After winning re-election in 2024, Donald Trump promised to be a dictator “on day one”.

When it comes to press freedom, he has kept his word, extending the war on the press he launched while running for his first term with grave attacks on access to reliable information worldwide.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), which monitors “press freedom predators” worldwide, has compiled a timeline of his administration’s assaults on the media in the past year and warns that he risks sinking to the levels of authoritarian regimes.

President Trump’s hostility towards the media predates his return to the White House in 2025. For the past 10 years, he has labelled journalists and media outlets he disagrees with as “the enemy of the people” and “fake news”.

• READ MORE: Congress must rein in Trump’s war on press freedom after FBI raid on journalist
• Other Donald Trump and the media reports

His attacks coincide with a broader decline in the news media’s public esteem: according to Gallup, only 28 percent of Americans have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the media.

In his second term in office, though, Trump has matched his history of violent rhetoric with a series of concrete actions that have severely damaged freedom of the press in the United States and around the world.

In the past 12 months, he has censored government data, dismantled America’s public broadcasters, weaponised independent government agencies to punish media that criticise his actions, halted aid funding for media freedom internationally, sued disfavored outlets, applied pressure to install cronies to lead others, and more

These actions echo the anti-press measures of the ruthless dictators in the “political” category of the 2025 Press Freedom Predators List, such as President Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Similar alarming levels
RSF is concerned that Trump’s increasingly authoritarian tactics could eventually descend to similarly alarming levels.

The Press Freedom Predators List exposes systemic attempts to silence the free press by highlighting actors who wield an outsized, harmful influence on press freedom in five categories: political, security, legal, economic and social.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr has already made the 2025 list in the “legal” category, while Trump-aligned tech mogul Elon Musk was featured in the “economic” category.

America’s retreat from foreign aid is being felt deeply in Pacific media, where pivotal outlets are being shuttered and journalists work unpaid.

The result is fewer investigations into dubiously motivated politicians, glimpses into conflicts otherwise unseen and a less diverse media in a region which desperately needs it.

“It is a huge disappointment … a senseless waste,” Benar News’ Australian former head of Pacific news Stefan Armbruster said after seeing his outlet go under.

• READ MORE: Political pressure, bribes, self-censorship ‘greatest threats’ to Pacific media freedom
• NZ fares well in latest RSF press freedom index as authoritarian regimes stifle Asia-Pacific media
• Fiji coup culture and political meddling in media education given airing

Benar News, In-depth Solomons and Inside PNG are three digital outlets which enjoyed US support but have been hit by President Donald Trump’s about-face on aid.

Benar closed its doors in April after an executive order disestablishing Voice of America, which the United States created during World War II to combat Nazi propaganda.

An offshoot of Radio Free Asia (RFA) focused on Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Benar kept a close eye on abuses in West Papua, massacres and gender-based violence in Papua New Guinea and more.

The Pacific arm quickly became indispensable to many, with a team of reporters and freelancers working in 15 countries on a budget under A$A million.

Coverage of decolonisation
“Our coverage of decolonisation in the Pacific received huge interest, as did our coverage of the lack of women’s representation in parliaments, human rights, media freedom, deep sea mining and more,” Armbruster said.

In-depth Solomons, a Honiara-based digital outlet, is another facing an existential threat despite a proud record of investigative and award-winning reporting.

Last week, it was honoured with a peer-nominated award from the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan for a year-long probe into former prime minister Manasseh Sogavare’s property holdings.

“We’re just holding on,” editor and co-founder Ofani Eremae said.

A US-centred think tank continues to pay the wage of one journalist, while others have not drawn a salary since January.

“It has had an impact on our operations. We used to travel out to do stories across the provinces. That has not been done since early this year,” Eremae said.

A private donor came forward after learning of the cuts with a one-off grant that was used for rent to secure the office, he said.

USAID budget axed
Its funding shortfall — like Port Moresby-based outlet Inside PNG — is linked to USAID, the world’s biggest single funder of development assistance, until Trump axed its multi-billion dollar budget.

Much of USAID’s funding was spent on humanitarian causes — such as vaccines, clean water supplies and food security — but some was also earmarked for media in developing nations, with the aim of bolstering fragile democracies.

Inside PNG used its support to build an audience of tens of thousands with incisive reports on PNG politics: not just Port Moresby, but in the regions including independence-seeking province Bougainville that has a long history of conflict.

“The current lack of funding has unfortunately had a dual impact, affecting both our dedicated staff, whom we’re currently unable to pay, and our day-to-day operations,” Inside PNG managing director Kila Wani said.

“We’ve had to let off 80 percent of staff from payroll which is a big hit because we’re not a very big team.

“Logistically, it’s become challenging to carry out our work as we normally would.”

Other media entities in the region have suffered hits, but declined to share their stories.

Funding hits damaging
The funding hits are all the more damaging given the challenges faced by the Pacific, as outlined in the Pacific Islands Media Freedom Index and RSF World Press Freedom Index.

The latest PFF report listed a string of challenges, notably weak legal protections for free speech, political interference on editorial independence, and a lack of funding underpinning high-quality media, in the region.

The burning question for these outlets — and their audiences — is do other sources of funding exist to fill the gap?

Inside PNG is refocusing energy on attracting new donors, as is In-depth Solomons, which has also turned to crowdfunding.

The Australian and New Zealand governments have also provided targeted support for the media sector across the region, including ABC International Development (ABCID), which has enjoyed a budget increase from Anthony Albanese’s government.

Inside PNG and In-depth Solomons both receive training and content-focused grants from ABCID, which helps, but this does not fund the underpinning costs for a media business or keep on the lights.

Both Eremae, who edited two major newspapers before founding the investigative outlet, and Armbruster, a long-time SBS correspondent, expressed their dismay at the US pivot away from the Pacific.

‘Huge mistake’ by US
“It’s a huge mistake on the part of the US … the world’s leading democracy. The media is one of the pillars of democracy,” Eremae said.

“It is, I believe, in the interests of the US and other democratic countries to give funding to media in countries like the Solomon Islands where we cannot survive due to lack of advertising (budgets).

As a veteran of Pacific reporting, Armbruster said he had witnessed US disinterest in the region contribute to the wider geopolitical struggle for influence.

“The US government was trying to re-establish its presence after vacating the space decades ago. It had promised to re-engage, dedicating funding largely driven by its efforts to counter China, only to now betray those expectations,” he said.

“The US government has senselessly destroyed a highly valued news service in the Pacific. An own goal.”

Ben McKay is an AAP journalist. Republished from National Indigenous Times in Australia.

Reporters Without Borders

The 2025 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has revealed the dire state of the news economy and how it severely threatens newsrooms’ editorial independence and media pluralism.

In light of this alarming situation, RSF has called on public authorities, private actors and regional institutions to commit to a “New Deal for Journalism” by following 11 key recommendations.

The media’s economic fragility has emerged as one of the foremost threats to press freedom.

• READ MORE:  Rabuka salutes Fiji media but warns against taking freedom for granted
• NZ fares well in latest RSF press freedom index as authoritarian regimes stifle Asia-Pacific media
• RSF 2025 World Press Freedom rankings
• RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: economic fragility a leading threat to press freedom

According to the findings of the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, the overall conditions for practising journalism are poor (categorised as “difficult” or “very serious”) in half of the world’s countries.

When looking at the economic conditions alone, that figure becomes three-quarters.

Concrete commitments are urgently needed to preserve press freedom, uphold the right to reliable information, and lift the media out of the destructive economic spiral endangering their independence and survival.

That is where a New Deal for Journalism comes in.

The 11 RSF recommendations for a New Deal for Journalism:

1. Protect media pluralism through economic regulation
Media outlets are not like other businesses and journalism does not provide services like other industries.

Although most news outlets are private entities, they serve the public interest by ensuring citizens’ access to reliable information, a fundamental pillar of democracy.

Media pluralism must therefore be guaranteed, both at market level and by ensuring individual newsrooms reflect a variety of ideas and viewpoints, regardless of who owns them.

In France (25th), debates around media ownership consolidation — particularly involving the Bolloré Group — have highlighted the risks to media pluralism.

In South Africa (27th), the Competition Commission is considering solutions to mitigate the threats posed by giant online platforms to the pluralism of the digital information space.

RSF 2025 World Press Freedom Index summary.   Video: RSF

2. Adopt the JTI as a common standard
News outlets, tech giants, and governments should embrace the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI), an international standard for journalism.

More than 2000 media outlets in 119 countries are already engaged in the JTI certification process. Launched by RSF, the JTI acts as a common professional reference that does not judge an outlet’s content but evaluates the processes in its production of information, improving transparency around media ownership and editorial procedures, and promoting trustworthy outlets.

This certification provides a foundation to guide public funding, inform indexing and ranking policies, and enable online platforms and search engines to highlight reliable information while protecting themselves against disinformation campaigns.

3. Establish advertisers’ democratic responsibility
Governments should introduce the principle that companies have a responsibility to help uphold democracy, similar to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Advertisers should be the first to adopt this concept as a priority, as their decision to shift their budgets to online platforms — or, worse, websites that fuel disinformation — makes them partially responsible for the economic decline of journalism.

Advertisers should be encouraged to link their advertising investments to criteria on reliability and journalistic ethics. Aligning advertising strategies with the public interest is vital for fostering a healthy media ecosystem and maintaining democracies.

This notion of a democratic responsibility for companies has notably been promoted by the steering committee of the French General Assembly of Information (États généraux de l’information) and may be included in the bill that will be examined in 2025 by the French National Assembly.

4. Regulate the gatekeepers of online information
Democratic states must require digital platforms to ensure that reliable sources of information are visible to the public and remunerated.

The European Union’s Copyright Directive and Australia’s (29th) News Media Bargaining Code in — the first legislation regulating Google and Facebook — are two examples of legally requiring major platforms to pay for online journalistic content.

Canada (ranked 21st) has undertaken similar reforms but has faced strong resistance, particularly from Meta, which has retaliated by removing news content from its platforms.

To ensure the economic value generated by online journalistic content is fairly distributed, these types of laws must be broadly adopted and their effective implementation must be guaranteed.

Public authorities must also ensure fair negotiations so that media outlets are not crushed by the current imbalance of power between economically fragile news companies and global tech giants.

Lastly, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has made the need for fair remuneration for content creators all the more urgent, as their work is now used to train or feed AI models. This is simply the latest example of why regulation is necessary to protect journalistic content from new forms of technological exploitation.

5. Introduce a tax on tech giants to fund quality information
The goal of introducing such a tax should be to redistribute all or part of the revenue unfairly captured by digital giants to the detriment of the media. The proceeds would be redirected to news media outlets and would finance the production of reliable information.

Several countries have already committed to reforms that tax major digital platforms, but almost none are specifically aimed at supporting the production of quality information from independent sources. 

Indonesia (127th) implemented a tax on foreign digital services, while also requiring platforms to remunerate media outlets for the use of their content starting in 2024. France also established a specific tax on digital companies’ revenues in 2019.

6. Use public development aid to combat news deserts and strengthen reliable information from independent sources
As crises, conflicts and authoritarian regimes multiply, supporting reliable information from independent sources and countering emerging news deserts has never been more important.

Official Development Assistance (ODA) must incorporate support for independent journalism, recognising that it is indispensable not only for economic development but also for strengthening democratic governance and promoting peace.

At least 1 percent of ODA should be allocated to financing independent media outlets in order to guarantee their sustainability.

At a time when certain support mechanisms — such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — are under threat, commitments from donor states are more crucial than ever.

Australia (ranked 29th) and New Zealand (ranked 16th) are positive examples of this commitment, showing support through regional media development programmes, notably in the Pacific Islands.

7. Encourage the development of hybrid and other innovative funding models
It is essential to develop support mechanisms that combine public funding with private contributions (donations, investments, and loans), such as the IFRUM, a fund proposed by RSF to reconstruct the media in Ukraine (62nd).

To diversify funding sources, states could strengthen tax incentives for investors and broaden the call for donors beyond their own residents and taxpayers.

8. Guarantee transparency and independence in the allocation of media aid
Granting public or private subsidies to the media must be based on objective and transparent criteria that are subject to oversight by civil society. Only clear, equitable aid distribution can safeguard editorial independence and protect media outlets from political interference.

One such legislative solution is the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which will come into force in 2025 across all European Union member states. It includes transparency requirements for aid distribution, obliges member states to guarantee the editorial independence of newsrooms, and mandates safeguards against political pressure.

Other countries have also established exemplary frameworks, such as Canada (21st), which has implemented a transparent system combining tax credits and subsidies while ensuring editorial independence.

9. Combat the erosion of public service media
Public service media are not state media: they are independent actors, funded by citizens to fulfil a public interest mission. Their role is to guarantee universal access to reliable, diverse information from independent sources, serving social cohesion and democracy.

Financial and political attacks against these outlets — seen in many countries — threaten the public’s access to trustworthy information.

10. Strengthen media literacy and journalism training
Supporting reliable information means that everyone should be trained from an early age to recognise trustworthy information and be involved in media education initiatives. University and higher education programmes in journalism must also be supported, on the condition that they are independent.

Finland (5th) is recognised worldwide for its media education, with media literacy programmes starting in primary school, contributing to greater resilience against disinformation.

11. Encourage nations to join and implement international initiatives, such as the Partnership for Information and Democracy
The International Partnership for Information and Democracy, which promotes a global communication and information space that is free, pluralistic and reliable, already counts more than fifty signatory countries.

RSF stresses that journalism is a vital common good at a time when democracies are faltering.

This New Deal is a call to collectively rebuild the foundations of a free, trustworthy, and pluralistic public space.

Republished by Pacific Media Watch in collaboration with Reporters Without Borders.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has reaffirmed the Trump administration’s defence commitments to America’s Pacific territories of Guam and Northern Mariana Islands and that any attack on them would be an attack on the mainland.

Hegseth touched down in Guam from Hawai’i on Thursday as part of an Indo-Pacific tour, his first as Defence Secretary, in which he is seeking to shore up traditional alliances to counter China.

Geostrategic competition between the US and China in the Pacific has seen Guam and neighboring CNMI become increasingly significant in supporting American naval and air operations, especially in the event of a conflict over Taiwan or in the South China Sea.

• READ MORE: Other Micronesia defence reports

Both territories are also within range of Chinese and North Korean ballistic missiles and the US tested a defence system in Guam in December.

Any attack on Guam and the Commonwealth Northern Marianas Islands would be met with “appropriate response,” Hegseth said during his brief visit, emphasising both territories were central to the US defence posture focused on containing China.

“We’re defending our homeland,” Hegseth said. “Guam and CNMI are vital parts of America, and I want to be very clear — to everyone in this room, to the cameras — any attack against these islands is an attack against the US.”

“We’re going to continue to stay committed to our presence here,” Hegseth said. “It’s important to emphasise: we are not seeking war with Communist China. But it is our job to ensure that we are ready.”

Key US strategic asset
Located closer to Beijing than Hawai’i, Guam serves as a key US strategic asset, known as the “tip of the spear,” with 10,000 military personnel, an air base for F-35 fighters and B-2 bombers, and home port for Virginia-class nuclear submarines.

The pledge from Hegseth comes as debate on Guam’s future as a US territory has intensified, with competing calls by some residents for full statehood and UN-mandated decolonisation, led by the Indigenous Chamorro people.

Defending Guam and CNMI, Hegseth said, aligns with President Donald Trump’s “goal to achieve peace through strength by putting America first”.

He delivered remarks at Andersen Air Force Base and took an aerial tour of the island before meeting with Lou Leon Guerrero and Arnold Palacios, governors of Guam and Northern Marianas, respectively.

Guerrero appealed to Hegseth about the “great impact” the US military buildup on Guam had had on the island’s residents.

“We welcome you, and we welcome the position and the posture that President Trump has,” Guerrero told Hegseth, during opening statements before their closed-door meeting.

“We are the centre of gravity here. We are the second island chain of defence,” she said. “We want to be a partner in the readiness effort but national security cannot happen without human health security.”

Funding for hospital
Guerrero sought funding for a new hospital, estimated to cost US$600 million.

“Our island needs a regional hospital capable of handling mass casualties — whether from conflict or natural disasters,” she told Hegseth.

“We are working very closely in partnership with the military, and one of our asks is to be a partner in the financing of that hospital.”

Afterwards Guerrero told reporters she did not have time to discuss the housing crisis caused by the US military buildup.

Earlier this month, Guerrero warned in her “state of the island” address of US neglect of Guam’s 160,000 residents, where one-in-five are estimated to live below the poverty line.

“Let us be clear about this: Guam cannot be the linchpin of American security in the Asian-Pacific if nearly 14,000 of our residents are without shelter, because housing aid to Guam is cut, or if 36,000 of our people lose access to Medicaid and Medicare coverage keeping them healthy, alive and out of poverty,” Guerrero said.

At the end of his visit to Guam, Hegseth announced in a statement he had also reached an “understanding” with President Wesley Simina of the Federated States of Micronesia to begin planning and construction of US$400 million in military infrastructure projects in the State of Yap.

Territorial background
Simina’s office would not confirm to BenarNews he had met with Hegseth in Guam, saying only he was “off island.”

As a territory, Guam residents are American citizens but they cannot vote for the US president and their lone delegate to the Congress has no voting power.

The US acquired Guam in 1898 after winning the Spanish-American War, and CNMI from Japan in 1945 after its defeat in the Second World War. Both remain unincorporated territories to this day.

The Defence Department holds about 25 percent of Guam’s land and is preparing to spend billions to upgrade the island’s military infrastructure as another 5000 American marines relocate from Japan’s Okinawa islands.

On Tuesday, Hegseth was in Hawai’i meeting officials of the US Indo-Pacific Command. Speaking with the media in Honolulu, he said his Asia-Pacific visit was to show strength to allies and “reestablish deterrence.”

Hegseth’s week-long tour comes against a backdrop of growing Chinese assertiveness. Its coast guard vessels have recently encroached into the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea and around the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.

His visit will be closely watched in the Pacific for signs of the Trump administration’s commitment to traditional allies following a rift between Washington and Europe that has tested the transatlantic alliance.

The trip also threatens to be overshadowed by the fallout from revelations that he and other national security officials discussed attack plans against Yemen’s Houthis on the messaging app Signal with a journalist present.

Flagrant violation
Critics are calling it a flagrant violation of information security protocols.

During his first term, Trump revived Washington’s engagements in the Pacific island region after long years of neglect paved the way for China’s initiatives.

He hosted leaders of the US freely associated states of Palau, Marshall Islands and Federated States of Micronesia at the White House in 2019.

The Biden administration followed through, doubling the engagement with an increased presence and complementing the military buildup with economic assistance that sought to outdo China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The new Trump administration, however, cut the cord, dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and along with it, the millions of dollars pledged to Pacific island nations.

The abolition of about 80 percent of USAID programmes sent mixed signals to the island nations and security experts have warned that China would fill the void it has created.

From Guam, Hegseth has travelled to Philippines and Japan, where he will participate in a ceremony commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima and will later meet with Japanese leaders and US military forces.

Republished from BenarNews with permission. Stefan Armbruster in Brisbane contributed to this story.

Pacific delegates have been left “shocked” by the omission of sexual and reproductive health rights from the key declaration of the 69th UN Commission on the Status of Women meeting in New York.

This year CSW69 will review and assess the implementation of the 1995 Beijing Declaration, the UN’s blueprint for gender equality and rights for women and girls.

The meeting’s political declaration adopted on Tuesday reaffirmed the UN member states’ commitment to the rights, equality and empowerment of all women and girls.

• READ MORE: Other women’s rights reports

It was the product of a month of closed-door negotiations during which a small number of countries, reportedly including the U.S. and Russia, were accused of diluting the declaration’s final text.

The Beijing Declaration three decades ago mentioned reproductive rights 50 times, unlike this year’s eight-page political declaration.

“It is shocking. Thirty years after Beijing, not one mention of sexual and reproductive health and rights,” Pacific delegate and women’s advocate Noelene Nabulivou from Fiji told BenarNews.

“The core of gender justice and human rights lies in the ability to make substantive decisions over one’s body, health and sexual decision making.

“We knew that in 1995, we know it now, we will not let anyone take SRHR away, we are not going back.”

Common sentiment
It is a common sentiment among the about 100 Pacific participants at the largest annual gathering on women’s rights that attracts thousands of delegates from around the world.

“This is a major omission, especially given the current conditions in several (Pacific) states and the wider pushback and regression on women’s human rights,” Fiji-based DIVA for Equality representative Viva Tatawaqa told BenarNews from New YorK.

Tatawaqa said that SRHR was included in the second version of the political declaration but was later removed due to “lack of consensus” and “trade-offs in language.”

“We will not let everyone ignore this omission, whatever reason was given for the trade-off,” she said.

The Pacific Community’s latest survey of SRHR in the region reported progress had been made but significant challenges remain.

It highlighted an urgent need to address extreme rates of gender-based violence, low contraceptive use (below 50% in the region), lack of confidentiality in health services and hyperendemic levels of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which all fall under the SRHR banner.

Ten Pacific Island countries submitted detailed Beijing+30 National Reports to CSW69.

Anti-abortion alliance
Opposition to SRHR has come from 39 countries through their membership of the anti-abortion Geneva Consensus Declaration, an alliance founded in 2020. Their ranks include this year’s CSW69 chair Saudi Arabia, Russia, Hungary, Egypt, Kenya, Indonesia and the U.S. under both Trump administrations, along with predominantly African and Middle East countries.

“During negotiations, certain states including the USA and Argentina, attempted to challenge even the most basic and accepted terms around gender and gender equality,” Amnesty said in a statement after the declaration.

“The text comes amid mounting threats to sexual and reproductive rights, including increased efforts, led by conservative groups, to roll back on access to contraception, abortion, comprehensive sexuality education, and gender-affirming care across the world,” adding the termination of USAID had compounded the situation.

The UN Population Fund (UNFPA) confirmed in February that the US, the UN’s biggest donor, had cut US$377 million in funding for reproductive and sexual health programmes and warned of “devastating impacts.”

Since coming to office, President Donald Trump has also reinstated the Global Gag Rule, prohibiting foreign recipients of U.S. aid from providing or discussing abortions.

In his opening address to the CSW69, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a dire warning on progress on gender equality across the world.

‘Poison of patriachy’
“The poison of patriarchy is back, and it is back with a vengeance, slamming the brakes on action, tearing up progress, and mutating into new and dangerous forms,” he said, without singling out any countries or individuals.

“The masters of misogyny are gaining strength,” Guterres said, denouncing the “bile” women faced online.

He warned at the current rate it would take 137 years to lift all women out of poverty, calling on all nations to commit to the “promise of Beijing”.

The CSW was established days after the inaugural UN meetings in 1946, with a focus on prioritising women’s political, economic and social rights.

CSW was instrumental in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Beijing Declaration.

One of the declaration’s stated goals is to “enhance women’s sexual and reproductive health and education”, the absence of which would have “a profound impact on women and men.”

The 1995 Beijing Platform for Action identified 12 key areas needing urgent attention — including poverty, education, health, violence — and laid out pathways to achieve change, while noting it would take substantial resources and financing.

This year’s political declaration came just days after International Women’s Day, when UN Pacific released a joint statement singled out rises in adolescent birth rates and child marriage, exacerbating challenges related to health, education, and long-term well-being of women in the region.

Gender-based violence
It also identified the region has among the highest levels of gender-based violence and lowest rates of women’s political representation in the world.

A comparison of CSW59 in 2015 and the CSW69 political declaration reveal that many of the same challenges, language, and concerns persist.

Guterres in his address offered “antidote is action” to address the immense gaps.

Pacific Women Mediators Network coordinator Sharon Bhagwan-Rolls told BenarNews much of that action in the Pacific had been led by women.

“The inclusion of climate justice and the women, peace, and security agenda in the Beijing+30 Action Plan is a reminder of the intersectional and intergenerational work that has continued,” she said.

“This work has been forged through women-led networks and coalitions like the Pacific Women Mediators Network and the Pacific Island Feminist Alliance for Climate Justice, which align with the Blue Pacific Strategy and the Revitalised Pacific Leaders Gender Equality Declaration.”

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

Has any nation squandered its diplomatic capital, plundered its own political system, attacked its partners and supplicated itself before its far weaker enemies as rapidly and brazenly as Donald Trump’s America?

The fiery Oval Office meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday saw the American leader try to publicly humiliate the democratically elected leader of a nation that had been invaded by a rapacious and imperialistic aggressor.

And this was all because Zelensky refused to sign an act of capitulation, criticised Putin (who has tried to have Zelensky killed on numerous occasions), and failed to bend the knee to Trump, the country’s self-described king.

• READ MORE: Other US under Donald Trump reports

The tense Oval Office meeting.    Video: CNN

The Oval Office meeting became heated in a way that has rarely been seen between world leaders.

What is worse is Trump has now been around so long that his oafish behaviour has become normalised. Together with his attack dog, Vice-President JD Vance, Trump has thrown the Overton window — the spectrum of subjects politically acceptable to the public — wide open.

Previously sensible Republicans are now either cowed or co-opted. Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is gutting America’s public service and installing toadies in place of professionals, while his social media company, X, is platforming ads from actual neo-Nazis.

The FBI is run by Kash Patel, who hawked bogus COVID vaccine reversal therapies and wrote children’s books featuring Trump as a monarch. The agency is already busily investigating Trump’s enemies.

The Department of Health and Human Services is helmed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vaccine denier, just as Americans have begun dying from measles for the first time in a decade. And America’s health and medical research has been channelled into ideologically “approved” topics.

At the Pentagon, in a breathtaking act of self-sabotage, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered US Cyber Command to halt all operations targeting Russia.

And cuts to USAID funding are destroying US soft power, creating a vacuum that will gleefully be filled by China. Other Western aid donors are likely to follow suit so they can spend more on their militaries in response to US unilateralism.

What is Trump’s strategy?
Trump’s wrecking ball is already having seismic global effects, mere weeks after he took office.

The US vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia for starting the war against Ukraine placed it in previously unthinkable company — on the side of Russia, Belarus and North Korea. Even China abstained from the vote.

States that voted against the resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:

Russia
US
Israel Belarus
North Korea
Nicaragua pic.twitter.com/P8csvisMVG

— Gregory Brew (@gbrew24) February 24, 2025

In the United Kingdom, a YouGov poll of more than 5000 respondents found that 48 percent of Britons thought it was more important to support Ukraine than maintain good relations with the US. Only 20 percent favoured supporting America over Ukraine.

And Trump’s bizarre suggestion that China, Russia and the US halve their respective defence budgets is certain to be interpreted as a sign of weakness rather than strength.

The oft-used explanation for his behaviour is that it echoes the isolationism of one of his ideological idols, former US President Andrew Jackson. Trump’s aim seems to be ring-fencing American businesses with high tariffs, while attempting to split Russia away from its relationship with China.

These arguments are both economically illiterate and geopolitically witless. Even a cursory understanding of tariffs reveals that they drive inflation because they are paid by importers who then pass the costs on to consumers. Over time, they are little more than sugar pills that turn economies diabetic, increasingly reliant on state protections from unending trade wars.

And the “reverse Kissinger” strategy — a reference to the US role in exacerbating the Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War — is wishful thinking to the extreme.

Putin would have to be utterly incompetent to countenance a move away from Beijing. He has invested significant time and effort to improve this relationship, believing China will be the dominant power of the 21st century.

Putin would be even more foolish to embrace the US as a full-blown partner. That would turn Russia’s depopulated southern border with China, stretching over 4300 kilometres, into the potential front line of a new Cold War.

What does this mean for America’s allies?
While Trump’s moves have undoubtedly strengthened the US’ traditional adversaries, they have also weakened and alarmed its friends.

Put simply, no American ally — either in Europe or Asia — can now have confidence Washington will honour its security commitments. This was brought starkly home to NATO members at the Munich Security Conference in February, where US representatives informed a stunned audience that America may no longer view itself as the main guarantor of European security.

Vice-President Vance’s controversial speech to European leaders. Video: DW

The swiftness of US disengagement means European countries must not only muster the will and means to arm themselves quickly, but also take the lead in collectively providing for Ukraine’s security.

Whether they can do so remains unclear. Europe’s history of inaction does not bode well.

US allies also face choices in Asia. Japan and South Korea will now be seriously considering all options – potentially even nuclear weapons – to deter an emboldened China.

There are worries in Australia, as well. Can it pretend nothing has changed and hope the situation will then normalise after the next US presidential election?

The future of AUKUS, the deal to purchase (and then co-design) US nuclear-powered submarines, is particularly uncertain.

Does it make strategic sense to pursue full integration with the US military when the White House could just treat Taipei, Tokyo, Seoul and Canberra with the same indifference it has displayed towards its friends in Europe?

Ultimately, the chaos Trump 2.0 has unleashed in such a short amount of time is both unprecedented and bewildering. In seeking to put “America First”, Trump is perversely hastening its decline. He is leaving America isolated and untrusted by its closest friends.

And, in doing so, the world’s most powerful nation has also made the world a more dangerous, uncertain and ultimately an uglier place to be.

Dr Matthew Sussex, is associate professor (adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and research fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Trump administration’s decision to eliminate more than 90 percent of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) funding means “nothing’s safe right now,” a regional political analyst says.

President Donald Trump’s government has said it is slashing about US$60 billion in overall US development and humanitarian assistance around the world to further its America First policy.

Last September, the former Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said that Washington had “listened carefully” to Pacific Island nations and was making efforts to boost its diplomatic footprint in the region.

• READ MORE: Other USAID funding cuts reports

Campbell had announced that the US contributed US$25 million to the Pacific-owned and led Pacific Resilience Facility — a fund endorsed by leaders to make it easier for Forum members to access climate financing for adaptation, disaster preparedness and early disaster response projects.

However, Trump’s move has been said to have implications for the Pacific, which is one of the most aid-dependent regions in the world.

Research fellow at the Australian National University’s Development Policy Centre Dr Terence Wood told RNZ Pacific Waves that, in the Pacific, the biggest impacts of the aid cut are likley to be felt by the three island nations in a Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the US.

He said that while the compact “is safe” for three COFA states – Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau – “these are unprecedented times”.

“It would be unprecedented if the US just tore them up. But then again, the United States is showing very little regard for agreements that it has entered into in the past, so I would say that nothing’s safe right now.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Dr Terence Wood speaking to RNZ Pacific Waves.   Video: RNZ Pacific

Marshall Islands Journal editor Giff Johnson says US President Donald Trump’s decision on aid “is an opening for anybody else who wants to fill the gap” in the Pacific.

Trump froze all USAID for 90 days on his first day in office and is now looking to significantly reduce the size of the multi-billion dollar agency.

The Pacific is the world’s most aid dependent region, and Terence Wood from the Australian National University Development Policy Centre told RNZ Pacific this move would hit hard.

• READ MORE: Trump’s foreign aid freeze throws independent journalism into chaos
• ‘Journalism has become a blood sport. It is harder and harder to tell the truth’
• Other Pacific media freedom reports

“The US is the Pacific’s largest aid donor and what is happening there is completely unprecedented . . .  there’s also a cruel irony that Elon Musk is the world’s wealthiest man and right now he seems to be calling the shots with decisions that are literally going to be life or death for the world’s poorest people . . .  it’s hard to wrap one’s head around,” he said.

Marshall Islands Journal owner and editor Giff Johnson on the USAID crisis. Video: RNZ Pacific

Wood was concerned about how the dismantling of USAID would impact the Pacific.

“It’s not a good time to be in the world’s most aid dependent region . . .  indeed Sāmoa PM Fiame Naomi Mata’afa has already expressed concern about what might happen to funding for organisations like the World Health Organisation . . .  so everyone is watching this with considerable alarm”.

‘It’s hard to believe that Trump has changed his sense’
Editor Johnson said said in an interview with RNZ Pacific last week that Trump’s shutdown of USAID was at odds with the increased engagement in the Pacific.

He said the move did not line up with the President’s rhetoric on China, and the fact the new US compact agreements were instigated by his administration the last time he was in power.

“So it’s hard to believe that Trump has changed his sense and I mean, he’s putting tariffs in on China, right? . . .  So that’s still very much in play,” Johnson said.

“It’s just like amazing to me that that they’re willing to undermine relationships in the Pacific that they claim to be a very important region for them.

“And you know, this is, I mean, certainly it’s an opening for anybody else who wants to fill the gap, I suppose, until Washington decides what it is doing.”

USAID shutdown bug thing for Pacific
Meanwhile, in the Cook Islands, the vice-chairperson of the Pacific energy regulators Alliance said Trump’s shutdown of USAID was a big deal for the region.

Dean Yarrall said his organisation was planning a multi-day training course on best practices in electricity regulation, funded by the US, which had now been called off.

He said the cancelling of the training course caught his organisation off guard.

“We’re seeing a lot of competition between parties, the Chinese are looking to increase the influence Australia as well and the US through USAID are big supporters of the Pacific so seeing USA sort of drop away, I think that will be a big thing,” Yarrall said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including more than $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has denounced this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, and journalists doing vital work into chaotic uncertainty — including in the Pacific.

In a statement published on its website, RSF has called for international public and private support to commit to the “sustainability of independent media”.

• READ MORE: What will US aid cuts mean for the Pacific?
• Donald Trump’s foreign aid freeze leaves organisations in the Asia-Pacific region scrambling
• Other Pacific media freedom reports

Since the new American president announced the freeze of US foreign aid on January 20, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has been in turmoil — its website is inaccessible, its X account has been suspended, the agency’s headquarters was closed and employees told to stay home.

South African-born American billionaire Elon Musk, an unelected official, whom Trump chose to lead the quasi-official Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has called USAID a “criminal organisation” and declared: “We’re shutting [it] down.”

Later that day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he was named acting director of the agency, suggesting its operations were being moved to the State Department.

Almost immediately after the freeze went into effect, journalistic organisations around the world — including media groups in the Pacific — that receive American aid funding started reaching out to RSF expressing confusion, chaos, and uncertainty.

Large and smaller media NGOs affected
The affected organisations include large international NGOs that support independent media like the International Fund for Public Interest Media and smaller, individual media outlets serving audiences living under repressive conditions in countries like Iran and Russia.

“The American aid funding freeze is sowing chaos around the world, including in journalism. The programmes that have been frozen provide vital support to projects that strengthen media, transparency, and democracy,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF USA.

“President Trump justified this order by charging — without evidence — that a so-called ‘foreign aid industry’ is not aligned with US interests.

“The tragic irony is that this measure will create a vacuum that plays into the hands of propagandists and authoritarian states. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is appealing to the international public and private funders to commit to the sustainability of independent media.”

USAID programmes support independent media in more than 30 countries, but it is difficult to assess the full extent of the harm done to the global media.

Many organisations are hesitant to draw attention for fear of risking long-term funding or coming under political attacks.

According to a USAID fact sheet which has since been taken offline, in 2023 the agency funded training and support for 6200 journalists, assisted 707 non-state news outlets, and supported 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media.

Activities halted overnight
The 2025 foreign aid budget included $268,376,000 allocated by Congress to support “independent media and the free flow of information”.

All over the world, media outlets and organisations have had to halt some of their activities overnight.

“We have articles scheduled until the end of January, but after that, if we haven’t found solutions, we won’t be able to publish anymore,” explains a journalist from a Belarusian exiled media outlet who wished to remain anonymous.

In Cameroon, the funding freeze forced DataCameroon, a public interest media outlet based in the economic capital Douala, to put several projects on hold, including one focused on journalist safety and another covering the upcoming presidential election.

An exiled Iranian media outlet that preferred to remain anonymous was forced to suspend collaboration with its staff for three months and slash salaries to a bare minimum to survive.

An exiled Iranian journalist interviewed by RSF warns that the impact of the funding freeze could silence some of the last remaining free voices, creating a vacuum that Iranian state propaganda would inevitably fill.

“Shutting us off will mean that they’ll have more power,” she says.

USAID: the main donor for Ukrainian media
In Ukraine, where 9 out of 10 outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, several local media have already announced the suspension of their activities and are searching for alternative solutions.

“At Slidstvo.Info, 80 percent of our budget is affected,” said Anna Babinets, CEO and co-founder of this independent investigative media outlet based in Kyiv.

The risk of this suspension is that it could open the door to other sources of funding that may seek to alter the editorial line and independence of these media.

“Some media might be shut down or bought by businessmen or oligarchs. I think Russian money will enter the market. And government propaganda will, of course, intensify,” Babinets said.

RSF has already witnessed the direct effects of such propaganda — a fabricated video, falsely branded with the organisation’s logo, claimed that RSF welcomed the suspension of USAID funding for Ukrainian media — a stance RSF has never endorsed.

This is not the first instance of such disinformation.

Finding alternatives quickly
This situation highlights the financial fragility of the sector.

According to Oleh Dereniuha, editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian local media outlet NikVesti, based in Mykolaiv, a city in southeast Ukraine, “The suspension of US funding is just the tip of the iceberg — a key case that illustrates the severity of the situation.”

Since 2024, independent Ukrainian media outlets have found securing financial sustainability nearly impossible due to the decline in donors.

As a result, even minor budget cuts could put these media outlets in a precarious position.

A recent RSF report stressed the need to focus on the economic recovery of the independent Ukrainian media landscape, weakened by the large-scale Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, which RSF’s study estimated to be at least $96 million over three years.

Moreover, beyond the decline in donor support in Ukraine, media outlets are also facing growing threats to their funding and economic models in other countries.

Georgia’s Transparency of Foreign Influence Law — modelled after Russia’s legislation — has put numerous media organisations at risk. The Georgian Prime Minister welcomed the US president’s decision with approval.

This suspension is officially expected to last only 90 days, according to the US government.

However, some, like Katerina Abramova, communications director for leading exiled Russian media outlet Meduza, fear that the reviews of funding contracts could take much longer.

Abramova is anticipating the risk that these funds may be permanently cut off.

“Exiled media are even in a more fragile position than others, as we can’t monetise our audience and the crowdfunding has its limits — especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” Abramova stressed.

By abruptly suspending American aid, the United States has made many media outlets and journalists vulnerable, dealing a significant blow to press freedom.

For all the media outlets interviewed by RSF, the priority is to recover and urgently find alternative funding.

Fiji, Pacific media, aid groups reel shocked by cuts
In Suva, Fiji, as Pacific media groups have been reeling from the shock of the aid cuts, Fijivillage News reports that hundreds of local jobs and assistance to marginalised communities are being impacted because Fiji is an AUSAID hub.

According to an USAID staff member speaking on the condition of anonymity, Trump’s decision has affected hundreds of Fijian jobs due to USAID believing in building local capacity.

The staff member said millions of dollars in grants for strengthening climate resilience, the healthcare system, economic growth, and digital connectivity in rural communities were now on hold.

The staff member also said civil society organisations, especially grantees in rural areas that rely on their aid, were at risk.

Pacific Media Watch and Asia Pacific Report collaborate with Reporters Without Borders.

EDITORIAL: By the OCCRP editors

“OCCRP is a deep state operation.
“OCCRP is connected to the CIA.
“OCCRP was tasked by USAID to overthrow President Donald Trump.”

How did we end up getting this kind of attention? Old fashioned investigative journalism.

We wrote a simple story in 2019 about how Rudy Giuliani went to Ukraine for some opposition research and ended up working with people connected to organised crime who misled him.

Unbeknown to us, a whistleblower found the story online and added it to a complaint that was the basis of President Trump’s first impeachment. We also wrote a story about Hunter Biden‘s business partners and their ties to organised crime but that hasn’t received the same attention.

• READ MORE: Trump’s foreign aid freeze throws independent journalism into chaos
• Other Pacific media freedom reports

Journalism has become a blood sport. It’s harder and harder to tell the truth without someone’s interests getting stepped on.

OCCRP prides itself on being independent and nonpartisan. No donor has any say in our reporting, but we often find ourselves under attack for our funding.

It’s not just political interests but organised crime, businesses, enablers, and other journalists who regularly attack us. What’s common in all of these attacks is that the truth doesn’t matter and it will not protect you.

Few attack the facts in our reporting. Instead we’re left perplexed by how to respond to wild conspiracy theories, outright disinformation, and hyperbolic hatred.

At the same time, we’ve lost 29 percent of our funding because of the US foreign aid freeze. This includes 82 percent of the money we give to newsrooms in our network, many of which operate in places [Pacific Media Watch: Such as in the Pacific] where no one else will support them.

This money did not only fund groundbreaking, prize-winning collaborative journalism but it also trained young investigative reporters to expose wrongdoing. It’s money that kept journalists safe from physical and digital attacks and supported those in exile who continued to report on crooks and dictators back in their home countries.

OCCRP now has 43 less journalists and staff to do our work.

No attack or funding freeze will stop us from trying to fulfill our mission. Just in the past week, OCCRP and its partners revealed how Russia’s shadow fleet sources its ships, how taxes haven’t been paid on Roman Abramovich’s yachts, and how Syrian intelligence spied on journalists.

Next week, we’ll take on another set of powerful actors to defend the public interest. And another set the week after that.

We are determined to stay in the fight and keep reporting on organised crime and the corrupt who enable and benefit from it. But it’s getting harder and we need help.

• How to donate to the OCCRP project.

The Australian government is moving fast to reset relations with Australia’s Pacific partners, including a larger Pacific role for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Detailed research undertaken late last year for the ABC in our six key Pacific markets (Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga) confirms that the ABC today is used, valued and highly trusted by Pacific audiences.

This result has been made possible through the ABC’s multi-channel approach, and by thoughtful programming made with Pacific partners and designed specifically for Pacific audiences.

• READ MORE: Other reports on Radio Australia in the Pacific

In terms of reach, access to AM/FM radio today is significantly higher than access to shortwave across the Pacific, and our research confirms that the most effective way today to engage audiences in urban and peri-urban regions is through FM radio transmission.

ABC Radio Australia currently has 13 transmitters across the Pacific. ABC Australia (TV) broadcasts to 16 Pacific island nations and territories under more than 25 distribution deals.

Meanwhile, a transition to digital and social media in the Pacific is also well underway. Smartphone use is high in urban areas, and increasingly, the ABC connects to its Pacific audiences via Facebook and through our digital offerings.

Our multi-channel approach is paying off. Total Pacific user interactions late last year with the ABC, whether via the ABC website, the ABC app or social media channels, were reportedly higher than usage and interactions with any other international provider, including the BBC, CNN, RNZ and CGTN.

Big jump in numbers
In the Papua New Guinea market, the research showed that more than half of all respondents had either watched ABC Australia (TV), listened to ABC Radio Australia or accessed the ABC online in the second half of 2021. That’s a big jump in audience numbers within just a few years.

The Australian government has plans to review the merits of restoring shortwave radio and the ABC will be contributing to that process. Part of that will include understanding how many people still have access to shortwave radios and the interest or need to use them as an information source.

In terms of content, the ABC’s unique advantage lies in its commitment to, and relationship with, Pacific audiences. We aim to be local. Our Asia–Pacific newsroom is the only one of its kind in Australia, with 50 journalists and producers telling the stories that matter to Indo-Pacific audiences, told in Bahasa Indonesia, Tok Pisin and Chinese as well as English.

Our flagship daily current affairs programme, Pacific Beat on ABC Radio Australia, features interviews with leaders and newsmakers, attracting audiences of all ages and genders. Then there’s Sistas, Let’s Talk (conversations with inspirational Pacific women), Wantok (Pacific-focused news and current affairs in Tok Pisin, Solomon Islands pidgin and Bislama), Island Music (reggae, dancehall and R’n’B with a focus on the Pacific region) and Pacific Playtime (for kids and families across the region).

A shared love of sport offers opportunities to strengthen social ties across the Pacific, and particularly to engage young people. ABC Radio Australia takes the men’s and women’s National Rugby League competitions to lovers of the sport across the region.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade supports the ABC to produce the only pan-Pacific sport-focused TV show, That Pacific Sports Show, and a fresh and humorous sport-oriented radio show and podcast, Can You Be More Pacific?, hosted by Australian and Pacific sportspeople.

This commitment to genuine partnership with the Pacific is paying off. The proportion of respondents in Pacific markets last year who valued the ABC across all its channels as a “trusted source of news and information” was comparable to that in Australia, at a very high 75 percent.

Pacific content locally available
It’s also worth noting that all the content we produce for Pacific audiences is available domestically in Australia, helping to maintain regional ties and build greater Australian awareness about our Pacific neighbours.

The ABC’s International Development Unit, supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and donors like USAID and the United Nations, works with partners across the region to enhance journalism skills and media capacity.

The ABC also provides skills development training for specific challenges like election coverage and emergency broadcasting, plus support for media associations, like the Media Association of the Solomon Islands, which has been active in campaigning for press access and freedom in the Solomons.

The government has committed to increase funding to the ABC’s international programme by $8 million a year over the next four years. The focal points of this strategy are enhanced regional transmission, more content production, and increased media capacity training for Pacific partners.

This approach has been informed by the ABC’s own proposals.

Over recent years, various ideas have been floated for a new administrative process or organisation to “manage” Australia’s media presence in the Pacific. That would add unnecessary bureaucracy.

There’s a lot more the ABC could do in and for the Pacific. The ABC today has the strategy, systems and relationships in the Pacific to enable rapid expansion, given funding support.

And our research confirms there is a demand for it.

Claire M. Gorman is the head of international services at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Republished from The Strategist with the author’s permission.

Without much in the way of a credible explanation about why, Aotearoa New Zealand education authorities are killing off one of the Pacific’s leading journalism programmes.

The fate of the Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre (PMC) coincides with the Fiji government assault on the University of the South Pacific, raising serious questions about the future of academic freedom and excellence.

The Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAPMI) has appealed for action to save PMC, saying closure comes “at a time when Pacific journalism is under existential threat and Pacific journalism programmes suffer from underfunding”.

• READ MORE: Pacific journalism, media and diversity researchers tackle challenges ahead
• LISTEN TO Radio 531pi: The Pacific Media Centre controversy
• Future of AUT’s Pacific Media Centre under spotlight following director’s departure – Teuila Fuatai
• The Pacific Media Centre must break free to survive – Gavin Ellis
• Who is killing off top Pacific journalism – and why?
• Concerns grows over PMC after shock office ‘closure’ and no director
• Pacific reaction to ‘end of an era’
• Outcry over signs of upheaval at PMC – Dateline Pacific
• Outcry over signs of upheaval at Pacific Media Centre – APR
• LISTEN to RNZ Dateline Pacific
• AUT can — and should — do better — Ena Manuireva

The centre, founded in 2007 and described by AAPMI as a “jewel in the AUT crown”, had worked in its current Communication Studies office in the Sir Paul Reeves Building at the AUT’s city campus since it opened eight years ago.

It was abruptly emptied last month of more than a decade of awards, books, files, publications, picture frames and treasures, including a traditional carved Papua New Guinean storyboard marking the opening of the centre by then Pacific Affairs Minister Luamanuvao Winnie Laban in October 2007.

AUT claims the centre is going to new accommodation, but they had not said where or even shown it to those asking.

Founding director Professor David Robie, whose retirement at the end of last year seemed to signal AUT’s action, was critical of the “unconscionable” closure/relocation.

Lack of explanation
What has been striking over the closure has been the lack of a coherent explanation from AUT.

When Dr Robie came to retire on December 18, he found there was no one to hand over to.

Two of the more likely colleagues were sidelined as word came down that the School of Communication Studies management at AUT were planning on taking the “Asia-Pacific” out of PMC and creating a new focus on Māori issues instead.

This is despite AUT already having a Māori studies department, Te Ara Poutama, which has a Māori Media Development programme.

AAPMI last month wrote to AUT’s vice-chancellor, Derek McCormack, urging they “continue to play the globally pre-eminent role in supporting media, communication and journalism education, research and collaboration.”

Calling it the jewel in AUT’s crown, the letter said “the PMC is the world’s leading Pacific journalism programme and is looked to by media professionals and academics from around the world, including in the Pacific and here in Australia.

“The centre’s research publications and staff and postgraduate student journalism websites (such as PMC Online www.pmc.aut.ac.nz) are valued highly by Australian media professionals and they are frequent contributors.”

The full letter is published below.

‘Outsized’ share of awards
AAPMI said AUT had a reputation for taking an “outsized” share of the Student Journalism Awards – the Ossies.”

“The valuable supportive role the PMC and its staff have played for the leading Pacific journalism programmes – especially for the University of the South Pacific programme led by formidable thought-leader Dr Shailendra Singh – is also acknowledged.”

AAPMI said PMC’s role in providing skills, research, support and collaboration on practical projects and a pipeline of qualified professionals was now more vital to the future of media in the region than ever.

“It is not going too far to say that the PMC has a key role to play in the survival of public interest journalism and media in the region. It will only be able to do this if the PMC is supported and expanded.”

Last month, Dr Robie posted an item on the office closure on Facebook. It drew 150 responses and more than 80 negative comments, most of them from Pacific journalists, media personalities and current or former project students, some describing it as “academic vandalism”.

Relocated to ‘new space’
Particularly concerning was the taking of PMC materials which drew a response from AUT that they had been relocated to a “new space”.

Television New Zealand Pacific affairs correspondent Barbara Dreaver responded by asking: “Do you want to show us all a photo of this new space you speak of?”

Tongan’s journalist Kalafi Moala said:“That’s unbelievable … We are still trying to get over the Gestapo-style deportation of the USP vice-chancellor from Fiji, and now this? How shameful!”

Leading Vanuatu-based photojournalist Ben Bohane said: “Outrageous example of a disposable mentality, but your legacy will remain …”

Director of the Toda Peace Institute in Tokyo Professor Kevin Clements said:“This is terrible … but typical of NZ universities at the moment.”

Australian columnist Keith Jackson, a retired academic, journalist and former administrator in Papua New Guinea, said: “That’s the kind of behaviour that happens in the worst organisations … Damn shame … But you and I and hundreds of others know you are a consummate pro who built a terrific organisation that affected and informed thousands of people. Sori tru.”

Dr Jason MacLeod, an academic affiliated with the West Papua Project of the University of Sydney, said: “So sad. Another uni with no soul or sense of purpose beyond bottom lines.”

Seini Taumoepeau, an Oceanic creative consultant and former presenter at ABC Australia, said: “Oh, so sorry for the loss – this is heartbreaking.”

Ena Manureva, a Tahitian doctoral candidate, said: “This is shameful given the recommendations of the [recent harassment policies] “review” and AUT promising to do better and this is what you get – an utter failure and shame!

Ami Dhabuwala, a onetime Gujarat Guardian reporter and former PMC Bearing Witness climate project student, said: “This is heartbreaking! PMC was the only thing that got me through my time in AUT! PMC was the best thing that happened to me. Thank you so much for all the support and the work you do.”

Michael Field is a co-publisher of The Pacific Newsroom. This article is republished with permission.

The full AAPMI letter

Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative (AAPMI)

16 February 2021

Mr Derek McCormack
Vice Chancellor
Auckland University of Technology

Dear Mr McCormack,

We are writing to you to congratulate the Auckland University of Technology on its contribution to Pacific media and journalism and – at a time when Pacific journalism is under existential threat and Pacific journalism programmes suffer from underfunding – to urge you to ensure your university continues to play the globally pre-eminent role in supporting media, communication and journalism education, research and collaboration.

AUT’s Pacific Media Centre (including its associated projects in audio, video and online production and its engagement with Asia and Pacific academic institutions and communities within New Zealand) is the jewel in AUT’s crown. As you know, the PMC is the world’s leading Pacific journalism programme is looked to by media professionals and academics from around the world, including in the Pacific and here in Australia. The centre’s research publications and staff and postgraduate student journalism websites (such as PMC Online www.pmc.aut.ac.nz) are valued highly by Australian media professionals and they are frequent contributors.

The Pacific monograph series is an exciting development that could play a constructive role as the environment for media and journalism in the region deteriorates. We note that AUT has a reputation for taking an outsized share of the Student Journalism Awards – the Ozzies. We would also like to congratulate AUT for the work of senior lecturer Khairiah Rahman in cross-cultural work with the Muslim community in New Zealand and PMC colleagues, Jim Marbrook and his sister Anna, for winning the Grand Prix at the weekend’s Oceania International Film Festival (FIFO) in Tahiti for their film Loimata. The calibre of both people has contributed enormously to the success of AUT students. The valuable supportive role the PMC and its staff have played for the leading Pacific journalism programmes – especially for the University of the South Pacific programme led by formidable thought-leader Dr Shailendra Singh – is also acknowledged.

Last year was a watershed year for Pacific media. At the beginning of 2020, most media houses were only in the early or middle stages of their transition to digital, a transition which around the world has left organisations with fewer resources to produce original and investigative reports that are a crucial part of the media’s remit as a vital accountability institution in our democracies. Even before the digital transition Pacific media houses were struggling to obtain the skills and financial resources needed to adequately fulfil their role as the Fourth Estate. This has only been made worse by the loss of revenue, skills and staff as a result of the economic impact of COVID on the Pacific. The PMC’s role in providing skills, research, support and collaboration on practical projects and a pipeline of qualified professionals is now more vital to the future of media in the region than ever. It is not going too far to say that the PMC has a key role to play in the survival of public interest journalism and media in the region. It will only be able to do this if the PMC is supported and expanded.

We understand universities are under pressure but were sorry to see the demise of AUT’s postgraduate Asia-Pacific Journalism course in 2019. We congratulate and thank Professor David Robie, the multicultural and cross-disciplinary PMC Advisory Board, and volunteers for their pioneering work in developing the Pacific Media Centre. Since Professor Robie’s long-expected retirement (at age 75) we are concerned to see the Centre without a director and its office relocated without adequate consultation with its stakeholders. To continue to play its cutting-edge role we believe the Pacific Media Centre needs a world-class director and urge you to advertise the role globally.

We also ask that you ensure the PMC and its associated activities and connections with the Pasifika and Māori communities in New Zealand as well as its connections with the Asia-Pacific global journalism research community and profession continue to be developed. Given that the PMC began as an autonomous media umbrella and outlet for Pacific students to carry out journalism, documentary, social justice and development communication projects it is essential that the centre continues to have an office where these students can be supported by staff for their media initiatives. Perhaps the best way to ensure the PMC’s future would be to establish it as an independent centre since its work involves multidisciplinary media and communication areas.

We would appreciate your letting us know your plans to fill the role of PMC director and for the PMC itself, including its valuable archive and taonga. If materials collected by the PMC are not to be easily accessible, perhaps they should be donated to the University of the South Pacific Journalism Programme or other stakeholders who have played a close partnership role with PMC over many years.

The Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative is a voluntary group of current and former journalists, media executives and technologists with wide experience across the Pacific and Asia. Our number also includes Pacific and Asia experts and members of Asia and Pacific diaspora communities in Australia. We came together in 2018 in response to a number of Australian enquiries. We advocate for more Australian media engagement in the region, for support for quality public interest media and for Pacific voices to be heard in media in the Pacific, Australia and globally. We have members in most Australian states and territories and supporters in 10 countries in our region. Our members established the Sean Dorney Grant for Pacific Journalism in association with the Walkley Foundation and the The Pacific Newsroom on Facebook.

We stand ready to be of assistance to AUT.

Warm regards,

Signed on behalf of AAPMI:
Jemima Garrett, Co-convenor of AAPMI, journalism training/media and development consultant, former ABC Pacific Correspondent, foundation member of the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum

Sue Ahearn, Co-convenor of AAPMI, Journalist and international media and development consultant, former Editor ABC International, Editor of The Pacific Newsroom

Sean Dorney, AO, former ABC PNG and Pacific Correspondent, non-resident fellow Lowy Institute for International Policy

Annmaree O’Keefe, AM, non-resident fellow, Lowy Institute for International Policy and chair of the Foundation for Development Cooperation. Formerly, Ambassador to Nepal, Deputy-Director General of AusAID, chair of Australia’s national commission for UNESCO

Dr Jane Munro, AM, Adjunct Professor, Griffith University, Queensland, Honorary Principal Fellow, Asia Instiute, Melbourne University, former Chair ABC Advisory Council

Bruce Dover, International media consultant, formerly a senior executive with News Corp (Australia and China), CNN (Asia) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Kalafi Moala, journalist/media consultant, founder and former owner Times of Tonga

Kevin McQuillan, journalist, media consultant and founder of RNZ International news service

Kean Wong, Editor and journalist, ex-BBC, the Economist, AFR, co-founder, Malaysia’s Centre of Independent Journalism

Graeme Dobell, Journalist Fellow with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, former ABC foreign, defence and foreign affairs correspondent

Emelda Davis, President, Australian South Sea Islanders (Port Jackson), Producer (film, television and audio)

Geoff Heriot, consultant and PhD candidate (UTas), former ABC editorial and corporate governance executive and foreign correspondent

Vivien Altman, freelance journalist, television producer/writer, formerly executive producer SBS and producer, ABC Foreign Correspondent

Richard Dinnen, freelance journalist, including former ABC PNG and Pacific correspondent

Jan Forrester, former journalist and international media consultant

Nigel Holmes, former technology manager ABC International AAPMI

Papua New Guinea’s Auditor-General has questioned who approved a US-based international auditing firm to audit the awarding of contracts by the Health Department to pharmaceutical companies.

Acting Auditor-General Gordon Kega said his office should “sanction” the involvement of any private firm in the auditing of public funds.

“Under the Audit Act, we are supposed to sanction private auditors to audit public funds,” he said.

• READ MORE: Health, medical supplies protected issues affecting PNG

Kega said his office was not consulted when the Forensic Technologies International (FTI), a business advisory firm from the United States, was called in to carry out the audit after concerns were raised about the way AusAid funding was being used by the department to procure pharmaceutical supplies.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament also conducted a commission of inquiry into the AusAid funding complaint.

Kega said the FTI audited the Health Department “without our authorisation”.

“And that report has been given to the police to carry out investigations,” Kega said.

Police have own jurisduction
“But then the police have their own jurisdiction to investigate any information they [receive] from complainants.

“We are available to clarify our position [with police] on the sanctioning of private auditors such as the FTI.”

He distanced the office of the Auditor-General from the auditing of Ausaid funding to procure pharmaceutical supplies.

The police said the work of the FTI had been approved by the government and funded by AusAid.

Chief Inspector Joel Simatab said the police had already received the FTI report and were awaiting the one from PAC chairman Sir John Pundari.

“The FTI report was sanctioned by the Department of Prime Minister and National Executive Council while the PAC report was sanctioned by Parliament,” he said.

The FTI and PAC conducted their enquiries in August last year.

“We received the FTI report first.

Both inquiries ‘similar’
“Both enquires are similar but PAC has statutory powers to summon people, seize confidential documents from the banks, companies, service providers and government departments,” he said.

He said the FTI “has no statutory power and so their report is not really in detail”.

“What they did was look into the tender of contracts, procurement, delivery of medical drugs and the lack of consultation between service providers and the provincial health authorities,” he said.

“PAC has the authority to go into detail.”

He said they had the same aim of finding out the processes of procuring medicines for the people of PNG.

“So while we are investigating the FTI report, we are mindful of the PAC report.

“Once we receive it from PAC, we will cross-check both recommendations [before we] conduct criminal investigations.”

The Pacific Media Centre publishes The National news reports with permission.

Many people have commented on the saga surrounding the Vanuatu international airport and the termination of flights critical to the tourism industry and economy.

While it is important to learn from (and not repeat) the mistakes of the past, right now the first priority for the country should be to agree on how best to move forward rather than working out who is to blame for the mistakes of the past.

In the mid-nineties the nation had a similar problem with the runway at Bauerfield airport. In the end the government corporatised the airport (it used to be a department) and created Airport Vanuatu Limited (AVL). The idea was that a corporatised AVL would not suffer the same political problems as the former government department. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was also created to provide regulatory oversight of the industry.

The government also borrowed money from the European Investment Bank to fix the runway – in theory this loan was to be paid back by the new AVL, which (if run properly) should be profit-making. In reality, however, AVL remained political, was poorly run (in a financial sense) and never re-paid the loan. As a result the government had to reduce the available budget for critical services (e.g. health and education) and infrastructure maintenance to service this and other loans.

There have been sensible solutions on the table before
By about 2008 the developing problems with the management of the airport were well known to technical officials, and a series of solutions were discussed. The most relevant one being to look at combining three critical elements:

• Improve runway maintenance
• Look at a longer term solution for the runway and associated infrastructure required to meet ICAO standards
• Further privatise the AVL via some sort of PPP modality.

A lot of technical work and funding was organised for this via the Ministry of Public Works and by about 2010 funding was available through the IFC, AusAID and others for a combination of grants and, if necessary, a small loan for this program of works.

Short term problem not financial – it is maintenance of the airstrip
If the current airstrip can be shown to be properly maintained it should be enough for all of the current carriers to resume flights. However, for this to happen there will need to be evidence of a proper long term solution. This does not require any sort of a loan; fundamentally, it requires proof of better management.

There are some small urgent repairs required on the more heavily used parts of the runway but it should be possible to quickly do this in the short term within existing resources.

Longer term solution does not need to bankrupt the country
There is plenty of evidence that clearly shows Vanuatu cannot expect to service even the current portfolio of external loans, let alone take on more borrowing. So there is little or no sense in borrowing enormous sums that cannot be paid back as all this means is that the future budgets for maintenance, health, education will be cut – and so it will only mean the problem gets worse.

However, the most important works are remedial and can be done for a cost of under a few million dollars using concessional financing. More importantly, these funds can then be used to leverage grants (that don’t have to be paid back) to support the long-term management of the airport.

In the medium term a 150m buffer zone on the runway strip might also be cheaper than a brand new runway. This will cost some money and need landowner talks. However, it may be the cheapest option that allows for an “instrument approach” which will certainly alleviate many of the concerns of the airlines.

Is there any way forward?
The immediate priority must be to get a sensible runway maintenance program in place such that airlines can fly into Port Vila. Then the original IFC proposal for further privatisation of AVL should be re-looked at.

This is likely to involve a financial restructure of AVL, and this is where the World Bank and others such as IFC could help within the scope of what they have already agreed to do with the government.

Rather than lending impossibly large sums to the state they could provide targeted financial and managerial support to the new privately run AVL.