vote for him the first time. The trouble, of course, is that many powerful Democrats are also taking money from the large tech companies and so are not willing to harvest what has been called by a comedian in I believe it was Madison — ”the most bipartisan issue since beer” is the opposition to these tech companies.

But in order to gain political advantage from that huge bipartisan issue, you have to be willing to go against your donors or not take their money in the first place.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Naomi, the business model of these AI fascists, if they were to be able to prevail, throw millions of people out of work, how will they make their money? Because obviously Henry Ford, back in the days of the early monopoly capitalism, believed you had to give workers a living wage so they could consume the products that you produced.

NAOMI KLEIN: Well, I’m not sure it’s all that thought through. I think that they think they’re mainly going to be selling products to other businesses in the short term. But this is why, Juan, it is a bubble, and it is a process of extraction, and the bubble is rigged to explode all over working people and their pensions right now.

ASTRA TAYLOR: Yeah, I think they also think that they’ll make a lot of money hooking up with the government and the military. There is a quote from Alex Karp — who is a colleague of Peter Thiel, CEO of Palantir — and he said — we quote him in the book saying, “If these tech companies think they’re going to take everybody’s jobs and then not work with the military, they are” — I’m going to change what he said and say — ”they are foolish.”

What he’s saying is essentially if you’re planning to build a technology that causes a job apocalypse, you are also going to have to align with the state and help build the mechanisms to police and control and contain the masses of dispossessed human beings.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end with the end of your book: “We didn’t choose to be born into a fight quite so fateful but we have reached a choice point. We can either follow end-times fascists into oblivion or we can commit to building the unruly, boundary-crossing movement they so deeply fear, one that wrests away their weapons, holds them accountable for their crimes, and defends the paradise of here.”

Those are the words of Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor, co-authors of the new book out this week, End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World.

The original content of this programme and article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

The Palestine Forum of New Zealand (PFNZ) has appealed to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi (NZCTU) to follow the lead of the UK trade union movement and take meaningful action in support of Palestinian rights.

The call follows a key decision by the UK’s Trades Union Congress (TUC), representing more than 5.3 million workers, which has unanimously backed a motion supporting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The motion calls for action to oppose what it describes as the “catastrophic destruction” of Gaza and Israeli settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

• READ MORE: UK trade unions back motion to boycott and sanction Israel
• Other BDS sanctions reports
• The BDS movement

It includes calls for an end to military cooperation and arms deals with Israel, wide-ranging sanctions, divestment from companies complicit in violations of international law, and support for trade union-led workplace action.

The Palestine Forum said in a statement it was time for the New Zealand trade union movement to now have the same conversation.

“New Zealand workers and trade unions have a long history of standing up for justice, human rights and workers’ rights internationally,” said Maher Nazzal, founder and spokesperson of the forum.

“The UK trade union movement has taken a clear position that solidarity with Palestinian workers cannot stop at statements. It is calling for collective action against complicity.

Consider ‘meaningful action’
“We are asking NZCTU Te Kauae Kaimahi to consider what meaningful action New Zealand’s trade union movement can take.

“This is not about asking one organisation to speak for everyone. It is about opening a serious conversation within the New Zealand labour movement about what solidarity with Palestinian workers and the Palestinian people should look like in practice.”

The PFNZ is calling on NZCTU to:

• publicly consider and support Palestinian-led BDS initiatives;
• review trade union investments, procurement and relationships to identify links with companies involved in or benefiting from violations of Palestinian rights;
• support measures to end military and economic complicity with violations of international law;
• strengthen solidarity with Palestinian trade unions and workers;
• support workplace and union-led initiatives for Palestinian rights; and
• raise these issues with the New Zealand government, including the need for stronger action concerning the occupation, settlements and settler violence.

International partners
New Zealand has already joined international partners in sanctions targeting individuals and entities involved in financing and enabling settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

The Palestine Forum said in the statement that the question was now whether New Zealand’s civil society and trade union movements were prepared to build on that position.

“Workers’ solidarity has always crossed borders,” Nazzal said.

“Palestinian workers and trade unionists are part of the global labour movement. When workers elsewhere face injustice, trade unions have historically understood that solidarity means more than words.

“We encourage NZCTU to engage with its affiliated unions, Palestinian representatives and civil society organisations and consider following the example now being set by the UK trade union movement.

“The UK has shown that trade unions can act collectively. We are asking New Zealand’s trade union movement to consider doing the same.”

At least two people were shot and several arrested in the Papua New Guinea island of Bougainville on Sunday after unknown people set fire to equipment belonging to an Indian company poised to reopen one of the world’s largest untapped copper and gold reserves.

The arson attack targeted a mining camp belonging to Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd, an Indian company that was controversially chosen by Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama to reopen the long-shuttered Panguna mine, which is estimated to hold $160 billion in precious metals.

The attack, which sparked a shootout and retaliation, came three weeks after an OCCRP investigation raised questions about Toroama’s decision to choose Lloyds.

• READ MORE: Mining company’s equipment targeted in Panguna arson attack
• Bougainville president condemns ‘terroristic acts of violence’ at Panguna mine
• Other Panguna mine reports

The investigation revealed that Toroama had signed a memorandum of understanding with Lloyds shortly after accepting an offer from its managing director for the president’s wife to travel to India and have a life-saving kidney operation at no cost.

It also quoted an expert and some locals warning that anger over the Indian company’s involvement could erupt into violence.

Bougainville is a semi-autonomous region of Papua New Guinea (PNG) that is seeking to become the world’s newest sovereign nation. Its roughly 300,000 residents voted overwhelmingly for independence in 2019, but the results were only tabled last month in PNG’s Parliament, which must ratify the measure.

Toroama, a former combatant in the decade-long civil war that led to Panguna’s closure, was re-elected last year on a promise to reopen the mine. It is Bougainville’s only economic engine capable of funding independence.

While some traditional landowners support Toroama and his plan to partner with Lloyds, others are opposed.

Armed group arrived
The incident began at around 4 am on Sunday, when an armed group arrived at a Lloyds camp near the entrance to Panguna, threatened unarmed security guards and proceeded to burn machinery and equipment, according to Samson Kaissy, chairman of the Panguna Landowners Interim Council and a supporter of Toroama.

Kaissy said the group was made up of unauthorised gold panners angry over being displaced by the mine’s reopening.

He said armed police arrived about two hours later and engaged in a shootout with the attackers, at least one of whom was shot before escaping into the bush.

It was not immediately clear if anyone was killed. Two officials — one national and another local — who spoke on condition of anonymity told OCCRP that two people had died in the shootout, though that could not be verified.

Seven people were arrested, they said, a figure confirmed by Kaissy.

Robert Lobona, one of the dozens of small-scale miners who have long worked in the shuttered mine pit, said that ex-combatants aligned with Lloyds and Toroama had responded to the incident by destroying his sluicing equipment.

“We don’t have anything now,” he said by telephone. “They poured fuel over all the equipment and houses and the generators and burnt them all.”

Burnt tents, makeshift houses
Kaissy said Lloyds security guards responded to the arson attack by going into the mine pit and burning the tents and makeshift houses belonging to unauthorized gold panners who had already fled the area.

Rose Tamou, a Panguna resident and traditional landowner, told OCCRP that her husband Tony was assaulted and taken from their home today on Monday by ex-combatants aligned with Lloyds and Toroama.

“They just came and hit him for nothing and took him away,” she said. “We don’t know where [he is]. I am looking for a car now to go to the Lloyds base and look for him.”

Neither Lloyds nor Toroama responded to requests for comment. Toroama previously told OCCRP that Lloyds had hired ex-combatants from the civil war to provide security at Panguna.

Toroama struck a defiant tone after the incident.

“The government and people of Bougainville will not be intimidated by individuals or factions seeking to undermine our efforts to redevelop the Panguna Mine,” he said in a statement.

Republished from the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

An estimated 72,500 passengers were counted on trains across the Auckland Transport network by 5pm today — 25,000 more than last Monday.

Auckland’s City Rail Link — New Zealand’s first underground metro — has had its first full weekday in operation on Monday.

Auckland Transport chief executive Stacey van der Putten said passenger numbers stayed strong all day, following the morning’s busy peak period.

• READ MORE:  CRL took a century to open – what else is Auckland still waiting on?
• Other City Rail Link reports

“This shows Aucklanders are getting out there and exploring the new routes that CRL offers, and it’s a fantastic new way for people to visit parts of the city they may not have had easy access to in the past,” she said.

“Our ambassador staff have been supporting customers at Karanga-a-Hape and Maungawhau stations throughout the day to transfer from the East-West to the South-City or Onehunga-West lines,” van der Putten said.

“These transfers will become second nature to Aucklanders in the weeks to come.”

More than 100 customer service staff and ambassadors were at stations helping with travel and transfer information, and more than 100 security staff were also present, she said.

Busiest Sunday on record
AT said the opening day on September 13 was the busiest Sunday on the rail network on record.

On Beresford Square outside the new Karanga-a-Hape Station, some were having a coffee at the nearest cafe, and others took a moment to stop and join a Waiata group singing Purea Nei and celebrating Te wiki o Te Reo Maori.

Bo Meng from the nearby bakery PieFee said in the past they didn’t open on Sundays, but they opened yesterday to coincide with the CRL opening to the public.

He said Monday was also busier than usual.

“I’ve seen heaps of people walking around, and new faces, so yea pretty good,” said Meng.

His colleague added that they’re considering opening on future Sundays as they expect to get more customers coming through.

Charlotte Ryan from the Karangahape Road Business Association said she had seen lots of new faces over the past few days, particularly on Sunday.

Many people returned
“I think I expected lots of our friends or lots of the K’rd community to come out, and they were, but it was actually majority people that I don’t think have been here in 10 or 15 years or even longer.

“People were commenting where they thought old buildings were, it was really really interesting to see that people had returned.”

Ryan said she was optimistic about the future, but added that some businesses were still waiting to see how many customers they would get before they made decisions around staffing.

“Do you bring on those extra staff, how quickly are people going to start using this as a thoroughfare, you know it’s like a social experiment,” she said.

Karanga-a-Hape Station is an interchange station, with a bus connection to Westgate, and a transit point for people hopping from the West-East line to the South City line.

Ryan said she expected people might be open to having a wander around Karangahape Road, or getting a drink in between transits.

Meanwhile, the mid-city Te Waihorotiu station was touted to become New Zealand’s busiest train station, but Shobhana Ranchhodji from Roma Blooms — which is mere metres from the Victoria St West entrance – said she had barely noticed any change in the amount of foot traffic.

“Nothing’s changed, no more people than what it was last Monday … I say give us a month, it is what it is,” she said.

Commuters cut down on travel times
Key features of the new network include the Eastern and Western lines merging into one, as well as faster trains.

On the 5.27am East West train from Swanson, Craig said he is glad he no longer needs to wait for 5-10 minutes at the Newmarket Station as he did in the past.

He estimates that he can save about 15-20 minutes on his journey into town.

Johnny Waititi used to take the train to Britomart from Ōtāhuhu, then bus to Symonds Street to the kura where he works as deputy principal.

He said he was now able to take the train directly to Karanga-a-Hape station then walk to work — saving about 20 minutes on each trip.

Waititi said overall, it was a good experience this morning, but he said the service he had originally planned to take did get cancelled – although he said he was able to quickly find out in advance through the Auckland Transport app.

Waititi said he was worried for older people who don’t have the app and will not be able to get timely updates on cancellations.

One train fault
Auckland Transport told Morning Report there was one train fault this morning which had caused a few cancellations.

Another worker who was travelling on the East-West line, trying to get to Auckland City Hospital, said she was disappointed her train got cancelled and she had to take a bus to get to Grafton.

A family living on Vincent Street in the CBD, whose two children go to school in New Lynn, are stoked to be saving time on their daily school runs.

The family does not own a car, and mum of two Arrenda Maryzona used to spend four hours on the bus each day, with each return trip to the school taking two hours.

Now, she said it’s just a three minute walk to the Karanga-a-Hape station, and she is saving about 15 minutes on each trip — adding up to an hour saved.

ANALYSIS: By Tess Newton Cain and Stefan Armbruster

Australia is seeking observer status at the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) but has not committed to giving a role to Torres Strait Islanders, its own Melanesian population.

Responding to questions from the Torres News at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting (PIFLM) in Palau last week, Minister for Pacific Island Affairs Pat Conroy confirmed the federal government was applying.

“We’re obviously keen to make that happen, because we see value in having the people of Australia as an observer through the Australian government at the Melanesian Spearhead Group,” Conroy told a press conference in Palau.

• READ MORE: Pacific Islands Forum: Is Australia out of touch with the Pacific and climate?
• West Papua: The Pacific’s new test of Indonesia’s sovereignty narrative
  
• The Pacific’s cocaine highway: will Australia’s $600m deal really help?
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

The MSG was founded in 1986 with the primary purpose of supporting decolonisation and self-determination for Melanesian people.

Its current membership includes the governments of Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), representing the Kanak independence movement of the French overseas territory of New Caledonia.

The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), which is seeking independence from Indonesia, holds observer status but has previously sought full membership.

On the sidelines of the PIF leaders meeting, newly appointed MSG Director-General Dr Anna Naupa told the Torres News the Pacific sub-regional group was preparing for a mid-term review of its 25-year 2038 Prosperity for All strategy.

Engaging with ‘Melanesian brothers and sisters’
“All our Indigenous people, wherever we are within our vast Melanesian communities, should certainly be part of conversations about anything to do with our Melanesia and this is something that we hope to pursue when we come to review the plan,” Dr Naupa said.

Asked if the Torres Strait could apply for observer status, she responded that it could be considered.

“The MSG in its structure is around states and the FLNKS, the movement, and recognition of different types of observers and associate members, but that does not preclude us from engaging with our Melanesian brothers and sisters more broadly,” she said.

Since the 1936 Maritime Strike, Torres Strait Islanders have sought various forms of self-governance and autonomy, including calls in the 1980s to cede from Australia due to “neglect” of their people and region.

Australia has engaged with the MSG in recent years but not with or through its Torres Strait Islander citizens.

“I can’t comment about the past but what I can say is that because of our attention to our Indigenous Melanesian peoples, that is the preference,” she said.

In 2025, Conroy was a guest at the 23rd MSG Leaders’ Summit held in Fiji, the first time an Australian minister has attended their meeting.

Non-commital on ‘greater voice’
He would not say if he supported Torres Strait Islanders having a greater voice in the Pacific or a seat at the MSG table.

“Obviously, there’s a process that is going through where the Melanesian Spearhead Group considers whether Australia would be an observer at the MSG,” he said.

MSG has flagged that it will also review Indonesia’s associate membership in 2027 if it does not enable a visit by the UN Human Rights Commissioner to investigate abuses in its Papuan provinces.

Australia has in recent years faced criticism from UN human rights bodies for some states blocking visits to prisons to investigate conditions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander detainees.

Stefan Armbruster is also the news development lead of Pasifika TV. Jennifer Enosa is a reporter for Radio 4WM and TIMA (Torres Strait Media Association). This article is republished from Torres News with permission.

By Stephanie Tran

The Labor Government has joined with the Coalition to vote against a Greens amendment which would have stripped deductible gift recipient status from Australian organisations found to be supporting an illegal occupation by funding Israeli settlements and organisations linked to the IDF.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi introduced the amendment in the Senate this week, arguing that Australian taxpayers should not subsidise organisations whose funds support illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Genocide is a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime.

“But in this country, you can send money to fund those war crimes, and you’ll receive a tax deduction,” Faruqi told the Senate.

• READ MORE: Other Australian charities and genocide reports

Both Labor and the Coalition opposed the amendment.

Faruqi referenced investigations by Michael West Media which revealed that Australian charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) were hosting fundraisers linked to the IDF and Israeli settlements in the West Bank while benefiting from Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status.

“These charities are helping to bankroll the genocide in Gaza by channelling funds to organisations linked to the IDF and to violent illegal settlements off the back of Australian taxpayer money.”

The proposed amendment would have amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide that an entity would not be entitled to DGR endorsement if it had supported an “illegal occupation”.

Last month, the UK Charity Commission launched an investigation into charities in England and Wales donating funds to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.

ACNC rules ‘don’t extend to … international law’
Faruqi said the amendment was necessary because the existing regulatory framework did not adequately address conduct that breached international law.

“By maintaining DGR status for these supposed charities, the government says that this violence is okay. That is what this government is doing. That these murders are okay. That this ethnic cleansing is okay,” she said.

“How can supporting ethnic cleansing, settler occupation, and murdering Palestinians be ensuring the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas? It cannot, and the ACNC has not been able to answer these questions.”

When she previously moved the amendment in March, Labor senator Anthony Chisholm told the Senate that the ACNC’s external conduct standards did not extend to conduct under international law.

Faruqi said that meant charities could continue to fund activities that are unlawful under international law while retaining their tax concessions.

“Labor is more than happy for those who participate in, sustain, and fund the illegal occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that Labor itself has recognised as illegal, yet it gets a tax deduction,” she said.

Labor Senator Tim Ayres said, “charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met”.

However, Ayres reiterated the government’s previous position that “the external conduct standards don’t extend to conduct under international law.”

Subsidising illegal occupation
Faruqi challenged Ayres over whether the ACNC was investigating specific organisations identified in the MWM investigations.

She cited the Chai Charitable Foundation, which received more than $19 million in tax-deductible donations in 2025 and had hosted campaigns for organisations that publicly stated they provided direct support to IDF soldiers.

She also referred to reporting by MWM which revealed that the Foundation had hosted fundraising campaigns linked to settlements in Tekoa and Hebron in the West Bank.

Faruqi also cited investigations into United Israel Appeal Australia, which reported $50 million in revenue in 2024, and funded the Lone Immigrant Soldier programme, which provides support to immigrants serving in the IDF. The organisation has also funded settlement-related activities in the West Bank.

“Minister, do you know if the ACNC is investigating these organisations?” Faruqi asked.

Ayres heads off allegations
Ayres responded that “the ACNC is an independent regulator and it’s accountable for the work that it does on an independent basis”.

When Faruqi pressed him on whether he should know whether the organisations were receiving tax deductions and whether the allegations demonstrated that existing safeguards were insufficient, Ayres said he could not respond to questions about individual organisations.

Faruqi challenged the government over the external conduct standard requiring charities operating overseas to take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people.

Palestinians living under occupation, displacement, and genocide

“are clearly vulnerable people. Australians are deeply distressed that tax-deductible donations may be supporting organisations connected to the very forces and settlements harming them,” she said.

“Minister, why won’t the government listen to those concerns and support this amendment, so that it can be crystal clear that Australian tax concessions cannot be used to subsidise what your own government recognises as an illegal occupation? What is the problem here?”

Ayres said the government’s “approach in relation to the broader question has been very clear”.

“I don’t really understand the relationship that you’re trying to draw between the purposes of this piece of legislation, which is about DGR status and a whole range of things,” he said.

Escalating settler violence
The amendment comes as violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank has escalated, with two Palestinian teenagers murdered last week by Israeli troops.

Sixteen-year-old Khalil Abu Alia and 19-year-old Omar al-Nassan were killed in the Palestinian village of al-Mughayyir after settlers entered the village under police and military escort.

Abu Alia, who was about to begin year 11, was shot in the neck while standing on the doorstep of his home. Al-Nassan, who had recently graduated from the same school, was also shot and died before reaching hospital.

The two teenagers were among five students from the same school killed in Israeli attacks this year. The other victims included a 17-year-old Palestinian youth footballer and two 14-year-olds.

At the same time, Israeli forces demolished the homes of 12 Palestinian families in Khirbet al-Taban in the South Hebron Hills, leaving all 70 residents homeless, including 28 children, according to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem.

The organisation said the community was the 66th Palestinian community to have been wiped out since October 2023.

“These are whole worlds and lives extinguished in evil, depraved, and violent attacks that have become part of everyday life for Palestinians,” Faruqi said.

Coalition, Nats, Labor, One Nation — same deal
The Coalition also opposed the amendment.

Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie accused Faruqi of conflating support for the IDF with criminal conduct and criticised what she described as

abhorrent anti-Semitic comments.

“Listening to Senator Faruqi, it would seem that supporting the IDF or the families of the IDF is somehow now a crime in Australia,” McKenzie said.

She said the Coalition would not support the amendment and “look forward to voting no as soon as possible”.

Faruqi, meanwhile, argued that the amendment was about preventing Australian tax concessions from supporting activities Australia itself recognises as unlawful.

“The International Court of Justice, in 2024, called on parties, states such as Australia, to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of illegal situations created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories,” she said.

“Labor allows Australian charities to funnel money to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence, and occupation.”

She accused Labor of hypocrisy

over its position on Palestinian statehood and Israeli settlement expansion.

“It is completely disingenuous for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction,” Faruqi said.

“Supporting these heinous crimes deserves a criminal investigation, not a tax deduction.”

“Labor says they mourn the death of Zomi Frankcom, but in the same breath, they hand tax benefits to those who support the murderers.”

Stephanie Tran is a journalist with a background in both law and journalism. She has worked at The Guardian and as a paralegal, where she assisted Crikey’s defence team in the high-profile defamation case brought by Lachlan Murdoch. Her reporting has been recognised nationally, earning her the 2021 Democracy’s Watchdogs Award for Student Investigative Reporting and a nomination for the 2021 Walkley Student Journalist of the Year Award. This article is republished from Michael West Media with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/09/peters-hot-air-over-israeli-settlement-trade-ban-rules-out-of-step-with-world/ Wed, 09 Sep 2026 10:52:55 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133300 Asia Pacific Report

A pro-Palestine national advocacy and protest group has accused New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs as being “derelict in its duties” if it is unable to identify and ban products from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) made this statement today following announcements by the United Kingdom, France and Canada that they would ban imports of products which originated from the settlements. Nine other countries have pledged to follow up.

MFAT is reported to have stated a ban “would be complex and require a full policy process” and so New Zealand could not do this — at least until after the general election on November 7.

• READ MORE: Palestine Forum condemns NZ for talk, no ‘meaningful action’ over illegal Israeli settlements
• NZ joins call to end Israeli settlement expansion, but not import ban
• UK, France, Canada to ban imports from Israeli settlements — NZ critical but stops short of joining
• UK bans goods from Israeli West Bank settlements in ‘comprehensive reset’: What that really means
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

PSNA spokesperson Rinad Tamimi said in the statement Palestinian support groups had been urging the government to identify imports from the occupied Palestinian Territory for more than 20 years, on the basis that settlement goods were falsely labelled as a “Product of Israel”.

“Then in July 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that UN members must ‘distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967’, as a means of ending the occupation,” she said.

“That’s plenty of time for MFAT to work out how to deliver a trade ban.”

Tamimi said there was ample precedent for import bans.

“The sanctions New Zealand imposes on Russia include oil, gas, coal and gold. Other Russian imports are prohibitively tariffed.

“There were comprehensive import bans on apartheid South Africa.

“So statements, like those made by ACT Leader David Seymour, that New Zealand is ‘a trading nation — we don’t generally use trade bans to make political points’, is quite untrue.”

Tamimi said MFAT was also falsely claiming that New Zealand was sending a clear signal to Israel that New Zealand condemned settler violence, and the Israeli government must control it, and it must not expand settlements.

“The government has banned a small bunch of rabid settlers from entering New Zealand, along with two ministers,” she said.

“But it also sent a clear message at the same time, in June last year, by stating that that it was just two ministers, and the ban was specifically not ‘designed to sanction the wider Israeli government’.”

“Yes, the message is clear to Israel — the New Zealand criticism is meaningless hot air.”

 

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/09/a-landmark-un-report-says-the-world-will-overshoot-the-1-5c-climate-target-what-happens-now/ Tue, 08 Sep 2026 12:42:53 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133236 ANALYSIS: By Jacqueline Peel and Wesley Morgan

For more than a decade, the world has been trying to limit global warming to 1.5°C.

That’s no longer possible, according to a new United Nations report. We will likely pass 1.5°C in 2030. That’s not good news for anyone, least of all Australia and New Zealand’s Pacific Island neighbours who face rapidly rising seas.

In response to the report, Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr said:

It is hard to overstate the depth of emotion for those of us living on the frontline after having fought so hard to put the 1.5 degree limit at the heart of the Paris Agreement […] calls for greater ambition are no longer enough — we need to see an urgent and unprecedented increase in political will and investment in a climate safe future

READ MORE:

The small silver lining is that it’s still possible for this to be a temporary overshoot of the target. If nations redouble their efforts to phase out fossil fuels and reduce other sources of emissions, they could limit peak warming to 1.8°C and then use carbon removal methods to bring temperatures back to 1.5°C or below this century.

In 2026, the world is already about 1.4°C warmer than pre-industrial levels, and the damage and death toll from climate-boosted disasters is ramping up.

The United Kingdom is warning of possible food shortages amid a historic drought. Wildfires hit new areas in France and Spain, while glaciers are melting rapidly and the oceans are at their hottest level on record. The enormous El Niño event emerging in the Pacific is likely to bring major disruption.

Every fraction of a degree makes things worse.

There are no good outcomes if we remain above 1.5°C. Urgent cuts to emissions and efforts to protect the most vulnerable are our best remaining options. Failure to do so risks irreversible harm.

Why does 1.5°C matter so much?
The 2015 Paris Agreement established a shared goal for the world: keep the rise in global average temperatures above pre-industrial levels “well below” 2°C and “pursue efforts” to hold warming to 1.5°C.

This goal was set based on expert scientific assessments that warming of more than 2°C would be dangerous and that limiting warming to 1.5°C was necessary to minimise climate risks.

Pacific nations fought hard to include 1.5°C in the agreement, arguing it was essential for their communities to “stay alive” in the face of rising sea levels and other climate-fuelled threats.

Last year, the world’s top court — the International Court of Justice — ruled that 1.5°C is the primary temperature limit nations have committed to work towards.

This ruling means that if governments fail to act as ambitiously as they can, they could be sued in international courts.

In May this year, a majority of nations voted in the UN General Assembly to endorse the court’s ruling and urge action to keep to 1.5°C.

It’s not time to give up
Warming of 1.5°C will be bad. But 1.6°C will be worse, and 1.7°C worse again. Every increase will bring more extreme weather, more loss of nature, more loss of land to the sea and more harm to humans.

If we stay over 1.5°C, we risk triggering climate tipping points — sudden shifts which cannot be undone on human timescales. These include the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets melting, the collapse of crucial heat-distributing currents in the Atlantic Ocean or the Amazon rainforest becoming a source of emissions.

Overshooting 1.5°C doesn’t mean it’s time to throw out the Paris Agreement. It is not working fast enough, but it is working.

Solar power and electric vehicles have boomed and electrification has accelerated. Nations have cut emissions enough to avoid the worst climate futures of a 3°C rise or even higher.

According to the Climate Action Tracker, the Paris Agreement has averted the equivalent of 1°C of warming. Rather than hitting 3.6°C by 2100, the world is on track for 2.6°C.

While this is progress, it is not enough. Global emissions are plateauing, but have still not begun to fall in earnest.

As damage from climate change mounts, leaders must do the work and begin rapidly cutting emissions to keep the goal of net-zero by 2050 alive.

To get temperatures back under 1.5°C, we will also need to pull gigatonnes of carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere using tree planting and nature restoration. We may also need technological approaches such as rock weathering or ocean alkalinity enhancement, though these are not proven at scale and can come with other risks.

We are all in this together
It may seem as if climate action faces impossible headwinds, as populism surges and the current United States administration doubles down on fossil fuels.

It is worth looking beyond these headlines. It took almost 70 years for the world to install a terawatt of solar power, but then just two years for the second and another two for the third terawatt. In ten years, that figure will likely have tripled. Developing nations are moving rapidly to take up non-polluting electric transport.

Climate change can no longer be ignored. As damage mounts, nations will have to cooperate to cut emissions as rapidly as possible and figure out how to safely and equitably pull carbon back out of the atmosphere.

Action depends on strong political will, inclusive governance, and finance to help developing countries cut emissions and adapt.

In November, Australia will lead negotiations at the next international climate summit, COP31, in Turkey. Leaders and diplomats will work to keep 1.5°C in reach — even after overshoot. Australia can point to its own rapid clean energy transition and urge others to set clear pathways to go electric — and wean themselves off the production and use of fossil fuels.

Climate change has been described as a super wicked problem — big, complex and impossible to solve simply. The solution is to see the urgency of the issue and act cooperatively to tackle it.

If we make it a problem for the next generation, there may be no way back to a safe climate.

Dr Jacqueline Peel is professor of law, The University of Melbourne; Dr Wesley Morgan is research associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, University of New South Wales. Republished from The Conversation under Creative Commons.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/08/debt-in-the-pacific-systemic-and-current-threats-to-regional-economic-sovereignty/ Tue, 08 Sep 2026 01:30:38 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133215 ANALYSIS: By Antonia Bhagwan in Suva

The Pacific may have moved beyond the worst of the covid-19 pandemic, but its economic consequences continue to weigh on governments across the region.

Once again, countries are facing rising debt levels. In its 2026 Pacific Economic Update, the World Bank linked the current financial landscape to slower economic growth, narrowing fiscal space, climate disasters, high dependence on imported fuel, and an uncertain global economy.

According to Joey Tau, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), the region’s current debt problem must be understood historically and structurally.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific economics reports

“Over the past two decades, both internal and external developments have challenged the economic structures of Pacific Island states,” says Tau.

The region operates within a history of colonisation and has long been characterised as a group of “underdeveloped” small island states “faced with economic challenges”.

“It is under these conditions that debt has been something inherited from our colonisers, and we continue to struggle with.”

Public debt obligations
“Many Pacific Island countries continue to face challenges in meeting their debt obligations,” says PANG deputy coordinator Adam Wolfenden.

The issue of public debt in the region is a serious concern, with “real-world implications” for the diversion of public funds away from other essential services. The issue should not be reduced to simply “debt-trap diplomacy”.

According to Wolfenden, the terminology and implication that only certain donors are using funds for influence can distract from deeper questions about how borrowing is used to develop economies.

It can also distract from how debt obligations impact on public spending and economic sovereignty.

The region’s debt picture is mixed. The World Bank reports that average public debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratios declined modestly in 2025, with the average falling by 1.8 percentage points.

Between 2023 and 2025, the number of countries assessed at high risk of overall debt distress fell from five to three. However, four countries remain at high risk under the broader debt vulnerability analysis.

Fiji remains a notable example. Public debt stood at around 79 percent of GDP in 2025, the highest among the 11 countries covered in the report. While this is below its pandemic peak, the World Bank notes that progress towards stabilising the country’s debt has stalled, exposing deeper questions about Fiji’s economic make-up and need for diversification.

Public debt ratio doubled
“Meanwhile, Solomon Islands public debt-to-GDP ratio has nearly doubled, increasing by approximately 14 percentage points since 2022 to reach 30 percent of GDP in 2025. Ongoing elevated fuel costs will continue to further strain government spending and government deficits.

As some Pacific countries move away from grant-only financing towards a greater share of concessional borrowing, the World Bank says maintaining debt sustainability will become more difficult.

The World Bank projects public debt to rise in 2026–2027 as fiscal deficits widen and growth moderates.

For countries with limited financial buffers, concessional financing from multilateral institutions may become the primary avenue for covering financing gaps, despite the additional debt burden that will accompany this.

“The geopolitical competition in the Pacific has not necessarily led to greater access to resources for the region; rather, there is a global shrinking in the grants available, shifting more countries into lending financing,” says Wolfenden.

“This results in increased pressure on Pacific economies and political positioning.” At the same time, he argues that development finance cannot be separated from strategic interests.

“Infrastructure investments are often associated with, or facilitate access to, raw materials in the region,” Wolfenden says.

“This can result in financing infrastructure that has a distinct dual-use, providing the donor government with more power over the loan recipient.

“Donors may differ in the mechanisms for providing funds, but there is a shared understanding that debt creates opportunities for influencing the region.”

To illustrate, Wolfenden mentions that Australia’s development assistance is shifting to “securitisation”, compared to how the United States’ is withdrawing from the region while continuing to weaponise its trade policy.

Such approaches “further undermine the Pacific.”

Who Benefits?

“Borrowing is important, but are we borrowing for the sake of actual tangible development?” asks Tau.

“As small island developing states, are we put in a position that encourages ongoing borrowing, so it becomes a habit where your economy is dependent rather than looking at other options?

“It all comes down to the priorities and plan behind the borrowing,” he says. Tau argues that instead of allowing external interests to determine national spending priorities, fiscal planning should “equate to human development, ensuring that infrastructure services are not just accessible to its urban centres, but basic services reach its rural majority.

“Citizenry budgeting is necessary to establish whether public resources are being directed towards what communities actually need rather than depending on what a government chooses.

“It needs to be people informing priorities.”

Regional responses
Climate change continues to damage infrastructure and place additional pressure on public finances. In Tonga, for example, the economic impact of climate-induced events is disproportionately large, with the annual average loss estimated at TOP 178 million ($US 77 million), or 18.2 percent of GDP.

That is more than the total education and health budgets combined. This indicates that Tonga cannot fully absorb such losses on a yearly basis by itself.

“As the region continues to go through climate-induced impacts on infrastructure, what is the regional approach around ensuring that the Pacific doesn’t get into a debt spiral?” Tau asks.

It is especially challenging for Pacific governments facing growing spending needs while grant financing declines. The World Bank recommends credible fiscal frameworks, stronger debt and cash management, improved revenue collection, better project selection and procurement, and more disciplined borrowing.

However, these blanket suggestions are not always suitable in the Pacific context. The World Bank also warns that climate adaptation, resilient infrastructure, water, energy, transport, and public services will require substantial financing.

This creates a difficult balance. While grants are preferred, borrowing may be necessary to establish the infrastructure needed for economic growth potential. However, borrowing can leave governments more exposed to future crises, with excessive debt obligations undermining spending on other components of a growing economy, such as health, education, and targeted supports.

The World Bank therefore points to integrating disaster-risk financing and climate adaptation into fiscal planning. For Tau, however, the response also needs to extend beyond national fiscal planning to regional mechanisms that can help countries absorb financial shocks caused by climate change.

“We will incur unprecedented or unprojected expenditure, and we have to be prepared for it,” he says.

“We have to create an environment and facilities that, one, address this issue, but also sustain the region.”

Sovereignty and looking ahead
Ultimately, the Pacific’s debt challenge is a question of economic sovereignty. It asks whether Pacific governments have the space to determine their own development priorities and fund them without interference.

Wolfenden highlights the need for “greater economic and energy sovereignty in the region” in the face of inherited debt, global uncertainty, an erratic United States administration, the global fuel crisis, and climate change.

Tau similarly warns that the region’s sovereignty, including its ownership of state-owned enterprises, resources, access to resources and islands, is at risk if development priorities are not focused on long-term wellbeing.

“Fiscal policies need to project the realities of the economic status of a country. That means ensuring the wellbeing of its people first and foremost,” he says.

Antonia Bhagwan is a final-year student journalist who recently completed an internship with the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) as part of The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism programme. Published in collaboration with Asia Pacific Report.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/07/west-papua-the-pacifics-new-test-of-indonesias-sovereignty-narrative/ Sun, 06 Sep 2026 23:40:10 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133151 ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

The 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Meeting in Koror, Palau, last week has pushed West Papua back to the centre of Pacific diplomacy.

At an Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) caucus held on the margins of the Forum, leaders reaffirmed their longstanding call for the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to visit the West Papuan provinces.

They urged Jakarta to facilitate the visit before 31 December 2026, the end of Indonesia’s term as president of the UN Human Rights Council.

• READ MORE: UN human rights commissioner visit to West Papua on track, says Indonesia
• Other West Papua reports

Crucially, the MSG said that if the requested steps were not undertaken, Indonesia’s associate member status would be reviewed at the 2027 MSG Summit.

The question is whether Jakarta is willing to allow independent international observers to see, hear, and assess conditions in West Papua?

Sovereignty cannot be the end of the conversation
For decades, Indonesia has relied heavily on sovereignty and territorial integrity when responding to international criticism of West Papua.

Jakarta maintains that Papua is an integral part of Indonesia and that its political status was settled through the international arrangements culminating in the 1969 Act of Free Choice.

From this perspective, calls for international intervention can be portrayed as challenges to Indonesia’s territorial integrity and interference in its domestic affairs.

But sovereignty and accountability are not mutually exclusive. Recognition of territorial sovereignty does not eliminate a state’s responsibility for human rights. Nor does it prevent international organisations from seeking access to investigate allegations of abuses.

The unresolved legacy of 1969
Indonesia’s sovereignty argument also rests heavily on history. Under the 1962 New York Agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands, administration of West New Guinea was temporarily transferred to the United Nations before being transferred to Indonesia.

The agreement envisaged an act of self-determination before the end of 1969.

Rather than a territory-wide referendum involving universal and direct participation by the adult population, the process involved representative councils. UN records state that 1026 members of the enlarged representative councils were asked to express the population’s choice, and all chose continued association with Indonesia.

The UN General Assembly subsequently adopted Resolution 2504, taking note of the Secretary-General’s report and the agreement concerning West New Guinea.

The dispute, therefore, is not whether the 1969 process occurred. It clearly did. The deeper question is whether it represented a genuinely free expression of the political will of West Papuans.

This historical disagreement remains politically powerful because the competing narratives have never been reconciled.

For Jakarta, 1969 closed the question of sovereignty. For many West Papuans, it remains evidence that their political aspirations were never freely tested.

But contemporary Pacific diplomacy should not become trapped entirely in this historical dispute. Even if one accepts Indonesia’s present sovereignty over Papua, contemporary human rights questions remain legitimate.

Indonesia’s anti-colonial rhetoric
There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in Indonesia’s international rhetoric.

Indonesia has historically presented itself as an anti-colonial state and a supporter of the principle that peoples should be free from colonial domination.

At the UN Pacific Regional Seminar on Decolonisation in Bali in 2023, then-Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi stated that “independence is the inalienable right of all nations” and argued that colonialism must be abolished.

Indonesia’s response is that West Papua is not a colonial territory and that its political status was settled through an internationally recognised process.

That is a legitimate position for Indonesia to defend. But the political question remains: if self-determination is a universal principle, how should it be applied when Indigenous Papuans continue to challenge the political circumstances under which integration occurred?

Jakarta’s ‘right path’ needs a destination
Indonesia has responded by insisting that the proposed UN visit is progressing and is “on the right path.” Yet the phrase raises more questions than it answers.

What does “the right path” actually mean?

When will the visit occur?

Will UN officials have freedom of movement?

Will they be able to speak privately with Indigenous communities?

Will they meet civil-society organisations, church leaders, victims, local officials and political representatives?

Will they be able to visit areas affected by military operations and displacement?

And will their findings be published without political interference?

These are not unreasonable demands. They are the minimum conditions necessary for an assessment to have credibility.

If Jakarta is confident that conditions in Papua have improved, an independent UN assessment could actually strengthen Indonesia’s position.

Transparency is not necessarily a threat to sovereignty. In fact, it can reinforce legitimacy.

Why the MSG decision matters
The MSG is uniquely placed in this debate because West Papua is not merely a distant foreign policy issue for Melanesian governments.

West Papuans are Indigenous Melanesians, and the MSG was established to strengthen political, economic, and cultural cooperation among Melanesian peoples.

Indonesia’s associate membership has therefore always contained a political tension.

Jakarta seeks recognition and legitimacy within an organisation representing Melanesian interests, while some MSG members continue to raise concerns about the rights and welfare of Indigenous Melanesians inside Indonesia.

The organisation has not abandoned dialogue. Fiji has made clear that engagement with Jakarta remains necessary. But dialogue without measurable outcomes risks becoming a diplomatic holding pattern.

The proposed OHCHR visit provides a practical benchmark. The MSG has effectively placed a deadline on the issue. That changes the diplomatic calculation. Jakarta is no longer responding only to general statements of concern; it is responding to a specific request accompanied by a potential institutional consequence.

The Pacific is testing itself
Pacific governments increasingly speak of a regional order grounded in Indigenous rights, human security, climate justice and self-determination. They insist that Pacific priorities should not simply be dictated by larger external powers.

West Papua therefore presents a difficult consistency test. At the same time, Pacific diplomacy must avoid reducing every disagreement with Indonesia to a confrontation over sovereignty. Indonesia is too important to the region for that approach to be strategically sustainable.

The better approach is precisely what the MSG appears to be attempting: engagement combined with accountability.

A new phase in the West Papua debate
The significance of Koror is therefore not that the Pacific has suddenly endorsed West Papuan independence. Nor has the MSG decided to remove Indonesia. What has changed is the political language.

The debate is shifting from the binary question of “Indonesia or independence” towards the more immediate question of “sovereignty and accountability”.

That shift creates political space for Pacific governments to demand transparency without having to settle the final status question first. It also places greater responsibility on Jakarta.

Indonesia has spent decades defending its sovereignty over West Papua. It now has an opportunity to demonstrate that sovereignty is compatible with transparency.

The coming months will determine whether the Koror decision becomes another diplomatic statement or a genuine turning point.

For West Papuans, this is not merely a diplomatic dispute. It concerns whether their experiences can be independently heard and investigated.

For the MSG, it is a test of whether Melanesian solidarity has practical meaning.

For the Pacific Islands Forum, it is a test of whether its principles apply consistently.

For Indonesia, it is a test of whether sovereignty can coexist with scrutiny.

And for the United Nations, it is a test of whether international human rights mechanisms can gain meaningful access to one of the Pacific’s most enduring political disputes.

Indonesia’s sovereignty may be internationally recognised, but sovereignty should never become a shield against legitimate human rights scrutiny.

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star Mountains region of Papua New Guinea. He holds a Master of Arts in International Relations from Flinders University in Adelaide, South Australia.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/07/west-papua-activist-calls-on-pacific-leaders-to-pressure-indonesia-over-un-visit/ Sun, 06 Sep 2026 23:20:05 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133174 By Susana Suisuiki of RNZ Pacific

For 20 years, West Papuan activist Paula Makabory has not set foot in her ancestral homeland. Her family still lives in West Papua, but she has not seen them since she left in 2006.

Speaking to RNZ Pacific Waves from Melbourne, Makabory said she did not know what would happen if she attempted to return.

As Pacific leaders push Jakarta to allow a long-awaited United Nations Human Rights Commissioner visit to West Papua, Makabory, who is an executive member of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), said the leaders needed to apply more pressure on Indonesia.

• READ MORE: West Papua: The Pacific’s new test of Indonesia’s sovereignty narrative
• UN human rights commissioner visit to West Papua on track, says Indonesia
• Other West Papua reports

In 2019, Pacific leaders requested that Indonesia allow a team from the UN Human Rights Office to visit West Papua to conduct an independent investigation into the alleged human rights abuses in the region.

Seven years later, the request for the visit has been unfruitful.

But this year during the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Palau, the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) stated that if Indonesia did not allow the visit to happen, they would review its associate membership status in their 2027 summit.

In a statement sent to RNZ Pacific, a spokesperson for the Indonesian embassy in New Zealand said there had been no discussion of a review on its membership within the MSG. They also stated that the UN visit was “on track”.

Makabory said she would believe the visit was happening when Indonesia made good on its commitment.

“I think it’s going to be great news if it comes to action for real, because it has been a couple of years that Indonesia is still not talking or even inviting the United Nations human rights commissioner, or her office to visit West Papua to conduct an independent investigation,” she said.

Makabory said the prime ministers of Fiji and Papua New Guinea needed to negotiate a firm timeline with Indonesia for the visit, otherwise Indonesia would “never open the door”.

Melanesians ‘need to stand up strong’
Makabory said the situation in West Papua was worsening, with humanitarian and environmental concerns at a crisis point.

According to Makabory, there are more than 125,000 Indigenous Papuans who are internally displaced across multiple regencies, including Nduga, Intan Jaya, Puncak, Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang, Jayawijaya, Maybrat, Teluk Bintuni, Yapen Islands and Tambrauw. The displacements, she said, was the result of military operations, aerial bombings and armed conflicts.

There are more than 80,000 Indonesian security forces operating in West Papua who Makabory alleges are responsible for extrajudicial executions, civilian shootings and disrupting peaceful protests.

Makabory also raised concerns about the expansion of the Merauke food estate and mining operations, saying they are destroying Indigenous land and contributing to deforestation and environmental damage.

In addition to the UN human rights office, Indonesia needs to allow other international groups, such as humanitarians and foreign journalists, to enter, Makabory said.

She added that this could only happen if the MSG used its influence with Indonesia rather than signing deals.

“I think the MSG countries or leaders as guardians of our region, they need to stand up strong. They need to see that West Papua belongs to Melanesia, and they need to protect their own kind.”

A review of Indonesia’s associate membership in 2027 on the condition that no visit would happen was not strong enough, according to Makabory. She said the MSG should take it a step further and suspend Indonesia.

Despite being barred from returning to West Papua, Makabory told Pacific Waves it is her homeland and nothing compares to it. She said she believes that the spirit of the Melanesian brotherhood and Pacific islanders will lead to a path that will “save West Papua”.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/05/france-commits-more-financial-help-to-struggling-new-caledonia/ Sat, 05 Sep 2026 01:15:23 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133104 By Patrick Decloitre of RNZ Pacific

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu has announced more financial assistance for New Caledonia to assist the financially-embattled French Pacific territory.

The announcement follows a three-hour meeting with a bipartisan delegation led by New Caledonia’s President Milakulo Tukumuli this week.

Lecornu said this was to serve as a lifebuoy to help New Caledonia overcome its most urgent challenges, including a near-collapse of the French territory’s pension scheme and medicare, which are both described as being on the verge of collapse.

• READ MORE: Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

Its other aim was to help New Caledonia conclude its 2026 financial year (11 million euros) and balance its 2027 budget (50 million euros).

A major part of the announced assistance was also quoted as amounting to “400 to 600 million euros”.

He also spoke about consultations to coordinate the package’s implementation during a “Prime Minister’s mission” team at a date yet to be determined.

Since his election in July 2026, Tukumuli has expressed serious concerns regarding New Caledonia’s financial situation and the risk of what he termed a “shutdown”.

High debt level
He also expressed serious concerns at New Caledonia’s high level of debt, following loans contracted with the French government as a result of the covid crisis and, more recently, the civil unrest that took place in May 2024.

The unrest and its related effects caused 14 deaths and significantly impacted New Caledonia’s economy, with an estimated €2 billion in material damage (mostly to local businesses) and an estimated drop of 13.5 percent in the Gross Domestic Product, as well as over 12,000 unemployed.

New Caledonia’s recurrent request was also, in the face of record debt, to obtain that current loans (and its interests) be converted into into non-refundable grants.

Lecornu said most of this fresh assistance would be in the form of grants.

Apart from Lecornu, New Caledonia’s group of politicians, since Monday, have held meetings in Paris with top officials from the Finance ministry, French minister for Overseas Naïma Moutchou and both Presidents of France’s Parliament chambers, the Senate (Gérard Larcher) and the National Assembly (Yaël Braun-Pivet).

They are also scheduled to meet French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday this week (Paris time).

The announcement was also understood to come with strings attached, in the form of assurances from New Caledonia’s government that “urgent reforms” will be carried out.

Cautious satisfaction
Reacting to Lecornu’s announcement, New Caledonia’s Congress President (Speaker) Virginie Ruffenach, who is part of the delegation, expressed cautious satisfaction.

She acknowledged the response was “very good news” and met “about 90 percent of our request” for an initial plea of 540 million euros.

But she remained cautious and said the announcement now required “clarifications”, especially on how much will be disbursed in the form of grants and how much through loans.

“We don’t want to bring more debt to New Caledonia,” she said.

She assured that New Caledonia had already passed a significant number of reforms resulting in savings of “365 million euros”.

“It’s a lot, but it’s not enough. We’re just beginning to recover. Our fiscal revenues are slightly increasing … But this needs to be accompanied for at least two years,” she told reporters in Paris.

Tukumuli earlier stressed that more loans for the French Pacific territory was just “untenable”.

“Between 2020 and 2026, we have borrowed 1.5 billion euros,” New Caledonia’s President elaborated.

“And now we have arrived at a totally unreal situation whereby in 2026, we have borrowed again to repay the 2025 loan”.

The announced commitment will however have to receive the French Parliament’s approval, as part of the French 2027 budget debates.

Throughout the week, New Caledonia’s delegation has also held lobbying talks with French MPs from caucuses across the political chessboard, only months ahead of France’s Presidential and general elections, starting in April 2027.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/04/un-human-rights-commissioner-visit-to-west-papua-on-track-says-indonesia/ Fri, 04 Sep 2026 06:55:42 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133076 By Johnny Blades of RNZ Pacific

Indonesia’s government has indicated that a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to West Papua is on track.

This comes as Melanesian Sperarhead Group (MSG) countries agreed to push Jakarta to facilitate the visit, after years of apparent inaction.

A request for the visit was made by Pacific Islands Forum countries back in 2019, but it has still not gone ahead, despite ongoing human rights violations in Papua.

• READ MORE: Melanesian countries to review Indonesia’s status at MSG if no action on West Papua visit
• West Papuan leader calls on Pacific Forum to ‘break its silence’ and denounce Indonesian military violence
• Other West Papua reports

A statement issued by MSG states from this week’s Pacific Forum leaders meeting in Palau appeared to reflect frustrations that the visit has still not been facilitated.

The statement said that if a visit by the UN Commissioner’s office was not facilitated by Indonesia in order for a report on human rights issues in West Papua to be produced by their next summit in 2027, then Indonesia’s associate member status in the MSG will be reviewed.

The full members of the MSG are: Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia’s FLNKS Kanak Movement. The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has observer status at the MSG, and Indonesia has associate member status.

‘Constructive discussion’
In a response to RNZ Pacific following the statement, a spokesperson from Indonesia’s Embassy in New Zealand said there was “no discussion to review our membership within the MSG”.

“We are always in constructive discussion on the issues deemed important by other members of the MSG, and we can also confirm that the said proposed visit is on the right path.

“As you may have [been] aware that on July 2025, we already facilitate[d] a visit from UN Special Rapporteur [for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert Kwokow] to Papua,” the spokesperson said.

“We can agree that this shows good intention from the government of the Republic of Indonesia to the advancement of prosperity of all Indonesians.”

Ongoing conflict in Papua
The long-running conflict between the West Papua Liberation Army and Indonesian military forces in Papua has escalated in recent months, causing mass displacement of some Papua village communities in the region around Highland Papua province.

In the latest reported violence, human rights workers told RNZ Pacific that four members of the Liberation Army had been arrested and killed by Indonesian forces in Yahukimo Regency in recent days, and another member seriously injured, while six civilians were also arrested during the incident.

The spokesperson for the embassy said that during the 62nd Session of the Human Rights Council, the High Commissioner assessed “that force must not be used to pursue territorial claims or political demands”.

“The sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, and non-interference remain the foundation of the international order; respect for international law and the principles of UN Charter is non-negotiable.”

The spokesperson said Indonesia supports “a cooperative and non-confrontational approach to human rights issues, based on mutual respect and national ownership”.

This story was first published on

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/04/two-small-pacific-islands-creating-one-big-stink-with-france-over-ownership/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 19:39:25 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133063 SPECIAL REPORT: By Ben Bohane

Amid an escalating sovereignty and maritime boundary dispute with France, Vanuatu has now filed an “application” at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against France.

Vanuatu is seeking international recognition of sovereignty over two small islands in its far south.

The islands are known on charts by their European names Matthew and Hunter islands, but in Vanuatu they are called Umaenupne and Umaeneg with claims of long standing cultural and religious ties to the islands.

• READ MORE: Umaenupne and Umaeneg – isles of the Resting God — Ben Bohane
• Other Ben Bohane articles

From the early 1900s Vanuatu was jointly administered by France and the UK under a condominium regime.

In 1962, Australian planter and aviation pioneer Bob Paul, along with his aviator friend Henri Martinet applied to the Joint Court of New Hebrides to claim the islands, but their claim was rejected when France claimed the islands as part of New Caledonia.

Vanuatu has initiated proceedings at the ICJ following the collapse of negotiations between the two countries in Paris in July, and decades of unsuccessful attempts over the years since Vanuatu’s independence in 1980.

President Emmanuel Macron had offered to resolve the dispute when he visited Vanuatu in 2023 and meetings have since taken place in Port Vila last November and in Paris this past July. But the negotiations failed to deliver an agreed outcome.

Legal precedent risk
French analysts are concerned about the legal precedent of conceding the islands to Vanuatu, worried it will re-energise similar territorial disputes France has with other nations over remote islands, such as Clipperton atoll, which Mexico wants back.

The French rightwing have also applied pressure to the issue, with Marie Le Pen warning after the meeting in Port Vila last November that the two islands were “not [Macron’s] to give away.”

The ICJ is the world’s highest judicial body, and could provide a final, legal determination on the dispute. Vanuatu is banking on France supporting their application for a ruling.

At the most recent Davos meeting in January, President Macron affirmed France’s commitment to international law and even warned against a world in which “the law of the strongest” prevails.

Vanuatu’s Prime Minister Jotham Napat told The Sydney Morning Herald:

“Umaenupne (Matthew) and Umaeneg (Hunter) Islands have always belonged, and will always belong, to the people of Vanuatu. Vanuatu is a strong supporter of the international rules-based order and of the peaceful resolution of disputes through international law.

“Seeking recognition of Vanuatu’s sovereignty over these islands is not an act of confrontation; it is an exercise of our rights through the legal processes of that international order. It is about addressing an unresolved colonial legacy with dignity, determination and confidence in international law.”

Sovereignty dispute
Stephen Webb, an Australian lawyer acting for the Vanuatu government — who also acted for Timor-Leste in its maritime boundary dispute with Australia — said:

“This is fundamentally a legal dispute over sovereignty, and the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, specifically established to resolve disputes between States in accordance with international law. For Vanuatu, bringing this matter before the ICJ is about finding a definitive, peaceful and legally binding resolution.”

In recent years, Vanuatu won global support for leading the initiative for an advisory opinion from the ICJ clarifying obligations and consequences of causing harm to the climate.

This initiative was endorsed unanimously by the UN General Assembly, including by France who co-sponsored the resolution.

With the ICJ confirming receipt of Vanuatu’s application, attention turns to France’s response. The court can only determine the dispute with France’s acceptance, so France now needs to decide whether it will submit the questions of sovereignty over the islands to judicial determination.

China outright rejected the ICJ’s decision in favour of the Philippines in its 2016 case against China’s claims over the South China Sea.

Given France’s vocal championing of international law, it may be more difficult for France to take the same position.

Pacific decolonisation
If France rejects Vanuatu’s case, it also risks putting itself offside with a Pacific region committed to decolonisation and further unrest in New Caledonia.

Indigenous Kanak chiefs in New Caledonia, including the leader of the pro-independence FLNKS movement Christian Tein, have all backed Vanuatu’s claims, stating Kanaks never had links to the two islands and they belong to Vanuatu.

Kanak chiefs have told Vanuatu’s leaders that when New Caledonia becomes independent, it will return the two islands to Vanuatu.

The coming months will reveal whether this dispute has any chance of being resolved before the world’s highest court.

Ben Bohane is Vanuatu-based Australian journalist and policy analyst who has reported the Pacific for nearly 30 years. This article was first published by The Sydney Morning Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/03/minerals-military-strategy-draw-the-eye-of-trump-to-isolated-atoll-and-its-230-people/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 06:13:57 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133018 ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Milne

Isolation has been a challenge for the people of the atoll of Tongareva, 1300km north of the Cook Islands capital on Rarotonga.

Distance has made it difficult for the 230 residents to get supplies, or to travel for school and work. There are no scheduled flights; a ship visits every two months.

But isolation hasn’t been their greatest enemy; arguably, it’s engagement with the outside world that’s done them more harm. Ever since the crew of a passing English sailing ship, the Lady Penrhyn, dubbed the island Penrhyn in 1788, the people have suffered the colonial ambitions of distant empires.

• READ MORE: Pacific Islands Forum: Should outside nations be allowed at the leaders’ summit?
• US expected to announce major fuel security deal at Pacific Islands Forum
• Pacific leaders urged to be united behind 2050 climate action vision
• US pushes critical minerals agenda in Cook Islands with Penrhyn ‘lifeline’
• Other PIF reports

Missionaries brought new rules suppressing the language and faith and traditional cultural practices. Sailors brought disease that harmed the people and the plants.

An imported coconut blight led to a catastrophic famine that nearly depopulated the island.

The grimmest tragedy was in the 1860s, when London Missionary Society pastors sold 472 islanders for about five silver dollars a head, as slaves to Peru.

They boarded the Spanish and Peruvian ships with a promise of good pay and a safe return. It was a lie. Most died in exile.

Considering history
Islanders will be quietly considering that history, after news this week that the United States and New Zealand governments will invest $102 million in building a new deepwater port on the atoll, potentially providing a staging post for overseas naval vessels.

This is not new; the atoll was home to a US base in the Second World War. American GIs built port infrastructure and a 3000m crushed coral airstrip there.

It became a stopping point for the big Catalina flying boats; stripped hulks of American bombers still sit on the atoll as physical scars of the war. Children grew up who never knew their fathers — an emotional scar of the war.

There has long been talk — some supportive, some opposed — of a deepwater port in Tongareva’s big 233 sq km lagoon, reportedly 90m at its deepest point. Rarotonga businessman Charles Pitt argued in 2009 that the Americans should build commercial interests there, to give them a strategic position between China’s interests to the west in Sāmoa, and French Polynesia to the east.

Pitt warned that Chinese fishing interests were planning to open a business on Penrhyn — and it was always that potential for Chinese involvement that motivated the greatest concern in US-aligned countries.

In 2018, when I was editing the Sunday Star-Times, we reported on the front page that Cook Islands and Niue had “blindsided” NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters by signing up to China’s belt and road infrastructure lending scheme, and that there was talk of Beijing financing a deepwater port on Penrhyn.

It was a possibility that some in the islands would have welcomed, as I discovered when our family moved to the Cooks the following year. Henry Puna, the long-serving PM, told me the US had picked up and gone at the end of the war, and never really returned.

China had been “very present” in the Pacific.

America’s return ‘welcome’
“Unfortunately for a long time, America has not been,” Puna mused. “We would welcome America’s return.”

This all explains why US-aligned Winston Peters (on his return as foreign minister) reacted so angrily last year to Puna’s protegé and successor, Mark Brown, going to Beijing to sign a strategic partnership with China.

Accusing Brown and his officials of a lack of transparency, Peters cut $30 million core development support to the Cook Islands government, impacting on some basic health, education and tourism services.

Now, things have changed. The Cooks government had told me they would welcome America’s return. Well, this week they got it.

The announcement of the construction of a new port on Tongareva has been welcomed by the atoll’s MP, Vaine Wichman, who told the Cook Islands News it’s a “landmark investment”.

“Over 80 years after the wartime presence of US forces in Penrhyn, this investment is both historically symbolic and economically transformative,” she says. “Penrhyn was once part of the Pacific’s strategic defence network, and today this partnership reaffirms this.”

It comes just a week after the arrival of a new $5 million government-procured interisland passenger and cargo vessel, offering the hope of better, safer, more secure connectivity to all the remote outer islands.

A Peters ‘triumph’
Some see this as a political triumph for the mercurial Peters in the final weeks of his term as foreign minister; after playing hardball, he dragged the Cooks away from the influence of Beijing.

Others see it as a power play by Mark Brown, who has won the interest and investment of the world’s most powerful nation.

Most of all, none can ignore the opportunity this offers the Trump Administration — the strategic chance to be able to dock and stage operations from the centre of the vast Pacific basin. And ensuring China can’t.

Moreover, back in February, I reported that MFAT Chief Executive Bede Corry and his diplomats had discussed critical minerals developments with both the US and the Cook Islands. That’s now borne fruit for the White House.

Because this week’s deal opens the door (or the channel) to the $1 billion US-owned American Ocean Minerals Corp and Odyssey Marine Exploration, which agreed to merge this year.

And to Cook Islands Investment Corp’s new partnership with US firm Wetstone to fund offshore mineral exploration. It gives US firms first dibs on what I’ve described as the most lucrative treasure trove of undersea critical minerals in the EEZ of any country in the world.

Yet amid the political back-slapping, some Tongareva locals sound a note of caution. On the atoll’s Facebook group, administrator Ula Tini warns the US and China are readying for conflict — and the atoll has now been drawn into it.

Tongareva ‘been here before’
“Tongareva has been here before,” he says. “Our ancestors witnessed aircraft, military personnel and major infrastructure arriving on an island that much of the world probably knew very little about.”

Isolation, he agrees, has been one of the atoll’s biggest challenges. This port could help.

“But our people should still ask the hard questions… Could the facilities have future strategic or defence uses? How many jobs and business opportunities will actually go to Tongarevans? What environmental protections will be put in place for our lagoon, reef and marine resources?”

Tini wants his children and grandchildren to inherit more than a new port. That means ensuring that this time, the small community engages with the world on its own terms.

“What is Tongareva’s place in the future of the Pacific — and are we ready for it?”

Jonathan Milne is managing editor of Newsroom and a former editor of the Cook Islands News. This analysis was first published by Newsroom and is republished with permission.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2026/09/03/israel-ready-to-forcibly-remove-gaza-population-but-awaiting-us-approval/ Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:56:07 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=133010

Asia Pacific Report

Israel has plans ready to forcibly remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip but is waiting for the United States to figure out where to take them, the Defence Minister has boasted, reports The New Arab and news agencies.

Forced displacement of civilians in occupied territory is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

“There is no real solution for Gaza in the end without this migration,” Defence Minister Israel Katz told a conference hosted by Israeli news site Ynet and newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

• READ MORE: Israel still wants to remove Palestinians from Gaza, defence minister says
• Other Gaza reports

The Israeli government “is organised and prepared to get them out — by sea, by air, by every way possible,” he said.

The US embassy referred requests for comment to the State Department in Washington.

US President Donald Trump, at the start of his second term, stunned much of the world by publicly calling for all two million Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip.

Trump claimed a plan of developing the Mediterranean territory, devastated by Israeli bombardment since the October 2023, into a luxury resort destination.

Strong pushback
Trump walked back the idea following strong pushback, including from Egypt, the only country other than Israel to neighbour Gaza.

The proposal was also condemned by Palestinians themselves, for whom any effort to force them off their land represents how the “Nakba”, or catastrophe; their forced mass displacement by Zionist forces in 1948, is ongoing.

Announcing a supposed ceasefire in October, Trump laid out 20 points for the territory that included no forced displacement.

Katz, known for his xenophobic and horrific remarks, said that Trump had only “frozen” the idea as he looked for countries to take in Palestinians, as Egypt was not an option.

“The plan hasn’t been cancelled; it is being discussed all the time, even now, and I think there is no other solution for everyone’s good,” he said.

“But for it to happen, we need the US. When will we get their approval? Whenever it becomes clear that Hamas is not meeting its obligations” under the ceasefire, he said.

Katz, without citing his source, claimed 80 percent of people in Gaza wanted to leave but that Hamas was preventing them.

ICC arrest warrants
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Katz’s predecessor Yoav Gallant over war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israeli attacks have already internally displaced the vast majority of Gaza’s people since October 2023.

Israel’s genocidal war has since killing 73,470 in Gaza, with more than 1400 since the alleged “ceasefire” in October 2025.

New Zealand signed an international letter criticising Israel which foreshadows sanctions but a pro-Palestine advocacy group has rapped the government over its “haphazard” and “mixed messages” West Asia policy.

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) cited a “hint of future economic sanctions” against Israel in a statement of concern issued jointly by New Zealand, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Canada just over a week ago.

However, New Zealand did not put its name to another second and stronger statement of condemnation against Israel constructing the highly strategic E1 illegal settlement on the Occupied West Bank.

• READ MORE: ‘Not sorry’ – will international pressure mean justice for Zomi Frankcom?
• PSNA slams NZ’s ‘uncaring’ lack of signature on global Israeli settlements censure
• Why Israeli tenders for illegal E1 West Bank settlement prompted outrage
• Other Gaza, Palestine reports

The second statement was issued at the same time, and had been signed by 22 Western countries.

All the countries who signed the second letter, except New Zealand and Germany, also signed the first one.

PSNA spokesperson Rinad Tamimi said in a statement that ether New Zealand was deliberately identifying and aligning with Germany — which is Israel’s third largest arms supplier — or “outsourcing” its foreign policy,

“More likely, it’s National outsourcing its foreign policy to New Zealand First, whose leader is blatantly pro-Israel. That haphazard arrangement results in mixed and ambiguous messages for the world and for New Zealanders,” Tamimi said.

Warning over tenders
She said there was a suggestion of economic sanctions in the second statement which did have New Zealand’s signature.

The statement stated “businesses should not consider bidding for construction tenders.

“They should be aware of legal and reputational consequences, including the risk of involving themselves in various breaches of international law.”

Tamimi said this warning was presumably to local companies in each country. It was a notice that the governments of the signatory countries could bring legal proceedings or amend legislation to thwart these companies.

“If governments follow this through, this is hugely important for investment funds in New Zealand which operate under Acts of Parliament, such as the Super Fund, ACC and KiwiSavers,” she said.

“The Super Fund lost a court case earlier this year, due to its attempts to keep investing in companies profiting from Israeli West Bank settlements. The writing is on the wall for other investors in Israel.

“Investment in genocide and apartheid Israel is neither a prudent nor moral choice for anyone.”

The United States and New Zealand will co-fund a new “lifeline” port with the Cook Islands on Penrhyn Atoll — a former US military base.

The US says it will commit US$50 million, while New Zealand will contribute US$10 million.

The US Deputy State Secretary, Christopher Landau, said it would build on the Critical Minerals Framework that the Cooks signed with the US in February, which advances the keen interest from Washington in deep sea mineral resources in the Cook Islands.

• READ MORE: Peters blasts Solomon Islands cabinet ministers for move against PM Wale
• Solomon Islands ‘dangles over the edge of political instability’ as three ministers quit
• Missing leaders won’t derail Pacific Islands Forum outcomes, says secretariat
• Vanuatu Special Envoy calls for PIF to ‘reopen’ issue of Pacific access to West Papua
• Solomon Islands PM Wale rushes home from Palau after confidence challenge launched
• Other PIF reports
• Other West Papua reports

“This project underscores the United States’ strong commitment to our partners in the Pacific,” Landau said, noting that US personnel constructed Penrhyn’s port and airstrip more than 80 years ago.

“Through transformational infrastructure initiatives such as this, we are making the United States and our partners safer, stronger, and more prosperous.”

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown called the port a “lifeline” for the Pa Enua, adding capacity for domestic shipping and inter-island travel.

“We thank the United States and New Zealand for partnering with us to deliver on a priority our people have themselves identified,” Brown said.

Landau, Brown and New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters made the announcement at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Palau today.

The February agreement between the US and the Cooks committed them to “responsible investment aligned with high environmental, social and governance standards,” and “the development of secure, diversified and resilient critical minerals supply chains.”

Prime Minister Brown told reporters on Friday, while in Auckland engaging with New Zealand realm leaders, that he would ensure the Cook Islands people were the ultimate beneficiaries of US investment.

This story was first published on

The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) should revisit a proposal for an independent regional delegation to visit West Papua and assess reported human rights concerns, says Vanuatu Special Envoy on Decolonisation and Maritime Boundaries Delimitation Joe Natuman.

With the 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting (PIFLM) opening today, Natuman said Pacific leaders would have an opportunity to reconsider the issue and determine how the region could respond to continuing concerns about human rights and the wellbeing of the people of West Papua.

Natuman, a former prime minister, said the Forum had previously proposed sending a delegation to West Papua to assess the human rights situation directly.

• READ MORE: Solomon Islands PM Wale rushes home from Palau after confidence challenge launched
• Other PIF reports
• Other West Papua reports

However, he said the Forum had written to the Indonesian government regarding the proposed visit but had not received a response.

Natuman said direct access remained important if Pacific leaders were to develop a clearer understanding of the situation and consider reports of human rights concerns raised at regional and international levels.

The proposed visit could provide a fact-finding mechanism for Pacific countries, allowing representatives to engage with relevant stakeholders and assess conditions before reporting their findings to the Forum.

Natuman said the issue also extended to the participation of West Papuan representatives in regional and international forums, where he claimed their involvement had faced obstacles.

Similar challenges
He pointed to similar challenges within the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) and said there would be no West Papuan delegation attending the upcoming PIF.

Natuman also referred to discussions surrounding West Papua at United Nations human rights mechanisms in Geneva, arguing that Indonesia’s position within international institutions had presented additional challenges for those seeking greater access to the territory.

With the Forum meeting in Palau, Natuman said Pacific leaders should reconsider West Papua.

Republished from the Vanuatu Daily Post with permission.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale made an emergency trip back to Honiara on Sunday morning from Palau after a motion of no confidence was filed against him.

Wale was in Palau to attend the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting as its current chair.

He was suppose to hand over the chairmanship to Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr in Palau.

• READ MORE: Notable absences loom ahead of PIF leaders’ meeting in Palau
• Other PIF reports

Wale, 57, was elected prime minister of the country on May 15 and has been in office for just over 100 days.

The no-confidence motion against him over the weekend has been filed by East Malaita MP and Minister of Home Affairs Manasseh Maelanga. The Solomon Islands Parliament has confirmed it has received the notice.

Maelanga is accusing Wale of making unilateral decisions without proper consultation and without taking matters through cabinet.

“The motion follows concerns that the Prime Minister has repeatedly made decisions on matters of national importance without properly consulting Cabinet or obtaining its approval,” Maelanga said in the statement.

“I have taken this step with confidence in our democratic institutions and a firm commitment to stable, transparent and accountable government.”

Claims rejected
Maelanga has also rejected claims that the challenge against Wales leadership was intended to derail ongoing investigations.

The motion is the first major political challenge for Wale since coming to power.

He had only just landed in Palau when news of the no-confidence motion back home reached him.

When questioned at the airport by a Solomon Islands journalist on the matter, he said: “When I go, I will tell you more.”

He was gone the next day in the early hours of the morning.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister and Pacific Islands Forum chair Matthew Wale.

Other Solomon Islands officials who travelled with the prime minister to Palau were surprised to hear about the leadership challenge.

Local media have described the no-confidence motion against Wale as an “internal coalition revolt”.

“There appears to be a split within the GREAT Coalition. Few Ministers and MPs within the GREAT Coalition are likely to tender their resignations,” according to a report by Solomon Star.

Pacific security and geopolitics analyst Dr Anna Powles described the timing of the no-confidence motion as “deeply unfortunate”.

This story was first published on

It has been six months since the United States and Israel launched their coordinated military campaign against Iran on February 28. The war is easily cast as the latest turn in the long antagonism between Washington and Tehran, but that frame misses its immediate context.

Its real context is the aftermath of October 7, 2023: Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza that followed spread across the region, wore down Iran’s network of allies, and pulled Israel and Iran into increasing confrontation, culminating in the 12-day war of June 2025 and the US-Israel campaign launched last February.

The bilateral track only sharpened this trajectory. Nearly eight years before the current war, Trump’s first administration launched “maximum pressure” aimed at driving Iran’s oil exports to zero.

• READ MORE: Iran to draft conditions to open Hormuz following mediator requests
• Other War on Iran reports

When it failed to force political change, economic coercion eventually gave way to military force. Six months on, the campaign has come full circle, back to economic pressure applied with greater force. Economics, then war, then economics again.

At the 100-day mark, Tehran could plausibly present the outcome as a victory of survival: Its adversaries had failed to topple the system, and by its own measure that was what mattered.

Six months on, that claim is harder to sustain because the pressure has shifted to the terrain on which Iran has always been weakest. The question is no longer whether Iran can survive military attack, but whether it can withstand an economic siege with no sign of lifting.

A leadership hollowed out at the top
The most visible change is at the summit. After the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the opening strike, his son Mojtaba was appointed just more than a week later, a succession Tehran presented as proof of continuity and cohesion.

But six months on, he has yet to make a verified public appearance. His portrait is carried through city squares and at mourning ceremonies, and decrees are issued in his name, while rumours about his condition persist.

A leadership that once drew its authority from the visible presence of a single figure now rests, in part, on an absence.

The state has also had to rebuild its command structure in the middle of the war. The opening strike killed IRGC commander Mohammad Pakpour and armed forces chief-of-staff Abdolrahim Mousavi, while other senior commanders were slain in the weeks that followed.

On August 10, decrees issued in Mojtaba’s name formalised a new military leadership, including Ahmad Vahidi as IRGC chief and Ali Abdollahi as chief-of-staff.

The appointments appear to favour loyalty and continuity over change and were widely read as a signal that Tehran did not intend to soften its posture. The deeper significance is simpler: A state still rebuilding its high command in the sixth month of a war is not doing so from a position of strength.

From maximum pressure to ‘Economic Outcast’
The clearest sign that the war has returned to its economic origins is the campaign Washington has intensified since suspending strikes in early August. US officials had already branded the broader effort “Economic Fury”; on August 24, the Treasury launched Operation Economic Outcast, an expanded campaign aimed at severing Iran’s remaining financial links with the outside world.

Its instruments are familiar from the pre-war “maximum pressure” era but are being applied more aggressively: Secondary sanctions on those moving Iranian oil, measures against its “shadow fleet” and financial networks, and greater enforcement of international sanctions.

Iran’s oil exports, near 1.8 million barrels a day before the war, have fallen to below half a million; inflation is approaching 90 percent, with food prices more than double what they were a year ago.

Yet the siege lands on an economy whose troubles were never solely the work of sanctions.

Iran had long failed to insulate itself from an architecture built over decades, from US sanctions dating to the 1980s to United Nations Security Council resolutions since 2006.

Neither the 25-year, $400 billion partnership with China nor the strategic treaty signed with Russia in early 2025 delivered the stability Tehran sought. Before the war, Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian had acknowledged that sanctions alone could not account for the depth of the crisis and that governance bore its share.

The economic weapon works in part because the state it targets was already structurally exposed.

That pressure is now enforced at sea. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation on February 28 and, six months on, it has not reopened; the naval blockade that followed has fused with the closure into a single chokehold on Iran’s trade.

Diverging narratives in Tehran
That structural exposure is forcing a longstanding divergence into the open. For years, Iran’s leadership has explained its crises through two competing narratives: One, advanced by the political leadership, acknowledging failures of economic governance; the other, promoted by the security establishment, attributing unrest to external enemies.

Under the pressure of the siege, that divergence has sharpened into a disagreement over the war itself. President Pezeshkian, who signed the June memorandum with Washington, has spoken with growing candour about an economy giving way, saying this month that Iran’s difficulties have “multiplied several times over” as revenue has fallen.

On August 21, he argued that it would be “better to end [the war] today, while we are in a position of strength”, even as his government prepared Iranians for painful increases in fuel prices.

Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has put the danger more bluntly: “No matter how much military power we have, if the people are hungry and there is no financial circulation, economic growth, or national production, we will not endure.”

Yet he remains tied to the security establishment’s logic, insisting diplomacy carries weight only when backed by readiness for war and casting Washington’s economic turn as an admission of military failure.

That Iran’s two most senior civilian figures now say publicly that hunger, not bombardment, is the greatest threat marks a shift from the confident rhetoric of the war’s first months. It has not settled the argument over who is responsible, only raised its stakes.

Six months on, Iran’s leadership still measures the war by the standard it set at the outset: The system has not fallen, and everything else it considers recoverable. By that measure, survival remains a form of victory.

Pressure now falls on household
But the pressure now falls on the household and the market, where it is harder to answer with the language of resistance. The divide between a president urging an end to the war and a security establishment determined to outlast it is no longer concealed.

The war has also produced the terms of its own possible end. The closed strait and the blockade have become the centre of gravity for diplomacy. Reopening the strait and lifting the blockade are the levers each side holds over the other and the most plausible opening for negotiations that could bring the conflict to a close.

This leaves Iran with a difficult choice. To negotiate a settlement on terms Washington would accept risks provoking the internal fracture the hardliners fear; to hold out risks a bleeding economy and a winter that will test the state’s capacity to provide.

The war has also reinforced, within parts of the leadership, the conviction that only a nuclear capability could have deterred the initial attack, making any lasting settlement harder to reach.

Beneath these immediate pressures lies a more enduring pattern. The confrontation between Washington and Tehran has always been, at its core, a contest shaped by what the political elites of the two countries believe about each other and about the risks of dealing with each other.

On the Iranian side, US hostility has repeatedly deepened divisions within the political elite rather than compelling agreement, reinforcing its reluctance to make bold decisions about negotiating with the US.

Pressure intended to force Tehran’s hand has instead hardened the hesitation it sought to break, compounding Iran’s political and economic strains.

Six months into this war, that pattern is again on display: the campaign has come full circle to the economic weapon it began with, the Iranian elite is more divided, and the bold decision a settlement would require remains as distant as ever.

There is little sign that this cycle will end soon.

Professor Mahjoob Zweiri is an academic and senior political analyst specialising in Iran and Middle East politics. This article was first published by Al Jazeera and republished under Creative Commons.

In the past year there has been a scramble by the big powers to secure the continuing supply of “rare minerals” that are used in batteries driving electric cars and wind power turbines. There is a looming catastrophe awaiting the Pacific Ocean if countries in the region are not alert to the environmental threats facing the region.

Decades ago, greedy industrialists were polluting the air, and their governments refused to listen to scientific warnings of a looming climatic disaster, and now the island nations of the South Pacific are facing the brunt of climate change disasters.

If the current trends of digging out rare minerals from wherever you can find them continues, we will be left with oceans — especially the Pacific — where we cannot swim or fish, further threatening the livelihoods of many small Oceania nations.

• READ MORE: Pacific protesters against deep sea mining challenge US exploration ship
• Other Pacific deep sea mining reports

With the scramble for rare minerals extending to the deep seabed, a new geopolitical battle is hotting up in the South Pacific, where corruption and divisions among Pacific Island countries could be fermented by global powers battling to control the supply chain, with countries like Cook Islands, Kiribati and Nauru on the frontline.

Eliki Drugunalevu, a member of the research team that compiled the Pacific Ocean Climate Crisis Assessment (POCCA) to the COP 29 meeting in Azerbaijan in 2024, warned in an interview with In-Depth News that inaction by the United Nations to pause the march towards deep sea mining for precious metals would result in a “catastrophic impact” on the Pacific for the long term.

“People on the Pacific islands rely on the ocean not only for their sustenance but also for their economic survival,” he said.

“If the fish are not going to come in, they will have to fish in another community’s fishing grounds, that will have a butterfly effect and create conflict.”

‘Protected’ by ISA
The deep blue oceans are expected to be protected by an autonomous international organisation, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) as the “common heritage of mankind” under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was adopted by the United Nations in 1982 and signed and ratified by 168 UN member states.

But the US has refused to sign the convention, objecting to articles restricting seabed mining.

Now the Trump administration seems keen to provide licences to American companies to mine the seabed in the Pacific, while the ISA which on July 31 concluded its latest two-week council and assembly meetings in Jamaica, is deadlocked in framing commercial exploitation guidelines — known as a Mining Code– for the seabed.

At the meeting, 45 countries called for a moratorium or precautionary pause on seabed mining, with Vanuatu in the Pacific proposing that such a pause be in operation until the risks are fully understood and the necessary scientific knowledge is available for a transparent process.

“Deep-sea mining is fraught with immense scientific uncertainty, [so] caution and common sense prevailed at this session, with member states rejecting a rushed adoption of the mining code,” noted Simon Candon, international media manager of Lisbon-based Oceano Azul Foundation in an interview with IDN.

With the US trying to undermine the UNCLOS and ISA, he added that “many countries used the assembly to unite against unilateral mining, agreeing that bypassing the ISA for commercial operations threatens ocean governance and the common heritage of humankind.

“But consensus could not be yet found on Vanuatu’s proposal.”

Onus on miners
Profesor David Schoeman, of the Ocean Futures Research Centre at Queensland’s University of the Sunshine State, argues that the onus should be on prospective seabed miners to provide empirical evidence that their activities will not cause harm to the ocean ecosystem.

“In terms of the type of evidence that could be provided, the gold standard would be a before–after, control–impact (BACI) study of simulated [small-scale] mining operations at select locations, with appropriate sampling of biotic and abiotic elements of the ecosystem over periods covering the anticipated recovery time of the system”.

Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ)  — a high seas area stretching over 4500 km between Hawai’i and Kiribati across to Mexico — is poised to become the first commercial seabed mining operation in the world if the US subsidiary of the Canada-based The Metals Company (TMC) succeed in getting an US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, licence to mine, in contravention of the UNCLOS.

Their application is currently under review.

Dr Felix Mallin, senior researcher of the Italian National Research Council told IDN that a test done in CCZ a few years ago with one machine alerted the scientific community to the damage to marine life in the deep oceans.

“While any commercial operation would be orders of magnitude bigger. Even if the scars left by modern technology were smaller, we would be looking at a much bigger aggregate damage across vast tracts of ocean floor,” he warns.

“For the Pacific, the fisheries link and the impact it might have on economic life is the one that should worry people most. Some modelling has projected tuna biomass in CCZ rising in coming decades, by up to about a third for skipjack, as global warming pushes stocks east, right into the zone where mining might take place.

‘Industrialising the water’
“So, if we are unlucky, we could be industrialising the water exactly where the region’s most valuable renewable resource is heading.”

While the ISA Mining Code negotiations drag on, Dr Mallin argues that what is needed is an environmental harm independent baseline study in the Pacific, “which no one wants to fund”.

He notes that the prospective seabed mining companies have plugged enormous financial resources into developing technology and lobbying, and if commercial returns are not forthcoming quickly, the investors could flee.

Thus, they are exercising enormous pressure on small Pacific Island states.

Nauru, a nation of 12,00 people, which was exploited by phosphate miners in the 1990s resulting in an environmental disaster to the land, is now been targeted by the seabed miners.

In 2021, Nauru said it would grant a commercial-scale seabed mining approval in their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) — granted under the UNCLOS — to a subsidiary of TMC, which rang alarm bells at ISA, and triggered an urgency to come up with a Mining Code.

The ISA called for a pause while the code is been negotiated, another arm of the UN has come up with another treaty, the Boundaries Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement which came into effect in January 2026.

Agreement ‘plugging gaps’
This agreement is designed to plug gaps in the UNCLOS, to safeguard seabeds outside a nation’s EEZ.

A controversy is currently brewing in the Cook Islands over US corporate designs to mine the seabed that belongs to the Pacific Islanders.

While Cook Islands has 240 sq km of land, it owns just under 2 million sq km of sea. Under UNCLOS it exercises full sovereign rights to explore, exploit, and manage the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil within its expansive EEZ.

Another Pacific nation, Kiribati’s EEZ covers over 3 million sq km via its far-flung islands, making it one of the largest oceanic territories in the world. They generate significant economic revenue through fishing access agreements with foreign nations to this zone.

It is believed that China is wooing Kiribati to gain future access to seabed mining in their EEZ.

It will be lucrative for such island nations to sell mining rights to the ocean seabed under their EEZ’s, but the problem is, no one knows what would be the long-term impacts of such mining on marine resources like fisheries, and the ocean environment in general.

“My fear is that places like Kiribati and the Cook Islands (with their small populations) will simply be bought off by US miners,” warns Michael Field, Auckland-based editor of South Pacific Tides.

“Pacific states will get just licensing money out of mining [as they do with fishing] but undersea minerals will not provide much in the way of jobs or revenue.

“Minerals, for example, extracted in the Cook Islands, will have to be refined, probably in Asia. The profits will come elsewhere but the environmental risks will be the exclusive property of Pacific people”.

Kalinga Seneviratne is a Sri Lankan-Australian journalist and international communication scholar. He is author of GeoPolitics and the Media in Asia and the Pacific: Pulling in Different Directions. This article was first published by IDN and is republished with permission.