COMMENTARY: By Michael West

We are led by fools and sycophants. The illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iran is not just garden-variety stupidity. This is stupidity on a grandiose, stratospheric scale.

The Israeli propaganda narrative that Iranians would sprinkle rose petals at the feet of their invaders has not come to pass. It has already been demolished in fact.

Instead of bringing freedom and democracy — “regime change” — we have brought chaos, possibly a world war, and definitely the destruction of the Middle East.

• READ MORE: War rages in the Middle East as Trump vows to continue Iran attack — death toll tops 1000
• Iran mourns 165 girls, staff killed in school strike during US-Israel war
• Other US-Israel attack on Iran reports

The world economy is being hit hard as we write; oil prices spiralling, energy prices about to soar, and the inexorable spectre of inflation and recession.

And it didn’t have to happen.

This was a war of choice. Even without the “Epstein Coalition” — as the Iranian media so aptly dubs their invaders — murdering 165 Iranian school girls on day one, “peace through strength” was never going to happen.

Quite the contrary. The illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iran has hardened the resolve of Iranians, who are massing in their hundreds of thousands across the country to mourn their dead and chant “Death to America”, to back their regime.

Where was the advice?
The Epstein Coalition killed the Ayatollah, who was actually against nuclear power; he was a moderate.

Did Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong not seek advice from Foreign Affairs that attacking Iran was folly, that the anti-regime protesters were a minority, that the pre-invasion protests were a Mossad and CIA psyop, that Iran might attack US proxy states in the region, that invasion would be a Brobigdadgian mistake?

Or did they ignore the advice in favour of a Washington regime compromised by the Epstein pedophile scandal?

And now, we see the feeble, hypocritical whining by Israel and its supporters about Iran attacking the Gulf states. Is that our only moral defence?

Decades of supporting these regimes: Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates — US proxy states all — regimes now unravelling, the oil price is soaring, inflation and recession are beckoning globally.

Images are emerging from Bahrain of locals cheering on the Iranian missiles. Were DFAT and our politicians unaware of popular angst in the Gulf states against American imperialism?

And what did they expect Iran to do in the face of this existential threat? Not blow up American bases and infrastructure while the US attacked them; after the US betrayed them at the very negotiating table when they were offering significant concessions on nuclear enrichment, all to avoid war? This war.

War drums over Tehran.             Video: The West Report

Australia, the US flunkies
Yet here was Australia, Saturday night, first out of the blocks worldwide to throw its support behind Donald Trump and his preposterous “Operation Epic Fury”, a probable pedophile being blackmailed and led around by the genocidal Benjamin Netanyahu like a pony at the fairground show.

“Operation Epstein Fury”, it was fast labelled. The soaring, craven stupidity is hard to grasp. Both major parties backing it.

Albo first, then Angus Taylor rushing to tow the Donald’s line. Then, One Nation’s Pauline Hanson, too, who even congratulated and praised Netanyahu. We are led by fools and sycophants.

The flawed defence of atrocity
To address the empty rhetoric of the pro-war lobby, criticism of this war does not equate to support for the regime in Iran. Defenders of the US-Israel atrocity are busy with their swarms of social media bots peddling the argument that “you are an Islamist terror supporter” if you criticise the invasion.

This is the 2026 version of “You are a Hamas supporter” if you argue against genocide in Gaza.

The cold facts of this debacle are that regime change does not work, that Iran did not want this war, that Iran appears to be exceptionally well prepared, that the Epstein Coalition, which Australia supports, is daily backing war crimes: blowing up hospitals, schools and civilian infrastructure.

This is a war which has already been lost.

The obvious reality is that regime change wars are a demonstrable failure. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Iraq — a million dead, irretrievable regional stability. In Afghanistan, 20 years, trillions of dollars spent, four US presidents, six Australian PMs — all to replace the Taliban . . . with the Taliban.

And here we are, the world’s busybodies, doing it again.

Who would ever negotiate with the US in good faith again, or Israel for that matter? Iran did not want this war. Iran has not attacked another country in 300 years.

The US lured them to the negotiating table, then, without warning, murdered their leadership. This echoes last year’s 12-day war, where Israel and the US lured them in on the premise of good faith talks, then murdered them and now play the victim.

What did they expect Iran to do in the face of this existential threat?

The record speaks for itself. The US is the biggest invader of other countries in history. Israel has, last year alone, attacked Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Palestine, Qatar, Tunisia, Malta, and Greece.

Six illegal attacks of sovereign nations, as well as three illegal attacks in international waters equals nine all up. In one year.

And now they are invading Lebanon again, seizing more territory as their puppets, America, fight their campaign against Iran.

Albo, what are you doing?
We know who the warmongers are. We are the warmongers. Yet, in his bizarre statement of support, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was the fastest out of the blocks of all the allies on the weekend, issuing a false statement.

Australia stands with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.

For decades, the Iranian regime has been a destabilising force, through its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, support for armed proxies, and brutal acts of violence and intimidation.

Iran…

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) February 28, 2026

The claim, echoed by the usual warmongers of the Lib-Lab establishment, is that Iran is guilty of attacks on Australian soil, referencing alleged attacks on a deli in Bondi.

Apart from the common sense, why would Iran commit an act of terror on a deli in Bondi? Senior police have conceded that there is no evidence of this.

The nuclear furphy
Then there is the age-old claim that Iran is about to produce nuclear weapons. The US and Israel’s nuclear risk claims have been so roundly discredited it’s a joke.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been trying to instigate a war against Iran for 30 years — claiming Iran is days away, weeks away, months away from nuclear missiles.

And they were at the negotiating table again when the Epstein forces murdered them.

The propaganda
We are now seeing mainstream media decry the “illegal attacks” on Israel and the Gulf states. Yet the ‘victim card” is tapped out.

Around the world, outside the legacy media propaganda, there is little sympathy for Israel having razed Gaza and slaughtered between 72,000 and 700,000 Palestinians while stealing more land in the West Bank daily.

It will continue. The media and political classes have failed so majestically that they can only try to salvage their authority with more propaganda.

The deplorable coverage of the murdered schoolgirls in Iran is a case in point. The “40 beheaded babies” and the “mass rapes” of Hamas filled the headlines in the West on October 8, 2023. Yet real murders — 165 murdered schoolgirls — have hardly rated a mention. Yes, a mention perhaps, but a side story, buried, no headlines of outrage.

Can’t handle the truth?

Is the truth too hard to handle? Is it not evident to everybody except the most brainwashed advocate of the Epstein lobby that Israel — the government, the state — is the problem here?

Netanyahu has won his ambition to drag America into a war against Iran, and if you follow the money, while world stock markets teeter, the stock market in Tel Aviv is surging, replete with weapons companies as it is.

Meanwhile, the ASX is tanking, ergo our savings. Oil prices are surging, ergo higher energy prices and inflation. The Houthis, Iran’s allies, are shooting again in the Red Sea while, on the other side of the Arabian peninsula, Iran has blocked the Straits of Hormuz, choking off a large chunk of the world’s oil supply.

Higher prices in India and China will mean higher prices for imports and inflation around the world.

The lessons of history have not been learnt; in fact, they have been discarded in spectacular fashion.

> 70 years ago, Iran looked just like any Western country.
> Short skirts, rock’n’roll, open universities.
> It’s 1953. Iran elects a secular socialist: Mohammad Mossadegh.
> He nationalizes oil. That pisses off BP.
> Cold War excuse.
> CIA and MI6 stage a coup. Operation Ajax.
>… pic.twitter.com/ZNWaLdBlCN

— Dr. Simon Goddek (@goddek) March 1, 2026

Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker.

The violence surrounding protests against the visit of Israel’s president was not an accident of crowd control. It reflects a deeper political failure – where authority suppresses dissent rather than confronting uncomfortable truths about Gaza, protest rights and democratic responsibility.

In official explanations of violence outside Sydney Town Hall on Monday evening, February  9, it sounds as though police were only trying to maintain public safety through various professional measures taken against the thousands outraged that President Isaac Herzog of Israel, charged with incitement to commit genocide, should be in the country.

Those explanations are false. Behind the extensive police powers to control and suppress protest lies a cancerous-like cowardice, facilitated by a cornered Prime Minister and by an Israeli sympathising, authoritarian NSW Premier.

• READ MORE: Amnesty calls for independent probe of ‘shocking’ Australian police violence against peaceful protesters
• Saige England: Bearing witness – we are seeing a rise of totalitarian predator injustice from Gaza to NZ
• Other Gaza genocide reports

Cowardice can be nurtured by pleasure in dominating, by fear of losing control, by being frightened to face truths, by deceits in pretending that all is well when it manifestly is not.

Restricting protests in order to stifle concern about slaughter in Gaza and the West Bank, or the PM asking the Australian public to “turn the temperature down” so that justifiable outrage about the Bondi massacres will deflect attention from an ongoing genocide in Palestine, is a cowardly technique.

And the PM is not the worst offender, even though government cowardice began when wedged by the Zionist Federation into supporting their invitation to the Israeli President.

Who runs the show you might ask?

Suppression-oriented Premier Chris Minns delegates responsibility for his anti-protest laws to the chief of NSW police who is happy to oblige. In and out of uniform, cowards appear as strong men, usually men, who like to manhandle or beat up people.

There is no manliness in the police thuggery witnessed in Sydney streets on Monday.

Facile Premier Minns – or is he just naive – with no recognition of his own hypocrisy, says on Tuesday’s news “NSW police are not punching bags”. His holier than thou stance is shown alongside a man held down by police who are punching him repeatedly in the kidneys.

We then switch to the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, in Federal Parliament describing police action in general, “what the police were trying to do was sensible”.

As if thuggery on one man is insufficient, other police punch Greens MP Abigail Boyd in the head and shoulder, knock her over and are completely indifferent to her explanations of who she was and the civil and legal reasons for her presence at a legitimate, peaceful protest.

Cameras switch to police apparently unaware that their presence increases conflict, comprehending little, annoyed, then angry at the sight Moslem citizens in prayer on public pavements.

Then we witness no rationality, no civility, only the raw emotions of cowards not getting their way. The men kneeling in prayer are seen being picked up, removed and thrown aside. We’ll never know if deep-seated prejudice affected police conduct, but the question should be raised.

On Tuesday, the mood of thuggery on the streets moved to the House of Representatives when a Greens MP Elizabeth Watson-Brown inquired of the Prime Minister whether the invitation to the President of Israel had undermined the unity of the country, whether the PM would condemn police violence and send Herzog home.

In response, before the Prime Minister could answer, the opposition benches found a unity which had eluded them for months.

United in their apparent support for Israeli slaughter in Gaza, wanting to be seen to be brave in their dislike of protest about Herzog, and apparently unable or unwilling to know much about genocide continuing during a ceasefire, one of the esteemed members of the newly reformed Coalition, was heard to advise colleagues as to how to deal with the Greens MP.

“Rip her apart,” he was reported as saying. It sounds as though this was exactly what he said. Asked by the Speaker to withdraw his comment, the offending MP did so.

But further support for cowardice camouflaged by thuggery was not far away. Keen to revive his image as macho man at large, former Prime Minister Tony Abbot recommended that police accused of punching protesters should receive a commendation and in future be armed with tear gas and be able fire rubber bullets.

Abbot would never regard himself as a coward but when denial of the existence of a genocide, a failure to face truths, is being multiplied by cowardice evident in acceptance of authoritarianism as the way to conduct politics, policing and even techniques for debate, there should be cross party and widespread public concern.

To meet the Prime Minister’s requests to lower the temperature, the country needs to replace the cowardice with sufficient courage to admit the truths about a genocide, the truths about the values of freedom of speech and the right to protest.

Cowardice may be disguised by violence but is demeaning.

Courage is a way to speak truths. Courageous action can be mentally and physically life enhancing, encourages justice, depicts what Bertolt Brecht called “the bread of the people” and in current Australian culture could infect almost everyone and lower the temperature. Try it.

Dr Stuart Rees AM is professor emeritus at the University of Sydney and recipient of the Jerusalem (Al Quds) Peace Prize. This article was first published in Pearls and Irritations: John Menadue’s Public Policy Journal and is republished with permission.

NSW Premier Chris Minns is sounding even more defensive after videos of NSW police violence towards peaceful protesters in Australia went viral — including attacks on Muslims praying in Sydney’s Town Hall Square after the rally on Monday.

His “primary concern”, he told ABC TV, was to prevent the gathered protesters opposing war criminal Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit from finding out that Herzog was in the city — around the corner, at the International Convention Centre at Darling Harbour.

“We can reveal this morning that we had 700 Jewish mourners in the city at the same time, and at the same location, and police had to keep them separate from protesters; if those police lines were breached, it would have been far, far worse,” Minns said.

• READ MORE:  Peaceful, diverse, myriad, then attacked. Herzog protestors demolish the narrative
• As Herzog commemorates Bondi, IDF desecrates Australian war graves
• More Australia protests over police crackdown on rally against Herzog visit
• Herzog’s visit to Australia builds conflict not social cohesion

The fact that Herzog was nearby was hardly a secret. Everyone knew, given the number of barricades and no-go zones that had been established over the previous few days.

We also knew Herzog was in Bondi and no public protest had been planned for that.

Minns’ comments were dishonest and cruel justifications for police violence.

Town Hall Square, the assembly point, was already starting to fill by 4.30pm, an hour before the protest was due to start. By 5.30pm, it was jam packed, including with many Jewish Australians and Arab Australians.

First Nations speakers
The programme included First Nations speakers, former Australian of the Year Grace Tame, NSW Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi and Labor MP Sarah Kaine (who was heckled because of federal and state Labor governments’ support for genocidal Israel).

The speeches focused on Herzog, why we oppose closer relations with Israel and Minns’ draconian new anti-protest laws, which give police new powers.

The atmosphere at the beginning was peaceful — except for the 3000 police that surrounded Town Hall Square, including snipers, and stretched across CBD blocks.

The police “kettled” the rally — a tactic designed to intimidate and make it easier to unleash force. Without warning, they started to tear-gas people who were kettled — and therefore with no escape route.

Older and young people alike were crushed by the police kettling and pushing, leaving some in agony unable to breathe and others on the ground covered in blood.

Minns justified this approach, saying “most protesters had dispersed . . .  but a small number didn’t”.

That is not true.

Repeatedly tear-gassed
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people were trying to disperse when the tear-gas order was given. People were tear-gassed repeatedly, when they were already on the ground. I, along with hundreds of others, was gassed with no escape route to move away.

Minns has repeatedly implied that protesters wanted to wreak havoc with Jewish mourners — without a shred of evidence.

No speaker asked the large crowd to do this; at no stage was violence suggested.

Anti-Herzog protesters may not agree with those welcoming Herzog, but our protest was against war criminal Herzog, the genocidal state he represents and Minns’ anti-freedom of speech and assembly laws.

If Minns and PM Anthony Albanese truly had Jewish Australians in mind after the Bondi terrorist attack, they would know that Jews are not one homogenous whole in their political views on Israel.

Yet the governments decided to go with the Zionists’ demands to invite Herzog and align themselves to the genocidal state of Israel.

Among the 30,000 people who felt they had to come to this protest were anti-Zionist Jewish Australians, who say Minns and Albanese do not speak for them.

Set up to be ‘tinderbox’
Minns said the “circumstances were a tinderbox”. That’s only because he, calculatedly, set it up to be.

His actions provoked hate and division and further tore apart social cohesion. How else do you explain police attacking a group of Muslims praying? He would not stand for Jews or Christians being attacked in the same way.

Minns’ ridiculous appeal to look beyond the viral social media clips of police violence and “bind up the wounds” shows he has completely lost the plot.

Minns should resign. He is not fit for the job and needs to be held to account.

Pip Hinman is a long-time anti-war activist and member of the Socialist Alliance. This article was first published by Green-Left and is republished here with permission.

COMMENTARY: By Chris Sidoti

It’s not too late for Anthony Albanese to withdraw the invitation to the Israeli President, Isaac Herzog. It should be withdrawn for three reasons.

The first is institutional: The President of Israel is a constitutional role that is head of state but not part of the political or military chain of command. The office is similar to that of Australia’s Governor-General, though with somewhat more power.

As head of state, the president embodies and represents the state of Israel.

• READ MORE: Pro-Palestinian group vows protests in 24 cities against Israeli president’s Australia visit
• Jonathan Cook: The criminal elite exposed in the Epstein files are burying the truth about Gaza
• Other Gaza genocide reports

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has found that Israel unlawfully occupies the Palestinian territories, has unlawfully purported to annex parts of the Palestinian territories and unlawfully plants, encourages and maintains unlawful settlements in Palestinian territories.

The court is also trying a case in which Israel is accused of genocide.

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and former Defence Minister, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The same court is investigating other senior Israeli military and political leaders on similar charges.

The UN Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory has found evidence of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal intent by Israeli leaders and recommended their prosecution. Israel is a rogue state whose head of state, its supreme representative, should not be permitted to visit Australia.

The second reason is about Herzog himself: The Commission of Inquiry has found that Herzog has incited genocide. Herzog made the statement that all Palestinians, “an entire nation”, are responsible for the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023.

The commission found that, because as president he is not part of the political or military chain of command, he was not responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. But the crime of incitement to genocide stands outside the chain of command. It can be committed by any individual. The commission recommended that he be investigated and prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.

Herzog denies this and has qualified his statement, saying “there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree” with the actions of Hamas. But the UN commission said it viewed that as an effort “to deflect responsibility for the initial statement”.

He has been a vocal head of state and his words have been taken and repeated by Israeli soldiers. Someone who incites genocide does not satisfy the good character test for entering Australia. On the contrary, a person who incites genocide should be arrested on arrival and tried under Australian law and international law for the crime.

Traditionally, a head of state has a special immunity when visiting another country. However, there is now strong legal argument that this immunity does not apply in relation to atrocity crimes, namely war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Australia should not apply immunity in relation to these crimes.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has previously rejected the commission’s report as “distorted and false”, and Herzog has said his comments have been taken out of context, noting he also said Israeli soldiers would follow international law.

The third reason for withdrawing the invitation relates to us, Australia, and our current situation: The Hanukah massacre on 14 December 2025 has shaken us all. It was an atrocity. Immediately political leaders across the spectrum expressed concerns for “social cohesion”. They said steps were needed to restore social cohesion and called for national unity at a time of crisis.

Eventually a royal commission was appointed for this purpose. And yet it’s hard to imagine a single event at this point in time more likely to harden national division and undermine social cohesion than a visit by the Israeli president. It could be the most divisive state visit to Australia since that of US president Lyndon B Johnson in October 1966 when the Vietnam war was at its height and Australian soldiers were being killed.

What was the Prime Minister thinking when he invited Herzog? In the days after the massacre, he no doubt thought inviting Herzog was a good way to express support for the traumatised Jewish community.

But Herzog is a political leader, not a religious leader. He is divisive in Israel and his visit could be divisive in Australia. If the Prime Minister wanted to support the Jewish community, he would have done better to invite a respected Jewish religious leader.

For reasons of law, ethics and social cohesion, this divisive political visit should be stopped.

The prime minister is widely acclaimed for his willingness to recognise mistakes and change course before it’s too late. He should recognise that he made a terrible mistake, in the emotional, traumatic days after the massacre, in inviting Herzog to visit.

It’s not too late to correct the mistake.

Chris Sidoti is Australian and a Commissioner on the UN Human Rights Council’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. Republished from The Guardian on 5 February 2026 and from Pearls and Irritations today with permission from the editor.

Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, is due to arrive in Australia next Sunday. Why is a foreign Head of State asked to help heal an Australian community after an Australian tragedy?

Australia is being asked to accept something extraordinary as if it were normal.

Who invited Isaac Herzog in the first place, and why did Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese say yes? Presented to us not as diplomacy, not as geopolitics, not as a strategic signal, but as “healing”.

• READ MORE: Aly speaks after refusing to welcome Israeli president’s visit as nationwide protests planned
• Protests planned over Israeli President Herzog’s visit amid genocide accusations
• Other Bondi attack reports

Before we swallow that story, one question needs to be put on the table and left there until someone answers it.

Where does this community’s allegiance align? Australia or Israel?

The visit is being sold as reassurance for Jewish Australians after the Bondi attack last December 14. And yet the reassurance on offer does not come from Australia at all.

It does not come from Australian civic leaders. It does not come from Australian law or Australian institutions. It does not come from Jewish Australian faith figures, nor even from Israeli rabbinical leaders rooted in this country and this community.

It comes instead from a foreign head of state, and that single choice does more than any speech. It quietly rewrites the relationship between citizenship, faith, and state power in Australia.

So ask the obvious questions. Who requested this visit? Who lobbied for it? Who thought it was wise to import a foreign political figure into the emotional aftermath of Bondi? And why did the Prime Minister say yes?

Why did Albanese say yes?
If the purpose is truly pastoral, then the choice makes no sense. The visitor is not a rabbi. Not a spiritual leader. Not an interfaith presence. Not a community counsellor.

He is an Israeli president. A political figure. The constitutional face of a foreign state. Politics, not pastoral care. Power, not solace.

That is the first truth we are being asked not to notice, but the second truth is even more uncomfortable.

For years, Australians have been hammered with a single instruction, delivered with the confidence of a moral rule. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a state. Zionism is a political ideology. Keep them separate. Do not conflate.

If you blur those lines, you will be accused of prejudice, sometimes fairly, sometimes strategically, but always loudly.

That instruction has been enforced through the culture. In media commentary. In parliamentary speeches. In complaints processes. In campaigns to delegitimise critics who would not repeat the approved formula with sufficient reverence.

Fine. If separation is the principle, then separation must hold when it matters most. Especially when grief is raw, and symbols do their sharpest work.

Separation is abandoned
But at the precise moment symbolism matters most, the separation is abandoned. Not by critics. Not by social media hotheads. By the state itself.

At a moment of Australian grief, it is not faith that is summoned. It is the Israeli state.

Its president is elevated as the symbolic consoler. Its presence is framed as essential to the healing of Jewish Australians.

This visit does not merely blur the line between Judaism and Israel. It erases it. Publicly. Institutionally. With government endorsement of inviting a man who, according to Labor Friends of Palestine, doesn’t pass the character test for a visa application:

1. “A person does not pass the character test if … the Minister reasonably suspects that the person has been or is involved in conduct constituting . . .  the crime of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime, a crime involving torture or slavery or a crime that is otherwise of serious international concern; whether or not the person, or another person, has been convicted of an offence constituted by the conduct . . . ”
   
2. “A person does not pass the character test if . . .  in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would . . . incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community . . . ’ 

— Migration Act 1958, Section 501

Judaism vs Israel
You cannot spend decades demanding that Australians keep Judaism and Israel separate, then place an Israeli head of state at the centre of an Australian tragedy and expect the public to maintain the fiction.

You cannot demand absolute separation when critics speak, then collapse that separation when power needs a stage.

That is not an oversight. It is a choice, and it leads to the real debate Australia has been pushed to avoid.

If Jewish Australians are Australians of Jewish faith, then their safety, grief, and belonging are matters for Australia to address. Australian law. Australian civic leadership. Australian institutions.

Or, if faith is the organising principle, rabbis and religious leaders who actually carry pastoral authority. They are not matters for a foreign head of state. Not for an overseas government inserting itself into an Australian tragedy.

The moment a foreign political leader is presented as necessary to healing, the issue stops being faith and becomes allegiance.

And allegiance is not some abstract thing in Australia. It is demanded constantly. Migrant communities are told, again and again, that Australia comes first. That loyalty must be singular. That old countries are left behind. That this nation, its laws, its institutions, and its flag are the sole point of civic attachment.

Except here, the rules bend. Here, the separation we are warned never to breach is breached from above. Here, the state quietly endorses the idea that

Jewish identity in Australia is incomplete without Israeli political authority standing behind it.

Divisive double standard
That is why this visit is divisive. Not because Australians lack compassion. Not because antisemitism is not real. It is real, and it should be crushed without hesitation.

The division comes from the double standard. The division comes from importing a foreign political symbol into Australian grief, then scolding Australians for noticing what that symbol implies.

And once Israel is positioned as the emotional guarantor of Jewish life in Australia, the logic runs further, whether anyone likes it or not.

Why does responsibility stop at speeches? Why does it end in symbolism?

Why is the Australian taxpayer funding security, policing, protective infrastructure, and now a full diplomatic visit, while the implication being advanced is that Jewish safety here is inseparable from the Israeli state?

If Israel is to be treated as the natural guardian, then why is Australia carrying the entire material cost?

The Prime Minister has not merely allowed a diplomatic courtesy. He has endorsed a narrative. One that collapses the very separation it claims to defend.

One that institutionalises the question of allegiance while pretending the question is offensive to ask.

It is not offensive. It is civic. It is democratic. It is necessary. So ask it clearly, without malice and without fear.

Who asked for this visit? Why did the government agree? And what exactly are Australians being told, in symbols rather than words, about where allegiance is supposed to lie?

Because if the answer is Australia, this visit makes no sense.

And if the answer is Israel, Australians deserve honesty about what has just been done in their name.

An invitation from a distant warzone landed in Suva earlier this month. The United States, with Israel’s endorsement, has asked Fiji to send troops to join a proposed International Stabilisation Force in Gaza.

For a nation proud of its United Nations peacekeeping legacy, this whispers of global recognition. Yet, it is a dangerous siren’s call, urging Fiji toward a perilous mission that risks betraying a far more urgent duty at home.

This force would swap impartial peacekeeping for coercive enforcement, serving great-power ambition over principle.

• READ MORE: Gaza peacekeeping deployment – five clear questions Fiji cannot ignore
• United Israel Appeal – Australian charity channels tax free donations direct to IDF soldiers
• Israeli plans for Rafah ‘camp’ in Gaza slammed as continuation of genocide
• Other Gaza reports

Simultaneously, Australia faces its own costly summons, involving a bill of up to US$1 billion, to take up a permanent seat on a controversial “Board of Peace” overseeing Gaza.

With no Palestinian voice and critics decrying it as a “transactional colonial solution”, this board aims not for peace but to sideline the UN, cementing a donor-driven world order.

For Oceania, these parallel invitations present a defining choice: expend finite resources on a flawed project thousands of kilometres away, or assert true regional independence by confronting the clear and present danger eroding our own communities — the transnational crime and drug epidemic.

The Gaza plan is architecturally unsound. The force Fiji is asked to join is not a traditional UN mission deployed with consent; it is a peace enforcement body expected to demilitarise a shattered, hostile territory — a task requiring overwhelming force and unambiguous political will, neither of which is guaranteed.

Designed for dysfunction
The Board of Peace itself is designed for dysfunction, acting as a parallel structure to the UN Security Council where influence is bought, not earned.

For Australia, the billion-dollar question is stark: is this investment in distant geopolitical theatre wiser than addressing the existential crisis in its primary sphere of influence?

This moment mirrors a recent lesson from Europe. When President Trump targeted Greenland, European nations stood collectively on the principle of territorial integrity, forcing a retreat.

Their unity demonstrated that defending sovereignty collectively is the only way smaller states are protected from the predatory actions of larger ones.

For the Pacific, the lesson is clear: our security lies in collective regional resolve, not in subsidising external power plays that undermine the very multilateral rules that protect us.

This dynamic exposes the core hypocrisy of the new transactional order. It invites regions like ours to help manage conflicts born of imperial histories and great-power rivalries, while the same powers show a willingness to disregard the sovereignty of smaller states when it suits their strategic whims.

The Greenland episode is not an isolated fantasy; it is a blueprint. If economic coercion can be levelled against a NATO ally for territory, what guarantees exist for nations in the Pacific, whose strategic waterways and exclusive economic zones are equally coveted?

Enshrines coercion
The Board of Peace model enshrines this very coercion, asking nations to pay for a voice in a system that inherently devalues the sovereign equality that the UN Charter promises.

While Gaza beckons with false prestige, a real war is destroying our social fabric. Fiji’s National Security Strategy identifies the methamphetamine epidemic as a top-tier threat (p. 19). Record drug busts reveal not success, but the staggering scale of invasion.

This crisis fuels violence, overwhelms health systems, corrupts leaders and drains state resources.

To even contemplate diverting military and political focus to Gaza is to declare this domestic war secondary. It begs a foundational question: what is the ultimate purpose of sovereignty if not to deliver safety and security to one’s own people first?

This is the primary duty of any state. When institutions are eroded by cartels while security forces look abroad, that duty has failed.

This crisis is the true test of our regional architecture. The traffickers’ networks are transnational, exploiting fragmented governance and weak maritime surveillance. Their success is a direct result of our collective vulnerability.

To confront them requires a consolidation of sovereignty, not its diversion. Every police officer, intelligence analyst and naval patrol boat committed to a quagmire overseas is a resource stripped from guarding our own shores.

Diplomatic minefield
The political capital spent navigating the diplomatic minefield of Gaza is capital not spent rallying the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) to adopt a wartime footing against a clear, shared enemy. We cannot allow the spectre of one crisis to blind us to the substance of another.

The strategic response lies not in the Middle East, but in our own waters. Australia must make up its mind. That US$1 billion — a sum that could transform regional security — could and should be the cornerstone of a bold, coordinated campaign against the drug crisis, championed through the Forum.

I am not arguing for a return to failed, militarised prohibition. I propose a holistic, regional compact built on:

• Integrated policing: A permanent regional Task Force with real-time intelligence fusion to disrupt trafficking syndicates and their finances;
• Community resilience: Co-designed programs creating economic alternatives for youth and supporting rehabilitation to erode the cartels’ demand; and
• Institutional integrity: Major initiatives to shield judiciaries and border services from corruption, ensuring the rule of law is an asset.

In a world of transactional great-power politics, Australia must consciously encircle the Pasifika. This means investing politically and financially in the PIF, respecting its priorities and heeding its calls.

Addressing this crisis would be an act of enlightened self-preservation for Australia, and a lifeline for the region. The model exists in our history: the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, known as RAMSI, succeeded because it blended Australian resources with Pasifika personnel and local knowledge. We must summon that spirit again for a more complex fight.

The invitations to Gaza are a test of strategic identity. For Fiji, it is a test of resisting the seductive glare of distant drama for the sober duty of safeguarding the homeland.

Choice for Australia
For Australia, it is a choice: to fund a board that undermines global order or to invest in a sovereign regional compact against a shared existential threat.

True leadership is demonstrated not by saying a reflexive “yes” to powerful patrons, but by having the wisdom to say “no” when their wishes conflict with fundamental principles of multilateralism and life-and-death needs at home.

Europe showed that collective defence of sovereignty is how smaller states secure their future. For the Pasifika, our path to security and independence does not run through the rubble of Gaza. It runs through the strengthened, cooperative spirit of our own Blue Continent.

Choosing this closer, harder path is the mark of a region that truly knows where it belongs. It is the only choice that builds a legacy of genuine security, leaving our children a future defined not by the crises we attended elsewhere, but by the community we fortified here.

Ro Naulu Mataitini is a Fijian high chief of Rewa Province. A founding member of the People’s Alliance Party, he now serves as an apolitical member of Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs and is the chairman of Rewa Provincial Holdings Company Limited. He is a retired security executive with the United Nations. This article appeared first on the Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre at the Australian National University and is republished under Creative Commons.

Australia’s decision to host Israeli President Isaac Herzog next month has sparked criticism and a wave of planned protests, as Israel remains under international investigation over its war in Gaza, reports One Path Network.

Legal cases are underway at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), examining allegations of war crimes and possible genocide in the war on Gaza.

Critics say welcoming Israel’s President on February 9-12 during these investigations sends the wrong message and risks weakening Australia’s claim that it supports international law and human rights.

• READ MORE: Why the looming visit by Israel’s president may backfire on Anthony Albanese
• ‘Finger on the trigger’: Iran warns of quick retaliation after US threats
• Pacific at risky crossroads – Gaza vs the urgent drug crisis at our door
• Other Gaza genocide reports

The backlash is growing because senior Israeli leaders could face arrest if they travel to some countries that recognise international courts, making Australia’s invitation appear out of step with global accountability efforts.

Herzog’s past comments suggesting Gaza’s population shares responsibility for the war have also drawn condemnation from human rights groups.

The visit also coincides with the introduction of new hate crime laws in Australia, a timing that has raised further concern among civil liberties advocates.

At home, as protests over Gaza are restricted and public anger rises, many are questioning whether the government is placing political alliances above justice, human rights, and the right to speak out.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally bowed to pressure from the Murdoch News Corp’s relentless media campaign and advocacy by political critics and victim’s families to announce a royal commission of inquiry into “antisemitism and social cohesion”.

The commission advocates were seeking his political downfall over last month’s Bondi Beach massacre that killed 15 people at a Jewish religious holiday of Hanukkah with complaints that he had “not done enough” against antisemitism.

One of the two allegedly ISIS-aligned terrorist gunmen was also killed at the scene of the tragedy and the other was wounded and arrested. He has been charged with 59 counts, including 15 charges of murder and committing a terrorist act.

• READ MORE: What is a royal commission? Could one into the Bondi attack create meaningful change?
• Australian PM backflips over royal commission into the Bondi shootings
• Israel’s propaganda machine endangers every Jew on the planet — including me —  Antony Loewenstein
• Mapping selective media coverage of the post-massacre discourse

Albanese held a press conference in Canberra yesterday and confirmed that former High Court justice Virginia Bell would lead the national inquiry.

While the royal commission has been mostly welcomed by survivors, victims’ families and Jewish community groups that have been lobbying for a national inquiry, some advocacy organisations have criticised the time it has taken before being called.

However, even more serious criticisms have emerged over the terms of reference and a widespread belief that the real objective is to mute criticism of Israel and its brutal policies of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Award-winning journalist and Lamestream co-host Osman Faruqi, for example, argues “this royal commission won’t give us answers to Bondi — it’s set up to protect Israel.”

“The terms of reference for the Royal Commission should put aside any doubt: this is an inquiry designed to castigate critics of Israel.”

In the media release yesterday that Albanese, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland confirmed the four main areas to be covered, they stated:

• Tackling antisemitism by investigating the nature and prevalence of antisemitism in institutions and society, and its key drivers in Australia, including ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation.
• Making recommendations that will assist law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to tackle antisemitism, including through improvements to guidance and training within law enforcement, border control, immigration, and security agencies to respond to antisemitic conduct.
• Examining the circumstances surrounding the antisemitic Bondi terrorist attack on December 14, 2025.
• Making any other recommendations arising out of the inquiry for strengthening social cohesion in Australia and countering the spread of ideologically and religiously motivated extremism in Australia.

Missing from the terms of reference is anything related to the rise of Islamophobia in Australia. The brief is far too narrowly framed compared with what many had hoped for.

The Australian Government has announced the establishment of a Royal Commission following the antisemitic Bondi terror attack. This devastating event deeply affected the victims, their families, the Jewish community, first responders and the broader Australian public.

The Royal… pic.twitter.com/kFQbrJh5IZ

— Australian Human Rights Commission (@AusHumanRights) January 9, 2026

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had cynically jumped in within hours of the Bondi shootings to lambast Albanese and connect the massacre to the massive protests against the Gaza genocide — including 300,000 on the Sydney Harbour Bridge — even though there was no evidence of this.

He blamed the deadly Bondi attack on Albanese, accusing the Australian prime minister of pouring “fuel on the antisemitism fire” by recognising a Palestinian state. (The State of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign nation by 157 UN member states, representing 81 percent of membership).

“You took no action. You let the disease spread and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today,” said Netanyahu, who is wanted on an International Criminal Court (ICJ) warrant to answer charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israeli authorities have a pattern of blaming criticism of the Israeli government and military’s over its genocidal actions in Gaza for fuelling antisemitism.

Globally popular phrases such as ‘Globalise the intifada’, ‘From the river to the sea Palestine will be free’, and ‘Death to the IDF’ have frequently been targeted by Israeli officials and lobbyists seeking to shield their government’s atrocities.

Jewish-Australian author and journalist Antony Loewenstein, who wrote the 2023 bestselling book The Palestine Laboratory with powerful insights into Israel’s cruel military machine of repression against Palestinians, has been scathing in his television and newspaper commentaries, accusing Tel Aviv of “outrageous lies” that endangered Jews worldwide.

“Within hours of the horrific, antisemitic attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney [last] month, the Israeli government and its proxies started pushing false narratives, outright lies and racism to a grieving nation,” he wrote in Middle East Eye.

“Netanyahu and senior Israeli ministers blamed an Australian government that ‘normalised boycotts against Jews’, recognised the state of Palestine this year, and refused to shut down pro-Palestine marches.

“Former Israeli government spokesperson Eylon Levy posted on X (formerly Twitter): ‘Jews around the world live in fear because we are being hunted. October 7 inspired millions around the world and launched a global war against Jews.’

“There was no logic or sense to this verbal onslaught at a time when the dead bodies were still warm on Bondi Beach. At that point, and still now, there’s no clear picture of the motives of the father and son accused in the slaughter of mostly Jews who had gathered to mark the first night of Hanukkah, although a link to Islamic State has been explored.

“It was an outrageous intervention from a disgraced Israeli government accused of committing genocide in Gaza — and yet too many in the Australian and global media treated Netanyahu and his cronies as credible commentators, deferring to their supposed wisdom.”

“Israel’s propaganda machine endangers every Jew on the planet – including me”

Opinion by Anthony Loewenstein https://t.co/eQP0rdHB5I

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) December 23, 2025

Indeed, what has been shocking for this New Zealand journalist holidaying in Australia for the past month — in Adelaide, South Australia — is the blatant way Israel has been  allowed to “shape” the public discourse and in the media. Remember, Netanyahu himself, has resisted a full Israeli inquiry into the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack, including his own alleged security failings, for more than two years.

One of the most recent cudgels being used to beat the Albanese Labor government was an open letter signed by 100+ “business leaders” supporting the royal commission call.

But what they wanted was a probe into the alleged “antisemitism” in Australia. What about the other forms of racism and harassment such an Islamophobia?

Signatories included billionaire businessman James Packer, News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller, and a whole bunch of banking and industry executives.

Mainstream media selective outrage.@Mondoweiss pic.twitter.com/9lgpNcpE1y

— Carlos Latuff (@LatuffCartoons) December 24, 2025

Editorials and cartoons in The Australian and other Murdoch media, such as The Advertiser in Adelaide, parroted each other in calling on Albanese to “serve the nation, not yourself.”

For almost four weeks none of the countless pages of articles canvassed other perspectives; to gain some balance it was necessary to turn to credible independent sources on social media. The job of the media is to serve the public interest, not themselves.

Take “serial inventor and entrepreneur” Jaqueline Outram posting on X for a counter view.

“More than 100 ‘business leaders’ signed a letter?

“Whoop-de-frickin-doo.

“Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched and will continue to march against genocide.

“Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.

“Pfft …”

She added in a separate post, “Stop treating business leaders like they’re some kind of moral authority . . . Nobody cares what they think.”

More than 100 “business leaders” signed a letter?

Really? More than 100? Signed a letter?

Whoop-de-frickin-doo.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians marched, and will continue to march, against genocide.

Some capitalist opportunists signed a letter.

Pfft…#FreePalestine

— Jaqueline Outram (@JaquelineOutram) January 2, 2026

Commenting on the royal commission decision, prominent Brisbane journalist and media educator Kasun Ubayasiri questioned the “privileged” status of one section of the multicultural Australian society.

“So the government announces a royal commission on antisemitism when we have never had a Racism Royal Commission. Why the privileged status for one type of racism over others?”

The Jewish community in Australia numbers about 117,000 in a total population of 28  million – the ninth largest globally, and the biggest in the Indo-Pacific region. The Muslim community is about 815,000.

“More worryingly, the royal commission terms of reference seem problematic,” added Ubayasiri. “It makes no real attempt to untangle the morally repugnant antisemitism from anti-Zionism.

“The latter is easily defendable especially in its current format. The terms of reference particularly note the acceptance of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism as a working definition, suggesting this distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is unlikely to be made by the royal commission.

“IHRA is already widely seen as chilling legitimate criticism of Israel. Arguably allowing the royal commission to draft its own definitional framing would have made more sense.”

Associate Professor Joseph Fernandez, a media law scholar and journalist, added: “Be very afraid of this exercise being hijacked to produce outcomes that will serve narrow and dubious interests — at the expense of the public interest generally, in a sound democracy.”

Apart from the royal commission issue, controversy has also blown up over an invitation by Albanese to the Israeli President, Isaac “Bougie” Herzog, the first head of state born in Israel since its founding in 1948, to make an official visit. Mounting calls are being made to drop the invite over Herzog’s implication in incitement to genocide.

The move was welcomed by Jewish community groups and February was touted for a likely date. However, his visit would be certain to attract protests from pro-Palestinian groups condemning Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which has killed at least 71,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children.

Such a trip would require a heavy security commitment and the Labor Friends of Palestine, a party group supporting the creation of a Palestinian state, has appealed to Albanese to call off the invitation.

Other pro-Palestinian groups have called for an investigation into allegations of incitement to genocide.

Also, at least 50 writers and poets are reported to be withdrawing from the Adelaide Writers Festival — Australia’s largest free literary festival — on February 28-March 5 in protest over a cancellation of an invitation to a Palestinian author, lawyer and advocate, citing the Bondi massacre as the reason.

Miles Franklin winners Michelle de Kretser and Melissa Lucashenko declared they would boycott the event in protest over featured Randa Abdel-Fattah being cancelled.

Others, including journalism professor and former foreign correspondent Peter Greste who was jailed by the Egyptian government for the “crime of being a journalist”, have also pulled out.

“We do not help social cohesion by silencing voices,” Greste posted on X.

My statement in response to the racist decision to cancel me from Adelaide Writers’ Week. https://t.co/HktwrcWveT pic.twitter.com/EDqTOteA1S

— Randa Abdel-Fattah (@RandaAFattah) January 8, 2026

Dr Abdel-Fattah accused the Adelaide festival board of “blatant and shameless” anti-Palestinian racism and censorship, adding that the attempt to associate her with the Bondi massacre was “despicable”.

“The Adelaide Writers Festival Board has stripped me of my humanity and agency, reducing me to an object onto which others can project their racist fears and smears.”

She had been expected to discuss her novel Discipline, which raises ethical issues about whose voices are allowed to be heard.

COMMENTARY: By Duncan Graham

Under-reported in the Australian and New Zealand media, Indonesia has been gripped by protests this year, some of them violent.

The protests have been over grievances ranging from cuts to the national budget and a proposed new law expanding the role of the military in political affairs, President Prabowo Subianto’s disastrous free school meals programme, and politicians receiving a $3000 housing allowance.

More recently, further anger against the President has been fuelled by his moves to make corrupt former dictator Soeharto (also Prabowo’s former father-in-law) a “national hero“.

• READ MORE: Blue Pacific’s unfinished business – West Papua and regional integrity
• Other West Papua reports

Ignoring both his present travails, as well as his history of historical human rights abuses (that saw him exiled from Indonesia for years), Prabowo has been walking the 27,500-tonne HMAS Canberra, the fleet flagship of the Royal Australian Navy, along with PM Anthony Albanese.

The location was multipurpose: It showed off Australia’s naval hardware and reinforced the signing of a thin “upgraded security treaty” between unequals. Australia’s land mass is four times larger, but there are 11 Indonesians to every one Aussie.

Ignoring the past
Although Canberra’s flight deck was designed for helicopters, the crew found a desk for the leaders to lean on as they scribbled their names. The location also served to keep away disrespectful Australian journalists asking about Prabowo’s past, an issue their Jakarta colleagues rarely raise for fear of being banned.

Contrast this one-day dash with the relaxed three-day 2018 visit by Jokowi and his wife Iriana when Malcolm Turnbull was PM. The two men strolled through the Botanical Gardens and seemed to enjoy the ambience. The President was mobbed by Indonesian admirers.

This month, Prabowo and Albanese smiled for the few allowed cameras, but there was no feeling that this was “fair dinkum”. Indonesia said the trip was “also a form of reciprocation for Prime Minister Albanese’s trip to Jakarta last May,” another one-day come n’go chore.

Analysing the treaty needs some mental athleticism and linguistic skills because the Republic likes to call itself part of a “non-aligned movement”, meaning it doesn’t couple itself to any other world power.

The policy was developed in the 1940s after the new nation had freed itself from the colonial Netherlands and rejected US and Russian suitors.

It’s now a cliché — “sailing between two reefs” and “a friend of all and enemy of none”. Two years ago, former Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi explained:

“Indonesia refuses to see the Indo-Pacific fall victim to geopolitical confrontation. …This is where Indonesia’s independent and active foreign policy becomes relevant. For almost eight decades, these principles have been a compass for Indonesia in interacting with other nations.

“…(it’s) independent and active foreign policy is not a neutral policy; it is one that does not align with the superpowers nor does it bind the country to any military pact.”

Pact or treaty?
Is a “pact” a “treaty”? For most of us, the terms are synonyms; to the word-twisting pollies, they’re whatever the user wants them to mean.

We do not know the new “security treaty” details although the ABC speculated it meant there will be “leader and ministerial consultations on matters of common security, to develop cooperation, and to consult each other in the case of threats and consider individual or joint measures” and “share information on matters that would be important for Australia’s security, and vice-versa.”

Much of the  “analysis” came from Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s media statement, so no revelations here.

What does it really mean? Not much from a close read of  Albanese’s interpretation: ”If either or both countries’ security is threatened,

to consult and consider what measures may be taken either individually or jointly to deal with those threats.”

Careful readers will spot the elastic “consult and consider”. If this were on a highway sign warning of hazards ahead, few would ease up on the pedal.

Whence commeth the threat?  In the minds of the rigid right, that would be China — the nation that both Indonesia and Australia rely on for trade.

Indonesia’s militaristic president Prabowo Subianto is seizing books which undermine his political agenda. Duncan Graham #indonesia https://t.co/akvGdOqC9d

— Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz) October 19, 2025

Keating and Soeharto
The last “security treaty” to be signed was between PM Paul Keating and Soeharto in 1995. Penny Wong said the new document is “modelled closely” on the old deal.

The Keating document went into the shredder when paramilitary militia and Indonesian troops ravaged East Timor in 1999, and Australia took the side of the wee state and its independence fighters.

Would Australia do the same for the guerrillas in West Papua if we knew what was happening in the mountains and jungles next door? We do not because the province is closed to journos, and it seems both governments are at ease with the secrecy. The main protests come from NGOs, particularly those in New Zealand.

Foreign Minister Wong added that “the Treaty will reflect the close friendship, partnership and deep trust between Australia and Indonesia”.

Sorry, Senator, that’s fiction. Another awkward fact: Indonesians and Australians distrust each other, according to polls run by the Lowy Institute. “Over the course of 19 years . . . attitudes towards Indonesia have been — at best — lukewarm.

And at worst, they betray a lurking suspicion.

These feelings will remain until we get serious about telling our stories and listening to theirs, with both parties consistently striving to understand and respect the other. “Security treaties” involving weapons, destruction and killings are not the best foundations for friendship between neighbours.

Future documents should be signed in Sydney’s The Domain.

The signing of the Papua New Guinea-Australia Mutual Defence Treaty — officially known as the Pukpuk Treaty — marks a defining moment in the modern Pacific order.

Framed as a “historic milestone”, the pact re-casts security cooperation between Port Moresby and Canberra while stirring deeper debates about sovereignty, dependency, and the shifting balance of power in the region.

At a joint press conference in Canberra, PNG Prime Minister James Marape called the treaty “a product of geography, not geopolitics”, emphasising the shared neighbourhood and history binding both nations.

• READ MORE: Papua New Guinea may sit out potential conflict between Australia and China despite Pukpuk defence treaty

“This Treaty was not conceived out of geopolitics or any other reason, but out of geography, history, and the enduring reality of our shared neighbourhood,” Marape said.

Described as “two houses with one fence,” the Pukpuk Treaty cements Australia as PNG’s “security partner of choice.” It encompasses training, intelligence, disaster relief, and maritime cooperation while pledging full respect for sovereignty.

“Papua New Guinea made a strategic and conscious choice – Australia is our security partner of choice. This choice was made not out of pressure or convenience, but from the heart and soul of our coexistence as neighbours,” Marape said.

For Canberra, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cast the accord as an extension of “family ties” – a reaffirmation that Australia “will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with PNG to ensure a peaceful and secure Pacific family.”

Intensifying competition
It comes amid intensifying competition for influence across the Pacific, where security and sport now intersect in Canberra’s broader regional strategy.

The Treaty promises to bolster the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) through joint training, infrastructure upgrades, and enhanced maritime surveillance. Marape conceded that the country’s forces have long struggled with under-resourcing.

“The reality is that our Defence Force needs enhanced capacity to defend our sovereign territorial integrity. This Treaty will help us build that capacity – through shared resources, intelligence, technology, and training,” he said.

Yet, retired Major-General Jerry Singirok, former PNGDF commander, has urged caution.

“Signing a Defence Pact with Australia for the purposes of strengthening our military capacity and capabilities is most welcomed, but an Act of Parliament must give legal effect to whatever military activities a foreign country intends,” Singirok said in a statement.

He warned that Sections 202 and 206 of PNG’s Constitution already define the Defence Force’s role and foreign cooperation limits, stressing that any new arrangement must pass parliamentary scrutiny to avoid infringing sovereignty.

The sovereignty debate
Singirok’s warning reflects a broader unease in Port Moresby — that the Pukpuk Treaty could re-entrench post-colonial dependency. He described the PNGDF as “retarded and stagnated”, spending just 0.38 percent of GDP on defence, with limited capacity to patrol its vast land and maritime borders.

“In essence, PNG is in the process of offloading its sovereign responsibilities to protect its national interest and sovereign protection to Australia to fill the gaps and carry,” he wrote.

“This move, while from face value appeals, has serious consequences from dependency to strategic synergy and blatant disregard to sovereignty at the expense of Australia.”

Former leaders, including Sir Warren Dutton, have been even more blunt: “If our Defence Force is trained, funded, and deployed under Australian priorities, then whose sovereignty are we defending? Ours — or theirs?”

Canberra views the NRL deal not simply as a sporting venture but as “soft power in action” — embedding Australian culture and visibility across the Pacific through a sport already seen as a regional passion.

Marape called it “another platform of shared identity” between PNG and Australia, aligning with the spirit of the Pukpuk Treaty: partnership through shared interests.

However, critics argue the twin announcements — a defence pact and an NRL team — reveal a coordinated Australian effort to strengthen influence at multiple levels: security, economy, and society.

The US factor and overall strategy
The Pukpuk Treaty follows last year’s Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) signed between Papua New Guinea and the United States, which grants US forces access to key PNG military facilities, including Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island.

That deal drew domestic protests over transparency and the perception of external control.

The Marape government insisted the arrangement respected PNG’s sovereignty, but combined with the new Australian treaty, it positions the country at the centre of a US-led security network stretching from Hawai’i to Canberra.

Analysts say the two pacts complement each other — with the US providing strategic hardware and global deterrence, and Australia delivering regional training and operational partnership.

Together, they represent a deepening of what one defence analyst called “the Pacific’s most consequential alignment since independence”.

PNG’s deepening security ties with the United States also appear to have shaped its diplomatic posture in the Middle East.

As part of its broader alignment with Washington, PNG in September 2023 opened an embassy in Jerusalem — becoming one of only a handful of states to do so, and signalling strong support for Israel.

In recent UN votes on Gaza, PNG has repeatedly voted against ceasefire resolutions, siding with Israel and the US. Some analysts link this to evangelical Christian influence in PNG’s politics and to the strategic expectation of favour with major powers.

China has been one of PNG’s longest and most consistent diplomatic partners since formal relations began in 1976.

China’s role in Papua New Guinea is not limited to diplomatic signalling — it remains a major provider of loans, grants and infrastructure projects across the country, even as the strategic winds shift. Chinese state-owned enterprises and development funds have backed highways, power plants, courts, telecoms and port facilities in PNG.

In recent years, PNG has signed onto China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and observers count at least 40 Chinese SOEs currently operating in Papua New Guinea, many tied to mining, construction, and trade projects.

While Marape has repeatedly said PNG “welcomes all partners,” the growing web of Western defence agreements has clearly shifted regional dynamics. China views the Pukpuk Treaty as another signal of Canberra and Washington’s determination to counter its influence in the Pacific — even as Port Moresby maintains that its foreign policy is one of “friends to all, enemies to none”.

A balancing act
For Marape, the Treaty is not about choosing sides but strengthening capacity through trust.

“Our cooperation is built on mutual respect, not dominance; on trust, not imposition. Australia never imposed this on us – this was our proposal, and we thank them for walking with us as equal partners,” he said.

He stressed that parliamentary ratification under Section 117 of the Constitution will ensure accountability.

“This is a fireplace conversation between neighbours – Papua New Guinea and Australia. We share this part of the earth forever, and together we will safeguard it for the generations to come,” he added.

The road ahead
Named after the Tok Pisin word for crocodile — pukpuk, a symbol of endurance and guardianship — the Treaty embodies both trust and caution. Its success will depend on transparency, parliamentary oversight, and a shared understanding of what “mutual defence” means in practice.

As PNG moves to ratify the agreement, it stands at a delicate crossroads — between empowerment and dependency, regional cooperation and strategic competition.

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

An Australian solidarity group for West Papuan self-determination has called on Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to raise the human rights crisis in the Melanesian region with the Indonesian president this week.

Albanese is visiting Indonesia for two days from tomorrow.

AWPA has written a letter to Albanese making the appeal for him to raise the issue with President Prabowo Subianto.

• READ MORE: ‘Fighting more frequent now’ – researcher warns of escalating West Papua conflict
• Indonesia’s Pacific manoeuvres – money, military and silencing West Papua
• Indonesia gifts $12 million grant to Fiji
• Other West Papua reports

“The Australian people care about human rights and, in light of the ongoing abuses in West Papua, we are urging Prime Minister Albanese to raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President during his visit to Jakarta,” said Joe Collins of AWPA.

He said the solidarity group was urging Albanese to support the West Papuan people by encouraging the Indonesian government to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua to investigate the human rights situation in the territory.

The West Papuan people have been calling for such a visit for years.

Concerned over military ties
“We are also concerned about the close ties between the ADF [Australian Defence Force] and the Indonesian military,” Collins said.

“We believe that the ADF should be distancing itself from the Indonesian military while there are ongoing human rights abuses in West Papua, not increasing ties with the Indonesian security forces as is the case at present.”

Collins said that the group understood that it was in the interest of the Australian government to have good relations with Indonesia, “but good relations should not be at the expense of the West Papuan people”.

“The West Papuan people are not going to give up their struggle for self-determination. It’s an issue that is not going away,” Collins added.

Among the many lessons to be learnt by Australia’s defeated Liberal-National coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation.

Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?

The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.

• READ MORE: Australia ‘Islamic Caliphate’? Dark money and the 11th hour election propaganda blitzkrieg
• Other Australian federal election reports

Last Thursday, in her eponymous programme on Sky News Australia, Markson said:

For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.

Sharri Markson issues own Dutton endorsement as ACM says ‘Australia is Tanya Plibersek’https://t.co/UYh0xKeXPR

— amanda meade (@meadea) May 2, 2025

After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sun admonishing voters:

No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed.

Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies.

That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.

The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the coalition in their election eve editorials.

Repudiation of minor culture war
The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Peter Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error.

The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.

But they were either voting for the coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the coalition desperately needed to keep onside — the moderates who already felt disappointed by the coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.

Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the coalition no longer represented their values.

Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message.

But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.

What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing — which voters desperately wanted to hear — were little more than sound bites.

Steered clear of nuclear sites
This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.

Dutton has come out this morning to say his biggest regret was not attending more petrol stations. #auspol #ausvotes #qanda #abc730 pic.twitter.com/sbd6GWpElR

— C h r i s @chrishehim.bsky.social (@ChrisHeHim1) May 4, 2025

The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.

On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some coalition supporters might assume.

He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.

Instead, the coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.

Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.

If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.

The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief-of-staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.

Dr Matthew Ricketson is professor of communication, Deakin University and Andrew Dodd  is professor of journalism and director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

To be Jewish does not mean an automatic identification with the rogue state of Israel. Nor does it mean that Jews are automatically threatened by criticism of Israel, yet our media and Labor and Liberal politicians would have you believe this is the case.

We are seeing a debate in Australia about the so-called rise of antisemitism which includes rally chants for Gaza at a time when we are witnessing the most horrific Israeli genocide of Palestinians in which our government is complicit.

Jewish peak bodies here and internationally have continually linked their identity to that of Israel.

• READ MORE: Attorney-General Dreyfus’ trip to Israel makes a mockery of Labor’s foreign policy
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

Why? Can generations of Jews in this country still believe that Israel represents anything like the myths that were perpetrated at its inception?

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Zionist Federation of Australia, the Jewish Board of Deputies and others, all staunchly defend this apartheid state that is accused of plausible genocide by the UN International Court of Justice and confirmed by dozens of human rights and legal NGOs, UN Rapporteurs, medical organisations and holocaust scholars.

Israel’s Prime Minister and former Defence Minister have been charged as war criminals by the International Criminal Court and must be arrested and tried in the Hague, yet Australia maintains a cosy relationship with Israel and our media dutifully repeats its outright lies verbatim.

Conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism has been the main focus of the Israeli state and its defenders for decades. With the emergence of the Palestinian-led Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement in 2005, Israel’s narrative was countered, leading to a persistent Israeli directed campaign to link BDS with antisemitism.

Colonial, occupying power
BDS focuses on the actions of Israel as a colonial, occupying power violating international law against the indigenous people of Palestine. It is anti-racist and human rights-centred.

On December 11, we heard Prime Minister Albanese at the Jewish Museum in Sydney combining his support for Jewish people with his ongoing condemnation and active campaigning against BDS.

He referred to the Marrickville Council BDS motion, (which I proposed back in 2010 along with my Greens councillor colleague, Marika Kontellis), and again repeated the bald-faced mistruths that were spread back then about BDS and the intent and focus of the Marrickville motion.

“I was part of a campaign against BDS in my own local government area. At the time I argued that if you start targeting businesses because they happen to be owned by Jewish people, you’ll end up with the Star of David above shops.

“And that ended in World War II, during the Holocaust, with six million lives lost, murdered. We need an end to antisemitism.”

In one sentence we see Albanese’s extremely offensive equation of the horror of the Holocaust and antisemitism, directly linked to BDS. Why would a prime minister and local federal member deliberately mischaracterise BDS, given the movement has always been clear that its targets are global companies and corporations that are complicit in the Israeli state’s apartheid and genocidal actions, as well as Israeli government bodies and arms companies?

Tonight on @SystemUpdate_, live at 7pm ET:

Amidst intense hysteria over January 6, Congress certifies the Electoral College victory of “Hitler”

Plus: the latest serious attacks on free speech rights to protect Israel: from NY State to Australia:https://t.co/iyckmya5UG

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 6, 2025

The latest serious attacks on free speech rights to protect Israel — the targeting of prominent Australian broadcaster @MaryKostakidis   Video: Glenn Greenwald

What is in it for Albanese, Wong, Plibersek or Dutton and all of the politicians back in 2010/2011 who appeared to think there was political advantage in scapegoating BDS by jumping on the frenzied anti-BDS campaign?

Fawning support for Israel
It was obvious back then, as it is now, that their fawning support for the rogue Israeli state knows no bounds. Lock step in line with the United States outlier position, Australia has maintained its repugnant inaction in the face of 15 months of Israel’s genocide in Gaza despite continued condemnation by the UN and a majority of states.

But Australia has, however, appointed a public supporter of Zionism and the Israeli state, as its special envoy on antisemitism.

The inaction by all states since 1948 to apply sanctions has gifted Israel the impunity that’s led to its industrial scale slaughter of innocents in Gaza and its continuing violence and killing of civilians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. All governments must bear responsibility for this.

Albanese has been described as an opportunist, liar and a bully.

At the time of the Marrickville BDS, he used the situation to attempt to discredit the Greens who were challenging the incumbent Labor state member, Carmel Tebbutt (his former wife). He fanned the national media frenzy that was fed by pro-Israel Jewish lobbyists who were the long-time custodians of the “reputation” of Israel.

Marrickville Council and the Greens were characterised as antisemites who would be pulling Jewish books out of the local library.

This insanity was akin to what is happening today. The legitimate opposition to the worst, most egregious, brutality of the Israeli state has somehow been cleverly morphed into so-called expressions of antisemitism.

Absurd claims on protest
In the media conference of December 11, Albanese also made absurd claims that the peaceful 24-hour protest outside his electorate office in Marrickville was displaying Hamas symbols in a vile attempt to discredit the constituents he had refused to meet for more than eight months.

He and his colleagues in Canberra continue to appease the powerful Israel lobby at the expense of our rights and the rights and visibility of the whole Palestinian population here and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories who are now literally on death row.

Back then, we heard locally that he and the party had bullied the four Labor councillors to vote to rescind the Marrickville BDS motion that they had all previously wholeheartedly supported. Some months earlier these same councillors had also supported a motion condemning the latest Israeli strike against Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

The meaning of BDS was no secret to them — they appreciated that it was important for a council to check its ethical purchasing guidelines to ensure that it was not supporting companies that were in violation of international human rights law by operating in the illegal Israeli settlements or by providing technology or services that maintained Israel’s apartheid and dispossession of Palestinians.

They knew then, as we know now, that this is not antisemitic. They knew then that no Jewish businesses per se were the target of this peaceful civil rights movement. And they knew then that the Labor Party was lying for political gain.

Now, as for far too many decades, political parties in power in this country have failed Palestinians for political gain and at the behest of Israel lobby groups which dare to speak on behalf of anti-Zionist Jews like me.

Despite all the gratuitous rhetoric, these politicians have failed to uphold the basic precepts of human rights law — rights they regularly give lip service to, but rights they will never defend by taking the action required of them as signatories to numerous UN conventions.

Australia must sanction Israel
To act with humanity and to act as required by international law, Australia must sanction and end all economic and military ties with the Israeli state.

We must expel the Israeli ambassador and bring our ambassador back and we must prosecute any Australian citizen or resident who has joined the IDF to kill Palestinians. We must also support Palestinian refugees and take all action necessary to assist those in Gaza for as long as it takes.

But as we have seen so clearly this year, most governments have not acted to pressure Israel to end its barbaric colonial project. To protest as allies and to call out the hypocrisy of governments and politicians that speak of a rules-based order while enabling a state that has continually breached fundamental human rights laws, is to be called antisemitic.

The pressure applied to governments, universities and the like in recent years to adopt the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism is precisely because it equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

It’s the perfect tool for shutting down condemnation of Israel’s grave human rights violations. We’ve seen some universities and parliaments endorse it in deference to this pressure, despite the serious flaws that have been identified, including from Jewish Israeli experts.

Now more than ever BDS is imperative.

BDS campaigns will work to isolate Israel as it should be isolated until it complies with international law. Multinational companies are increasingly loath to be associated with this terror state.

Major pension funds are divesting from companies that are complicit in Israel’s human rights violations and local councils, unions and universities are taking steps to ensure they divest from any partnerships or investments that would make them part of the chain of complicity and liable for prosecution by the International Court of Justice as enabling Israel’s genocide.

The facts are indisputable. Australia’s complicity with Israel’s genocide and colonisation of Palestine can be countered by individuals, churches, unions, councils and students taking immediate and urgent BDS action.

Do not wait for Labor or Liberal politicians in this country to act, as they are doing their best to shut us down and to appease Israel. Their complicity will never be forgotten.

Cathy Peters is a former Greens councillor on the Marrickville Council from 2008-2011 and the co-founder of BDS Australia. She worked as a radio producer and executive producer for the ABC for 30 years making some documentaries on the Israeli occupation. She is Jewish and her grandparents and other relatives perished in the Holocaust. She has travelled to Gaza and throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories on a number of occasions and is a long-time advocate for Palestinian rights and justice. First published in the Australia social policy journal Pearls and Irritations and republished with permission.

In the early hours of ANZAC Day, aerial photographs captured an impressive gathering of Australians and Papua New Guineans at Isurava in the Northern (Oro) Province.

The solemn dawn service yesterday was held at a site steeped in history, where some of the fiercest battles of World War II unfolded along the Kokoda Trail in 1942.

The ceremony, marked by deep reflection and remembrance, was attended by notable dignitaries including Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape.

The presence of both leaders underscored the enduring camaraderie and shared history between the two nations, as participants paid homage to the valour and sacrifices of those who fought on these grounds.

This year’s ANZAC Day observances at Isurava not only commemorated the past but also reinforced the bonds of friendship and mutual respect that continue to flourish between Australia and Papua New Guinea.

Marape commends Biage people over WWII

Prime Minister James Marape commended the Biage people of Northern Province for the significant role they played in World War II until today.

He said this at an emotional ANZAC Day dawn service at Isurava along the Kokoda Trail attended by the Biage people, Australian Prime Minister Albanese, Northern Governor Garry Juffa, Australian High Commissioner John Feakes, members of the Australian and Papua New Guinea defence forces, Australian and PNG officials, alongside 200 Australian trekkers making a pilgrimage and their porters.

The dawn service was the highlight of a two-day trek by the two prime ministers from Kokoda to Isurava and was the first time ever for the Biage people to see two prime ministers together at the same time.

Prime Minister Marape said the Biage people were a peaceful people forced into a war that was not their doing and greatly assisted Australia forces during the dark days of WWII.

Governor Juffa also spoke about the remarkable role of the Biage people, who he said formed the bulk of the “Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels”, during WWII.

The Biage people continue to show their peacefulness and hospitality by being guides and porters in the lucrative Kokoda trekking industry, PNG’s biggest tourism product.

Republished with permission.

The West Papuan resistance OPM leader has condemned Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and US President Joe Biden, accusing their countries of “six decades of treachery” over Papuan independence.

The open letter was released today by OPM chairman Jeffrey P Bomanak on the eve of ANZAC Day 2024.

Praising the courage and determination of Papuans against the Japanese Imperial Forces in World War Two, Bomanak said: “There were no colonial borders in this war — we served Allied Pacific Theatre campaigns across the entire island of New Guinea.

“Our island! From Sorong to Samurai!”

• READ MORE: ‘They all have names!’ – the Genocide Rebellion poster
• Other West Papua reports

Bomanak’s open letter, addressed to Prime Minister Albanese and President Biden, declared:

“If you cannot stand by those who stood by you, then your idea of ‘loyalty’ and ‘remembrance’ being something special is a myth, a fairy tale.

“There is nothing special in treachery. Six decades of treachery following the Republic of Indonesia’s invasion and fraudulent annexation, always knowing that we were being massacred, tortured, and raped. Our resources, your intention all along.

“When the Japanese Imperial Forces came to our island, you chose our homes to be your defensive line. We fed and nursed you. We formed the Papuan Infantry Brigade. We became your Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels.

“We even fought alongside you and shared the pain and suffering of hardship and loss.

“There were no colonial borders in this war — we served Allied Pacific Theatre campaigns across the entire island of New Guinea. Our island! From Sorong to Samurai!

“Your war became our war. Your graves, our graves. The photos [in the open letter] are from the Australian War Memorial. The part of the legend always ringing true — my people — Papuans! – with your WWII defence forces.

“My message is to you, not ANZAC veterans. We salute the ANZACs. Your unprincipled greed divided our island. Exploitation, no matter what the cost.

“West Papua is filled with Indonesia’s barbarity and the blood and guts of 500,000 Papuans — men, women, and children. Torture, slaughter, and rape of my people in our ancestral homes led by your betrayal.

“In 1969, to help prevent our decolonisation, you placed two of our leaders on Manus Island instead of allowing them to reach the United Nations in New York — an act of shameless appeasement as a criminal accomplice to a mass-murderer (Suharto) that would have made Hideki Tojo proud.

“RAAF Hercules transported 600 TNI [Indonesian military] to slaughter us on Biak Island in 1998. Australian and US subsidies, weapons and munitions to RI, provide logistics for slaughter and bombing of our highland villages. Still happening!

“You were silent about the 1998 roll of film depicting victims of the Biak Island massacre, and you destroyed this roll of film in March 2014 after the revelations from the Biak Massacre Citizens Tribunal were aired on the ABC’s 7:30 Report. (Grateful for the integrity of Edmund McWilliams, Political Counselor at the US Embassy in Jakarta, for his testimony.)

“Every single act and action of your betrayal contravenes Commonwealth and US Criminal Codes and violates the UN Charter, the Genocide Act, and the Torture Convention. The price of this cowardly servitude to assassins, rapists, torturers, and war criminals — from war criminal Suharto to war criminal Prabowo [current President of Indonesia] — complicity and collusion in genocide, ethnocide, infanticide, and wave after wave of ethnic cleansing.

“Friends, we will not forget you? You threw us into the gutter! As Australian and American leaders, your remembrance day is a commemoration of a tradition of loyalty and sacrifice that you have failed to honour.”

The OPM chairman and commander Bomanak concluded his open letter with the independence slogan “Papua Merdeka!” — Papua freedom.

• Genocide submissions
• Genocide Bill

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has arrived at Kokoda Station, Northern province, at the start of his state visit to Papua New Guinea.

Both Albanese and Prime Minister James Marape will meet with the locals and the Northern Provincial government before they begin their walk along the historic 96km Kokoda Trail.

Both men were “excited” with Marape saying “he was there to lend a hand to his brother PM”.

• READ MORE: Kingsbury and the perilous fight in Kokoda
• Australian PM Albanese to walk historic Kokoda track with PNG PM Marape

Meanwhile, the heroism of Australian soldier Private Bruce Steel Kingsbury is being remembered in advance of ANZAC Day.

Knowing his platoon would not last long with the continuous attack by the Japanese and suffering severe losses during World War Two, Private Kingsbury made the heroic decision to move against the continuous firing and attacked the enemy which cost his life on 29 August 1942.

The battle took place at Isurava, Kokoda. Where Private Kingsbury fell is a memorial which is known as “Kingsbury Rock” beside the Isurava Memorial which Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will visit for the ANZAC Dawn service.

Private Kingsbury’s sacrifice earned him a Victoria Cross. He is buried at the Bomana War Cemetery outside Port Moresby and is one of 625 Australians who were killed in action along the Kokoda track, another 1055 were wounded.

Battle for PNG
The battle to protect Papua and New Guinea, as it was known back then, took about 9000 lives and the remnants of war still remain in the jungles of PNG with more men still missing in action.

Prime ministers Marape and Albanese will walk a section of the Kokoda track to honour the shared history and enduring bond between the two nations.

“The visit of Prime Minister Albanese underscores the close relationships between our countries,” said Prime Minister Marape.

“I’ll be joining him for a walk along the Kokoda Trail.”

Albanese is set to be the first sitting prime minister to walk part of the famous 96km track.

Kevin Rudd walked the Kokoda Track in 2006 while he was opposition leader while former prime minister Scott Morrison also hiked the track in 2009 during his time as a backbench MP.

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

An Australian author and advocate, Jim Aubrey, today led a national symbolic one minute’s silence to mark the “blood debt” owed to Papuan allies during the Second World War indigenous resistance against the invading Japanese forces.

“A promise to most people is a promise,” Aubrey said in his open letter marking the debt protest — “unless that promise is made by the Australian government.”

After the successes of Australian and US troops against the Japanese in New Guinea, the Allies continued the advance through what was then Dutch New Guinea then on to the Philippines.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

The first landing was at Hollandia (now Jayapura) in April 1944, which involved the Australian navy and air force.

Aubrey said in his letter:

“The Australian government’s WWII remembrance oath to Papuan and Timorese allies by the RAAF in flyers dropped over East Timor and the island of New Guinea — ‘FRIENDS, WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU!’ — is in reality one of history’s most heinous bastard acts in war
and diplomacy.

“Betrayal is the reality of this blood debt and includes consecutive Australian governments’ treachery and culpability as a criminal accomplice and accessory to six decades of the Indonesian government’s crimes against humanity.

“Barbarity that shames us! Genocide, ethnocide, infanticide, and relentless ethnic cleansing.

Aubrey, spokesperson for Genocide Rebellion and the Free West Papua International Coalition, said that he and supporters were commemorating the Second World War “Papuan sacrifice for us” — Australian and American servicemen and women — four days before ANZAC Day without inviting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or any government minister [and] without inviting US President Biden.

“To have them with us on this special solemn occasion, while honouring the fact that many of us — children and grandchildren – would not be here if it were not for Papuan courage, loyalty, and sacrifice so steadfastly given to our forebears, would be dishonourable.

‘Heartless complicity’
“We condemn outright their heartless complicity and premeditated exploitation of Papuans in their time of peril. A blood debt not honoured by a single Australian government or US administration!

“Lest We Forget . . .  six decades of providing the Republic of Indonesia with an environment of impunity for crimes against humanity — 500,000 victims in Western New Guinea, 250,000 in East Timor [now Timor-Leste after the 1999 liberation].

“Future historians will teach their undergraduates that Australian governments did forget! That Australian governments also contravened Commonwealth and State criminal codes by helping the Indonesian government prevent the legal decolonisation of Western New Guinea and achieve their subsequent unlawful annexation; and by concealing and destroying evidence of the 1998 Biak Island Massacre.

“It is not only a matter of honour and truth, it’s personal. I have only just discovered that my father and my uncle were Australian servicemen in the Pacific Theatre campaigns across New Guinea.

“Honourable Australians and Americans, however, only need to know our duty of care and our international obligations cannot be compromised for political and economic plunder. The victims of crimes against humanity deserve the support and the protection they are by law, by right, and decency entitled to.

“Pacific Island nations look to the East for a relationship of integrity in their international affairs. Who can blame them with Australian governments track record of treachery, dishonour, and their demeaning elitism and history in the genocide of indigenous peoples.”

Twenty-four weeks of city marches and a five-week vigil outside the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s electoral office in Marrickville have taken pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war on Gaza to an unprecedented level.

In a new development, hundreds of protesters joined in a street theatre performance outside Albanese’s electorate office on Friday evening to highlight their horror at massacres of Palestinian citizens by Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in Gaza.

Over 31,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since October 7, including many shot by the IDF while seeking care in hospitals, food from aid trucks or fleeing IDF bombing.

• READ MORE: More and more new­borns dy­ing in Gaza as hunger cri­sis wors­ens, WHO says
• Israeli troops seize, blindfold naked journalists in bid to ‘silence’ Gaza
• NZ protests: NZ Palestine protesters praise Irish solidarity over Gaza on St Patrick’s Day

The street theatre protest was part of an ongoing 24-hours-a-day peaceful vigil that has been going now for five weeks. There is no shortage of volunteers.  A minimum of 6 people are present at any one time with around 200 people visiting each day.

When City Hub attended twice last week, frequent toots from passing cars indicated plenty of public support.

At 6.30 pm on Friday, sirens and rumblings could be heard along Marrickville Road sending a signal to scores of protesters dressed in white to lie down on the pavement. They were then sprinkled with red liquid.

As the sirens quietened, a woman’s voice rang out: “War criminals, that is what our government is. They are not representing the people . . . We will not stop until our government ends every single tie with Israeli apartheid.

‘We’ll not stop . . .’
“We will not stop until the ethnic cleansing has ended. Palestinian voices need to be heard. Palestinian voices must be amplified.”

Greens Deputy Leader Senator Mehreen Faruqi attended the action. Before the “die-in”, she responded to Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s announcement earlier in the day that Australia will resume funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).

Last week, Senator Faruqi called on Wong urgently to restore the funding. “It has been 43 days since the morally corrupt government made the inexcusable decision to suspend aid funding to UNRWA despite the minister admitting she hadn’t seen a shred of evidence,” she tweeted.

Along with some other Western governments, the Albanese government suspended UNRWA funding when Israel circulated a reportedly “explosive” but secret dossier outlining alleged links between Hamas and UNRWA staff. This happened shortly after the International Court of Justice found that Israel is “plausibly” committing genocide.

The dossier alleged that UNRWA members were involved in the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023.  After analysing the documents, Britain’s Channel 4 concluded that the dossier provided “no evidence to support the explosive claim that UN staff were involved in terror attacks”.

Recently, UNRWA accused Israel of torturing UNRWA staff to get admissions. On Friday, the European Union’s top humanitarian official Janez Lenarcic said that neither he nor anyone at the EU had been shown any evidence.

In “unpausing” the aid, Wong provided no evidence about what the government knew when it suspended aid and what it now claims to know about the allegations. Speaking at Friday’s protest, Senator Faruqi said she welcomed the restoration of  funding but, “just as they restored the funding, they paused the visas of Palestinians en route to Australia while they were mid-air. How cruel and how inhumane can this Labor government get? Just as you think that there are no further depths that they can get to, they show us that they can.” (Late on Sunday, there were reports that the visa decision may be reversed.)

Unprecedented protest
While protests outside Prime Minister’s offices are not unusual, a 24-hour protest for more than a month has never happened before.

Given the length of the protest, it is remarkable that there has been almost no media mainstream coverage. City Hub conducted a Dow Jones Factiva search which revealed one report on SBS and a mention in The Guardian. (The search engine does not cover commercial radio.)

The weeks long, 24 x 7 protest in the heart of the Prime Minister’s own electorate has remained hidden from most of the Australian public and international audiences.

Prime Minister Albanese has not responded to requests for meetings with organisers who include Palestinian families who have been his constituents for many years. City Hub has spoken to protest organisers who say that despite repeated requests, they have received no response from the Prime Minister. The office is now closed to the public which means people are unable to deliver letters or make inquiries.

Protesters sit down in Market Street

The ongoing 24-hour sit-down Marrickville protest is an extension of the broader protest movement in which thousands of protesters marched on Sunday for the 24th week in a row. Similar protests have been happening in Melbourne and other cities. Again, although there have been bigger protests at times, the regularity of protests attended by thousands each week is unprecedented in Australian history.

Protests on this scale did not happen even during the Vietnam War era in the 1970s.

Last week, protesters marched from Hyde Park down Market Street completely filling several blocks of Sydney’s busiest shopping area. Their chant “Ceasefire Now’ reverberated around the streets. It was accompanied by drummers, some of them children.

Some protesters briefly took their demonstration to a new level by staging a brief sit-down in Market Street. The area was filled with Sunday shoppers who watched as protesters chanted, “While you’re shopping, bombs are dropping.”

The Prime Minister’s office has been contacted for comment. When a response is received, this article will be updated.

Wendy Bacon was previously professor of journalism at the University of Technology (UTS). She spoke at the rally about the lack of media coverage of pro Palestinian protests. She will write about this in a future article. Republished with the author’s permission.

In an unprecedented legal development, senior Australian politicians, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have been referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for investigation into whether they have aided or supported Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The referral, made by the Sydney law firm Birchgrove Legal on behalf of their clients, is the first time any serving Australian political leaders have been formally referred to the ICC for investigation.

The referral asserts that Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and other members of the government have violated the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that established the ICC to investigate and prosecute allegations of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

• READ MORE: There has been much talk of war crimes in the Israel-Gaza conflict. But will anyone actually be prosecuted?
• Why is accountability for alleged war crimes so hard to achieve in the Israel-Palestinian conflict?

Specifically, the law firm references:

• Australia’s freezing of aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the aid agency that operates in Gaza
• the provision of military aid to Israel that could have been used in the alleged commission of genocide and crimes against humanity
• permitting Australians to travel to Israel to take part in attacks in Gaza
• providing “unequivocal political support” for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

A key aspect of the referral is the assertion, under Article 25 of the Rome Statute, that Albanese and the others bear individual criminal responsibility for aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission (or attempted commission) of alleged crimes by Israel in Gaza.

At a news conference today, Albanese said the letter had “no credibility” and was an example of “misinformation”. He said:

Australia joined a majority in the UN to call for an immediate ceasefire and to advocate for the release of hostages, the delivery of humanitarian assistance, the upholding of international law and the protection of civilians.

How the referral process works
There are a couple of key questions here: can anyone be referred to the ICC, and how often do these referrals lead to an investigation?

Referrals to the ICC prosecutor are most commonly made by individual countries — as has occurred following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 — or by the UN Security Council. However, it is also possible for referrals to be made by “intergovernmental or non-governmental organisations, or other reliable sources”, according to Article 15 of the Rome Statute.

The ICC prosecutor’s office has received 12,000 such referrals to date. These must go through a preliminary examination before the office decides whether there are “reasonable grounds” to start an investigation.

The court has issued arrest warrants for numerous leaders over the past two decades, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova; former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir; and now-deceased Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

ABC interview with barrister Sheryn Omeri KC on the referral of Australian political leaders to the International Criminal Court.

Acting for over 100 Australian lawyers, Omeri, through the law firm Birchgrove Legal, has referred Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese & key… pic.twitter.com/aHAdVct6eV

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) March 5, 2024

Why this referral is unlikely to go anywhere
Putting aside the merit of the allegations themselves, it is unlikely the Australian referrals will go any further for legal and practical reasons.

First, the ICC was established as an international court of last resort. This means it would only be used to prosecute international crimes when courts at a national level are unwilling or unable to do so.

As such, the threat of possible ICC prosecution was intended to act as a deterrent for those considering committing international crimes, as well as an incentive for national authorities and courts to prosecute them.

Australia has such a process in place to investigate potential war crimes and other international crimes through the Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

The OSI was created in the wake of the 2020 Brereton Report into allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan. In March 2023, the office announced its first prosecution.

Because Australia has this legal framework in place, the ICC prosecutor would likely deem it unnecessary to refer Australian politicians to the ICC for prosecution, unless Australia was unwilling to start such a prosecution itself. At present, there is no evidence that is the case.

Another reason this referral is likely to go nowhere: the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan, is currently focusing on a range of investigations related to alleged war crimes committed by Russia, Hamas and Israel, in addition to other historical investigations.

Given the significance of these investigations – and the political pressure the ICC faces to act with speed – it is unlikely the court would divert limited resources to investigate Australian politicians.

Increasing prominence of international courts
This referral to the ICC, however, needs to be seen in a wider context. The Israel-Hamas conflict has resulted in an unprecedented flurry of legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court.

Unlike the ICC, the ICJ does not deal with individual criminal responsibility. The ICJ does, however, have jurisdiction over whether countries violate international law, such as the Genocide Convention.

This was the basis for South Africa to launch its case against Israel in the ICJ, claiming its actions against the Palestinian people amounted to genocide. The ICJ issued a provisional ruling against Israel in January which said it’s “plausible” Israel had committed genocide in Gaza and ordered Israel to take immediate steps to prevent acts of genocide.

In addition, earlier this week, a new case was launched in the ICJ by Nicaragua, alleging Germany has supported acts of genocide by providing military support for Israel and freezing aid for UNRWA.

PRESS RELEASE: #Nicaragua institutes proceedings against #Germany and asks the #ICJ to indicate provisional measures https://t.co/RtdImbNben pic.twitter.com/UdsKZmDdxS

— CIJ_ICJ (@CIJ_ICJ) March 1, 2024

All of these developments in recent months amount to what experts call “lawfare”. This refers to the use of international or domestic courts to seek accountability for alleged state-sanctioned acts of genocide and support or complicity in such acts. Some of these cases have merit, others are very weak.

As one international law expert described the purpose:

It’s […] a way of raising awareness, getting media attention and showing your own political base you’re doing something.

These cases do succeed in increasing public awareness of these conflicts. And they make clear the desire of many around the world to hold to account those seen as being responsible for gross violations of international law.

Dr Donald Rothwell, professor of international law, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Papua New Guinea and Australia created another piece of history yesterday when James Marape became the first international leader to address the Australian Federal Parliament since 2020.

In a speech laden with heartfelt gratitude and sentimental recollections of the shared history of both nations, the PNG Prime Minister thanked Australia for all it had done for his country – from giving it independence, to sending missionaries and public servants to help develop the country, to fighting together with Papua New Guineans during World War II, to all the current economic and other assistance.

Marape had said before leaving for Canberra that he would not be asking Australia for any help.

• READ MORE: Marape thanks Australia for providing an ‘anchor’ for independent PNG
• Other PNG reports

He repeated that in his address yesterday — even though he really shouldn’t have, for help from Australia has, is, and will be constant going into the future.

But he did appeal to the Australians not to forget Papua New Guinea during its current, ongoing challenges.

“Today, I carry the humble and deep, deep gratitude of my people, the thousand tribes. On behalf of my people, I thank Australia for everything you have done and continue to do for us,” Marape said.

“I appreciate all governments of Australia which have assisted our governments since 1975.

‘Crucial role in develoment’
“Thank you for continuing to support us throughout the life of our nationhood. Your assistance in education, health, infrastructure development in ports, roads and telecommunications continue to a play a crucial role in our development as a country.

“I appreciate, also, all Australian investors, who, to date, comprise the biggest pool of investors in Papua New Guinea.

“We realise our success as a nation will be the ultimate payoff for the work put in by many Australians.

“Thus, I commit my generation of Papua New Guineans to augmenting the sanctity of our democracy and progressing our economy.

“We pledge to work hard to ensure that PNG emerges as an economically self-sustaining nation so that we too help keep our region safe, secure and prosperous for our two people and those in our Indo-Pacific family.”

Marape’s address comes during a period of constant domestic and external challenges.

He is facing a potential vote of no confidence on his leadership this month and his government is also dealing with competition for influence from world powers, including China, USA, India, Indonesia, France and Australia.

Australia’s ‘real friend’
But he assured Australia that Papua New Guinea is its “real friend”.

This is despite revelations last week that his government was in talks with China over a potential security deal, a revelation that has worried Australia and the United States.

“In a world of many relations with other nations, nothing will come in between our two nations because we are family and through tears, blood, pain and sacrifice plus our eternal past our nations are constructed today,” he promised.

“These have all been our challenges. But as I visit with you in Australia today, I ask of you please, do not give up hope on Papua New Guinea.

“We have always bounced back from low moments and we will continue to grow,” Marape said.

Republished with permission.

The political superpowers of the world have been gently reminded this week of Fiji’s intention to turn the Pacific islands region into a zone of peace and not be pawns in geopolitics.

In his address at a Lowy Institute event in Canberra on Tuesday afternoon, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka emphasised the Pacific’s peace stand in a world that has become riddled with volatile conflicts.

Referring to the US-China rivalry as “very evident” in the Blue Pacific, Rabuka said Fiji did not want to be caught in the middle.

• READ MORE: Fiji PM Sitiveni Rabuka calls for ‘Zone of Peace’ in the Pacific in Canberra speech

“Fiji’s position is very clear. We’re friendly with China now. And with the US — always. And we do not want to be caught in the struggle between the superpowers,” he said.

The Pacific region has become known as a contested region, with interest from the two conflicting superpowers increasing in recent times.

University of the South Pacific academic Professor Sandra Tarte said in an earlier interview with this newspaper that Fiji and other Pacific countries could turn the increased engagement from these countries into economic opportunities to benefit them.

“I think certainly countries want to retain their independence to do what they want and who they deal with,” she said.

‘We don’t want to provoke’
“I think while you can applaud that, there is also the question: how can our countries actually work more collectively on this sort of thing? And we don’t want to provoke any anything.

“We don’t want to create more tension. We are a region of peace or zone of peace, as our prime minister said, so how can we as a Pacific Island region actually work together to make that happen?”

Rabuka said this would be discussed at the next Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leader’s meeting in Cook Islands next month.

“I envisage the basic foundation built on refraining from actions that may jeorpadise regional order and stability. And maintaining respects for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” he said.

“There will be continued emphasis on the Pacific way of dialogue, diplomacy and consensus. We will continue to promote our concept of the vuvale cooperation and our vuvale way of resolving our differences,” Rabuka said.

After bilateral talks in Canberra on Wednesday, Rabuka and Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed a “renewed and elevated Vuvale Partnership, with a pledge of A$68 million (F$98 million) in budgetary support to Fiji.

Dionisia Tabureguci is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

The Australian government has announced a direct pathway to citizenship for New Zealanders, ending a tension between the two countries that has lasted for more than 20 years.

Since 2001, New Zealanders in Australia have been able to reside there on a Special Category Visa. While it has allowed them to remain in Australia indefinitely, getting permanent residency and citizenship has been much more difficult.

It has meant New Zealanders have been unable to access benefits such as student loans, join the Defence Force, or even vote.

• READ MORE: Other Australia-NZ reports

In contrast, Australians in New Zealand have had a clear pathway to citizenship after five years.

But from 1 July, New Zealanders who have been on the Special Category Visa and lived in Australia for four years will be able to get citizenship.

They will still need to meet standard criteria (such as pass a character check, a language test, and intend to stay in Australia), and attend a citizenship ceremony.

The pathway is retrospective, meaning those in Australia since 2001, when the SCV came into effect, will be able to apply for citizenship without gaining permanent residence first.

Citizens at birth
Kiwi children born in Australia will become citizens at birth, rather than waiting until they are 10 years old.

“This is a fair change for New Zealanders living in Australia, and brings their rights more in line with Australians living in New Zealand. This is consistent with our ambition to build a fairer, better managed and more inclusive migration system,” the Australian government said in a statement.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins said the announcement has brought the nations closer together.

“This is the biggest improvement in the rights of New Zealanders living in Australia in a generation,” he said.

“Most of us know someone who’s moved across the Tasman. They work hard, pay taxes and deserve a fair go. These changes deliver that and reverse erosions that have taken place over 20 years.”

The announcement has been deliberately timed to be close to Anzac Day, with Hipkins flying to Brisbane to mark the occasion.

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Closer Economic Relations agreement between the two countries, as well as the 50th anniversary of the Trans-Tasman travel arrangement, which allowed each country’s people to live and work in the other country.

Deep friendship
“Australia and New Zealand have a deep friendship, which has been forged through our history, shared values and common outlook.

“As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, I look forward to strengthening our relationship,” said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

The two prime ministers will celebrate the announcement with a community barbecue and citizenship ceremony in Brisbane on Sunday.

They will also visit a cemetery to attend the unveiling of plaques for previously unmarked graves of soldiers who served during World War I and World War II.

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

The ABC has soundly condemned the Solomon Islands Office of the Prime Minister for a series of “factual errors” in a statement released which criticised the Four Corners investigative report Pacific Capture: How Chinese money is buying the Solomons.

In a rare statement defending its independent journalism, it said today the ABC “stood by the accuracy and integrity” of the reporting in this programme.

• READ MORE: The ABC defence
• The Solomon Islands government criticism
• ABC 4 Corners: The documentary
• Other China in the Solomon Islands reports

It said about the programme broadcast on August 4:

The ABC wishes to correct the following factual errors in the press release issued by the Solomon Islands Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the Four Corners report Pacific Capture, which examined the impact of China’s growing presence across Solomon Islands.

At no point did the program rely on “misinformation and distribution of pre-conceived prejudicial information”.

It was not our intention to “cause division between the governments of Australia and Solomon Islands”, rather to highlight issues of concern to all Solomon Islanders.

We completely reject the offensive notion of “racial profiling that is bordering racism and race stereotyping”. In fact, we were determined to tell the story from the perspective of Solomon Islanders and the program reflected their concerns. Its main interviews were with two eminent Solomon Islanders, rather than relying on “foreign experts” as is often the case. The ABC rejects the idea that we were “putting words into the mouths of the interviewees” and sees this as insulting to the Solomon Islanders who appeared in the program.

On the issue of Kolombangara, the ABC did not say that the “shareholders have made a decision to sell off the company to a Chinese firm”. Rather, the program accurately reported that the issue had been discussed at board level and that the Australian directors were so concerned about a potential sale to a Chinese state-owned company that they twice wrote to the Federal Government expressing concerns that the purchase could be used by Beijing to establish a base under the cover of a commercial enterprise. Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s office confirmed it was aware of the issue. Her office has also not ruled out intervening. The ABC also notes that the plantation on Kolombangara is owned 85 per cent by the Nien Family of Taiwan and 15 percent by the government of the Solomon Islands, not the 60/40 split claimed in the press release.

It is incorrect to claim that the program did not acknowledge that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare “repeatedly reaffirmed to Solomon Islanders and the Pacific region that there will be no military or naval base in Solomon Islands”.

The program said: “At a meeting in Fiji, Sogavare assured the new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese that Beijing won’t be allowed to establish a military base in the Solomons.” It went on to say that one of the main concerns was that a commercial enterprise controlled by Beijing could one day be used to house military assets.

The ABC stands by the accuracy and integrity of the reporting in this program.

Jacinda Ardern’s decision to attend the upcoming North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Spain — but to skip the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Rwanda — symbolises the changes she is making to New Zealand foreign policy.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) starts today in Kigali, while the NATO summit will be held in Madrid next week.

However, Jacinda Ardern is only attending the NATO summit. She is sending her Foreign Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, to attend the Commonwealth meeting in her place.

• READ MORE: Other articles on China in the Pacific

Ardern is hardly alone with her decision to stay away from CHOGM — so far, only 35 of 54 Commonwealth leaders have sent an RSVP. New Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will be among the absentees — deputy Prime Minister (and defence minister) Richard Marles will go instead.

This is despite the fact that this year’s CHOGM is being held during the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee year and just over a month before the Commonwealth Games — the grouping’s sporting flagship.

The summit will also be the first CHOGM since 2018, the first CHOGM in Africa since 2007 and the first to be hosted by a “new” Commonwealth member — Rwanda was never a British colony, but voluntarily joined the Commonwealth in 2009.

Indeed, Rwanda’s hosting of the summit this year is not without controversy. Freedom House, a US-based think tank, calls the country ‘not free’, with a ranking of just 22 points out of 100 — placing it firmly in the bottom third of its global rankings, two places ahead of Russia.

‘Pervasive intimidation, torture’
Freedom House says the Rwandan regime — led by authoritarian President Paul Kagame — undertakes ‘pervasive surveillance, intimidation, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents.’

This year’s CHOGM also threatens to be overshadowed by a UK plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Prince Charles, who reportedly called the deal ‘appalling’, will be representing the Queen at the summit in Kigali.

Despite these two red flags, prominent human rights organisations are not calling for a boycott of the event. Rather, they want Commonwealth leaders to draw attention to the problems. Human Rights Watch, for instance, has asked leaders to voice their “grave concern to the [Rwandan] government on its human rights record”.

And, in reference to the UK-Rwanda asylum-seeker deal, Amnesty International wants Commonwealth members to ‘seize the opportunity in Kigali to denounce this inhumane arrangement’.

‘Jacinda Ardern’s invitation to attend the NATO’s 2022 Madrid Summit will also be something of a reward for aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with NATO – and the West generally – over the past few months’ – @GeoffMillerNZ https://t.co/hgkbfp8jO0

— Democracy Project (@Dem_Project) June 19, 2022

Jacinda Ardern’s no-show at CHOGM is probably driven partly by domestic political considerations and timing. This Friday’s inaugural “Matariki” public holiday, which marks the Māori New Year, was a key election campaign pledge by Ardern’s Labour Party in 2020 — and the Prime Minister is scheduled to attend a pre-dawn ceremony on the day.

Outside of the Commonwealth Games, the Commonwealth has a low profile — but it has a lot going for it. Few intergovernmental organisations can rival it for size — with the Commonwealth’s collective population reaching 2.6 billion, only the likes of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and the United Nations (UN) represent more people.

Strength in representing small states
Moreover, the Commonwealth has a particular strength in representing small states, especially island ones — 25 of the 54 members are classified as Small Island Developing States. This means the Commonwealth can be a particularly useful forum for discussing climate change and environmental issues.

The results have included initiatives such as the Commonwealth Litter Programme, which has made real differences to countries such as Vanuatu in fighting plastic pollution.

The Commonwealth is more than just a talking shop, but the disparate nature of its membership is a major challenge. The Commonwealth includes wealthy, democratic countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the UK — but also poor, authoritarian ones such as Cameroon, Rwanda and Uganda.

In between, there are also some rich authoritarian members (such as Brunei) and less well-off democracies (such as India)

Of course, there is still great value in an organisation that brings opposing sides together for a robust exchange of views — the new geopolitical faultline between the Global South and North over Ukraine is a case in point. While Western countries — including New Zealand — have provided strong support to Ukraine, most non-Western countries have not followed suit.

It would do Jacinda Ardern good to listen to the rationale that countries such as South Africa and Mozambique might have for not falling in line with the Western position. Countries perhaps learn best when they are not just surrounded by their like-minded friends.

However, in the new Cold War, ideology is back with a vengeance — and many countries are drifting away from pragmatic, inclusive groupings towards more ideologically-driven ones.

Countering Chinese influence
For Australia, this means countering Chinese influence with the reinvigorated “Quad” arrangement (with India, Japan and the US) and AUKUS (with the United Kingdom and the United States); for New Zealand, the Pacific Islands Forum and bilateral meetings with Australia and the United States have taken on greater significance.

All of this explains why Jacinda Ardern has accepted an invitation to attend NATO’s Madrid Summit next week. Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s Secretary General, has recently been at pains to highlight the invitation to the bloc’s “Asia-Pacific partners” – Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea.

The reason is obvious – on Thursday, Stoltenberg specifically mentioned China as one of the priorities for the meeting, which will set out a new “Strategic Concept” — effectively a blueprint for the future of NATO.

And while NATO’s main focus will remain on security in Europe, last year’s summit in Brussels — held well before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — was noteworthy for making China its main priority.

The summit’s communique made NATO’s position crystal-clear: “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security”.

Jacinda Ardern’s invitation to attend the NATO’s 2022 Madrid Summit will also be something of a reward for aligning New Zealand’s foreign policy more closely with NATO — and the West generally — over the past few months.

After all, Ardern has overhauled New Zealand’s foreign policy by introducing sanctions against Russia and sending military equipment and weapons to Ukraine — and by making a symbolic contribution of New Zealand troops to Europe to assist with the war effort.

Security ‘not for free’
But as Stoltenberg likes to say, security “does not come for free” — and the meeting will undoubtedly also serve as an opportunity to put pressure on New Zealand to provide even more assistance. The NATO Secretary-General recently pointed out that there have been “seven consecutive years of rising defence investment across Europe and Canada”.

New Zealand’s military spending shows a remarkably similar trajectory, with spending now at the 1.5% of GDP level– up from 1.1% in 2015, although still well below NATO’s target of 2%.

Like Jacinda Ardern, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will also be a guest of honour at the NATO summit. Anthony Albanese is also travelling to Madrid — and Zelensky has already invited the Australian PM to visit Kyiv.

If he accepts, Albanese would be following in the footsteps of many other NATO country leaders who have travelled to Ukraine in recent weeks, including the UK’s Boris Johnson, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s Olaf Scholz.

And given the focus on Western unity and solidarity in recent months, there is every chance Jacinda Ardern would travel together with Anthony Albanese on any European side-trip to Ukraine — on a joint ANZAC solidarity mission.

Ardern is backing NATO over CHOGM.

She might be choosing Kyiv over Kigali.

Geoffrey Miller is an international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues for Victoria University of Wellington’s Democracy Project. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian. This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

It is easy to forget why Julian Assange has been on trial in England for, well, seemingly forever.

Didn’t he allegedly sexually assault two women in Sweden? Isn’t that why he holed up for years in the Ecuadorian embassy in London to avoid facing charges?

When the bobbies finally dragged him out of the embassy, didn’t his dishevelled appearance confirm all those stories about his lousy personal hygiene?

• READ MORE: What charges does Julian Assange face, and what’s likely to happen next?
• Julian Assange on Google, surveillance and predatory capitalism
• Other Julian Assange reports

Didn’t he persuade Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning to hack into the United States military’s computers to reveal national security matters that endangered the lives of American soldiers and intelligence agents? He says he is a journalist, but hasn’t The New York Times made it clear he is just a “source” and not a publisher entitled to first amendment protection?

If you answered yes to any or all of these questions, you are not alone. But the answers are actually no. At very least, it’s more complicated than that.

To take one example, the reason Assange was dishevelled was that staff in the Ecuadorian embassy had confiscated his shaving gear three months before to ensure his appearance matched his stereotype when the arrest took place.

That is one of the findings of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, whose investigation of the case against Assange has been laid out in forensic detail in The Trial of Julian Assange.

What is the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture doing investigating the Assange case, you might ask? So did Melzer when Assange’s lawyers first approached him in 2018:

I had more important things to do: I had to take care of “real” torture victims!

Melzer returned to a report he was writing about overcoming prejudice and self-deception when dealing with official corruption. “Not until a few months later,” he writes, “would I realise the striking irony of this situation.”

The 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council directly appoint
special rapporteurs on torture. The position is unpaid — Melzer earns his living as a professor of international law — but they have diplomatic immunity and operate largely outside the UN’s hierarchies.

Among the many pleas for his attention, Melzer’s small office chooses between 100 and 200 each year to officially investigate. His conclusions and recommendations are not binding on states. He bleakly notes that in barely 10 percent of cases does he receive full co-operation from states and an adequate resolution.

He received nothing like full co-operation in investigating Assange’s case. He gathered around 10,000 pages of procedural files, but a lot of them came from leaks to journalists or from freedom-of-information requests.

Many pages had been redacted. Rephrasing Carl Von Clausewitz’s maxim, Melzer wrote his book as “the continuation of diplomacy by other means”.

What he finds is stark and disturbing:

The Assange case is the story of a man who is being persecuted and abused for exposing the dirty secrets of the powerful, including war crimes, torture and corruption. It is a story of deliberate judicial arbitrariness in Western democracies that are otherwise keen to present themselves as exemplary in the area of human rights.

It is the story of wilful collusion by intelligence services behind the back of national parliaments and the general public. It is a story of manipulated and manipulative reporting in the mainstream media for the purpose of deliberately isolating, demonizing, and destroying a particular individual. It is the story of a man who has been scapegoated by all of us for our own societal failures to address government corruption and state-sanctioned crimes.

Collateral murder
The dirty secrets of the powerful are difficult to face, which is why we — and I don’t exclude myself — swallow neatly packaged slurs and diversions of the kind listed at the beginning of this article.

Melzer rightly takes us back to April 2010, four years after the Australian-born Assange had founded WikiLeaks, a small organisation set up to publish official documents that it had received, encrypted so as to protect whistle-blowers from official retribution.

Assange released video footage showing in horrifying detail how US soldiers in a helicopter had shot and killed Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists in 2007.

Apart from how the soldiers spoke — “Hahaha, I hit them”, “Nice”, “Good shot” — it looks like most of the victims were civilians and that the journalists’ cameras were mistaken for rifles. When one of the wounded men tried to crawl to safety, the helicopter crew, instead of allowing their comrades on the ground to take him prisoner, as required by the rules of war, seek permission to shoot him again.

As Melzer’s detailed description makes clear, the soldiers knew what they were doing:

“Come on, buddy,” the gunner comments, aiming the crosshairs at his helpless target. “All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.”

The soldiers’ request for authorisation to shoot is given. When the wounded man is carried to a nearby minibus, it is shot to pieces with the helicopter’s 30mm gun. The driver and two other rescuers are killed instantly. The driver’s two young children inside are seriously wounded.

US army command investigated the matter, concluding that the soldiers acted in accordance with the rules of war, even though they had not. Equally to the point, writes Melzer, the public would never have known a war crime had been committed without the release of what Assange called the “Collateral Murder” video.

The video footage was just one of hundreds of thousands of documents that WikiLeaks released last year in tranches known as the Afghan war logs, the Iraq war logs, and cablegate. They revealed numerous alleged war crimes and provided the raw material for a shadow history of the disastrous wars waged by the US and its allies, including Australia, in Aghanistan and Iraq.

Punished forever
Melzer retraces what has happened to Assange since then, from the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden to Assange taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in an attempt to avoid the possibility of extradition to the US if he returned to Sweden. His refuge led to him being jailed in the United Kingdom for breaching his bail conditions.

Sweden eventually dropped the sexual assault charges, but the US government ramped up its request to extradite Assange. He faces charges under the 1917 Espionage Act, which, if successful, could lead to a jail term of 175 years.

Two key points become increasingly clear as Melzer methodically works through the events.

The first is that there has been a carefully orchestrated plan by four countries — the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and, yes, Australia — to ensure Assange is punished forever for revealing state secrets.

The second is that the conditions he has been subjected to, and will continue to be subjected to if the US’s extradition request is granted, have amounted to torture.

On the first point, how else are we to interpret the continual twists and turns over nearly a decade in the official positions taken by Sweden and the UK? Contrary to the obfuscating language of official communiques, all of these have closed down Assange’s options and denied him due process.

Melzer documents the thinness of the Swedish authorities’ case for charging Assange with sexual assault. That did not prevent them from keeping it open for many years. Nor was Assange as uncooperative with police as has been suggested. Swedish police kept changing their minds about where and whether to formally interview Assange because they knew the evidence was weak.

Melzer also takes pains to show how Swedish police also overrode the interests of the two women who had made the complaints against Assange.

It is distressing to read the conditions Assange has endured over several years. A change in the political leadership of Ecuador led to a change in his living conditions in the embassy, from cramped but bearable to virtual imprisonment.

Since being taken from the embassy to Belmarsh prison in 2019, Assange has spent much of his time in solitary confinement for 22 or 23 hours a day. He has been denied all but the most limited access to his legal team, let alone family and friends.

He was kept in a glass cage during his seemingly interminable extradition hearing, appeals over which could continue for several years more years, according to Melzer.

Assange’s physical and mental health have suffered to the point where he has been put on suicide watch. Again, that seems to be the point, as Melzer writes:

The primary purpose of persecuting Assange is not – and never has been – to punish him personally, but to establish a generic precedent with a global deterrent effect on other journalist, publicists and activists.

So will the new Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, do any more than his three Coalition and two Labor predecessors to advocate for the interests of an Australian citizen? In December 2021, Guardian Australia reported Albanese saying he did “not see what purpose is served by the ongoing pursuit of Mr Assange” and that “enough is enough”.

Since being sworn in as prime minister, he has kept his cards close to his chest.

The actions of his predecessors suggest he won’t, even though Albanese has already said on several occasions since being elected that he wants to do politics differently.

Melzer, among others, would remind him of the words of former US president Jimmy Carter, who, contrary to other presidents, said he did not deplore the WikiLeaks revelations.

They just made public what was the truth. Most often, the revelation of truth, even if it’s unpleasant, is beneficial. […] I think that, almost invariably, the secrecy is designed to conceal improper activities.

Dr Matthew Ricketson is professor of communication, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

• The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution, by Nils Melzer (Verso). ISBN 9781839766220
• The first in a two-part series, Ithaka: A Fight to Free Julian Assange, airs on ABC TV tonight at 8.30pm (AET).

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s first cabinet is Australia’s most diverse ever. Not only do women comprise ten of 23 cabinet ministers (or about 43 percent), many have diverse race, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

The broader ministry boasts many firsts, including Penny Wong as Australia’s first foreign minister with an Asian background, Linda Burney, the first female Indigenous cabinet minister, and Anne Aly, the first female minister with a Muslim background.

A photo of the incoming Minister for Aged Care and for Sport Anika Wells walking through Parliament House with her three young children seems emblematic of the changes brought by the election.

• READ MORE: View from The Hill: Record 10 women in Albanese cabinet, and surprise move for Plibersek to environment
• Australia’s new Parliament will have record numbers of women – will this finally make it a safe place to work?

While falling short of 50/50 representations, this is a cabinet that better represents the country it serves. It is widely welcomed and long overdue.

Australia has been lagging behind
For many years, Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in gender equality in both Parliament and cabinet.

In January 2022, 33 percent of Scott Morrison’s cabinet were female. In 2021, the Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked Australia 73rd of 193 countries for gender parity in the national Parliament. This was up from 90th in 2019 but significantly down from 29th under Kevin Rudd in 2008.

With the incoming Albanese government, we have almost caught up to those countries we like to compare ourselves with. In 2021, women held 50 percent or more of ministerial positions in seven OECD countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Spain, and Sweden, while New Zealand’s cabinet had 40 percent.

Merit and the ministry
For decades, Australia stuck to the mantra that ministerial recruitment should be made on “merit” rather than gender.

This thinking belongs to an outdated political culture, where women can only access positions of political power with the approval of their male colleagues. But it still exists.

New deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley, when talking about the need to attract more women to the party, has flagged the “issue of merit”.

If the 2022 federal election has taught us anything, it is that Australians had run out of patience with the status quo, and the electorate is now demanding politicians look like the country they serve — whether in traditional parties or as independents.

However, people are taking note that we are not at gender parity yet. The first media question for Albanese after announcing his ministry on Tuesday night was:

What will it take to get 50/50 representation of women in cabinet, in the ministry? Would you like to see the factional caucuses put forward 50/50 for your consideration in the future? How far away is Australia from that level of representation?

The importance of leadership
Claire Annesley’s book with Karen Beckwith, and Susan Franceschet, Cabinets, Ministers and Gender, shows significant changes in women’s representation often result from pre-election pledges made by a leader. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged a parity cabinet ahead of his election in 2015 and achieved this goal.

The pledge is a powerful tool because many leaders are fully empowered to make their ministerial selections.

Look out Government House #auspol pic.twitter.com/X1HUqQzl6j

— Anika Wells MP (@AnikaWells) May 31, 2022

Albanese is on record as saying “Australia should be leading the world in equality between women and men”.

While he did not make a pledge for gender equality in cabinet during the campaign, the ALP Constitution does have affirmative action rules which set out an objective “to have 50 percent women at all levels in the Party organisation, and in public office positions the Party holds” with a minimum percentage requirement of 45 percent from 2022 and 50 percent from 2025.

However, Labor leaders have traditionally relied on the party factions to nominate ministers that are then agreed to by caucus. As the late Labor minister Susan Ryan has noted, factional politics have been a significant barrier to women gaining access to senior positions.

Even with quotas, the factional “king makers” have shaped Albanese’s cabinet. This was not without “a kerfuffle” according to political journalist Katharine Murphy, who reported “the right faction was in danger of not complying with Labor’s affirmative action rules”.

This resulted in some surprise last-minute ministerial appointments.

Look at the lineup
An important feature of Albanese’s cabinet is not just the diverse range of women who now sit at the table, but the prestigious portfolios which they hold.

The appointment of Wong to foreign affairs, Clare O’Neil to home affairs and Gallagher to finance place women at the centre of government power.

Women are also leading ministries with large spending responsibilities, including Amanda Rishworth who has been appointed Minister for Social Services. In contrast, some have been disappointed by Tanya Plibersek’s surprise shift from education to environment.

The test of the new cabinet is to see what difference diversity makes. To what extent will the experiences of these ministers bring new priorities, innovative solutions and accountability to Australian government?

Two areas hold promise. The allocation of the women’s portfolio to Gallagher is important, given she jointly holds the finance portfolio and has oversight over key budget decisions.

At the very least, we should expect as a priority a renewed whole-of-government women’s budget statement, led from a key central agency.

The second area of promise is Burney’s appointment as minister for Indigenous Australians. As an expert in Indigenous affairs, and someone with a strong commitment to the implementation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart, Burney may well oversee the signature reform of this government: a constitutionally enshrined First Nation’s Voice to Parliament.

The incoming cabinet also has a new and potentially game-changing resource in the new Parliament. The lower house has the highest number of female MPs ever, at 38 percent. The crossbench — the largest of any Parliament — also includes many women independent members who want to see action on integrity, climate change and women’s rights.

There is an enormous opportunity now for the government to draw on the expertise of this crossbench to drive important changes through parliament and recast the gender status quo of Australian politics.

Dr Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney and Claire Annesley, Dean, UNSW Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s decision to embark on a diplomatic offensive to outflank China in the Pacific within days of being sworn in has yielded what appears to have been an early success.

Whether Wong’s intervention gave Pacific leaders pause about a wide-ranging economic and security pact with China or they would have baulked anyway, the fact is Australian diplomacy can claim a dividend.

In the process, the country appears to have a new foreign minister who will engage in more creative and activist foreign policy then her predecessor.

• READ MORE: With a new Australian government and foreign minister comes fresh hope for Australia-China relations
• As Australian-Chinese writer Yang Hengjun’s trial begins, his prospects remain bleak

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s extensive tour of the Pacific has been aimed at extending Beijing’s influence in the region at a moment when regional leaders had grown restive about Australia’s commitment to its immediate neighbourhood.

The Morrison government’s equivocation on climate has not sat well with leaders of the Pacific’s micro-states.

Wong’s mission appears to have succeeded on three important fronts:

1. it has reassured Pacific neighbours that a new Labor government will do more than pay lip service to their concerns about climate and other issues
2. Wong has made it clear Canberra will not be reticent in contesting Beijing’s influence in the region
3. her mission has enabled her to assert her own authority early over the foreign policy and security reach of her portfolio.

This latter aspect will be important in how and in what form Australia responds to Chinese overtures aimed at achieving a re-set in relations.

Labor governments have long managed the relationship well
In one respect, the new Labor government has history on its side.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canberra and Beijing.

All these years later, another Labor government has the opportunity to re-set Australia’s relations with the dominant regional player at a moment when the Indo-Pacific is undergoing profound change.

Few would reasonably argue against the proposition that a “re-set” is overdue after years of drift and ill-will under the Morrison government.

The question for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his national security team is how to proceed in a way that conforms with Australia’s national interest, is faithful to its values, and enables Canberra’s voice to be inserted in regional councils.

Wong has, for some time, been sketching out a more creative foreign policy approach — evident in her Pacific initiative — that will seek to expand Australia’s regional relationships and, where appropriate, take the lead in alignment with the country’s national interest.

In this sense, the joint communique on December 21 1972, signalling the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China, makes interesting reading.

Unlike Richard Nixon’s Shanghai communique of 1972, which fudged the Taiwan issue, the Whitlam government document is explicit.

The Australian government recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China, and has decided to remove its official representation from Taiwan before 25 January, 1973.

Albanese and his security policy team can be sure this document will not be gathering dust in a Chinese Foreign Ministry archive.

China’s attachment to anniversaries is one of the more notable features of its diplomacy. These occasions may be used for political purposes, but history weighs heavily on Beijing’s foreign policy calculations.

Albanese government should jump on the promise of a thaw
When Prime Minister Li Keqiang promptly sent a congratulatory message to Albanese on the latter’s success in the recent election, Labor’s historic shift towards Beijing back in 1972 will not have been overlooked.

The wording of Li’s message was pointed. It said, in part, that China was:

ready to work with the Australian side to review the past, face the future, uphold principles of mutual respect, mutual benefit.

Beijing talks a lot about “mutual respect” and “mutual benefit”. These are phrases that are, more often that not, designed to deflect criticism of China’s human rights abuses and other bad behaviour.

But taken together with overtures for a “re-set” by the new Chinese ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, Beijing has clearly decided it is in China’s interests to turn the page on a sour period between the countries.

Asked at his press conference after the conclusion of Quad talks in Tokyo about his response to the conciliatory message from Li, Albanese simply said:

I welcome that. And we will respond appropriately in time when I return to Australia.

In other responses to questions about troubled relations with China, the new prime minister has said it is up to Beijing to start removing sanctions on Australian exports.

These Albanese responses are prudent. There is no point in rushing to acknowledge such overtures. However, he would be making a mistake if he seeks to prolong what has the makings of a thaw.

He might remind himself that virtually all of Australia’s western allies, including America, have working relations with Beijing that enable officials to engage in a constructive dialogue, despite differences.

Australia’s first ambassador to China, Stephen Fitzgerald, has some wise counsel for the new government in Canberra about how to better manage relations with Beijing.

Australia under a Labor government must now return to diplomacy, talking with the PRC, for which it is ready and putting away the megaphone of gratuitous criticism, insult and condemnation which were the hallmarks of Morrison’s China policy. If we do this, there will be many issues on which we can have constructive engagement.

One of these issues can — and should — be the continued detention in China of two Australian citizens, the journalist Cheng Lei and the democratic activist Yang Hengjun. Progress towards their release should be a condition of improved relations, along with removal of punitive tariffs on imports of such items as wine and barley.

Finally, Albanese’s security policy team should pay particular attention to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s landmark foreign policy speech delivered to the Asia Society in Washington on May 26.

In that speech, Blinken laid down guidelines for the conduct of relations with Beijing in a world whose foundations are shifting. His words bear repeating as a template for Canberra’s own interactions with Beijing.

We are not looking for conflict or a new Cold War […] We don’t seek to block China from its role as a major power […] But we will defend [the international order] and make it possible for all countries – including the United States and China – to coexist and co-operate.

Blinken’s attempts to define a workable China policy should be regarded in the same vein as another important statement delivered 17 years ago by then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in New York. In that speech, Zoellick said:

We now need to encourage China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system.

Blinken’s and Zoellick’s interventions, two decades apart, are important guardrails for a constructive relationship with China.

Dr Tony Walker is a vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Morrison government has been resoundingly defeated in the Australian federal election, with Labor headed for office, although whether in a minority or majority was unclear late last night.

Anthony Albanese becomes Australia’s 31st prime minister.

Labor had 73 seats at the end of Saturday night, with 76 needed for majority government. A number of seats remain in doubt.

• READ MORE: Australians face their starkest choice at the ballot box in 50 years. Here’s why
• Other federal election reports
• The Junction student journalism on the election

The election has been a triumph for the “teal” independents, with up to six new teals set to join a record crossbench.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg is set to lose his seat of Kooyong to teal independent Monique Ryan.

According to the ABC, Labor has won the Liberal seats of Chisholm and Higgins in Victoria, Robertson and Reid in NSW, Boothby in South Australia, and in Western Australia Swan, Pearce, Hasluck, held by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, and Tangney held by Special Minister of State, Ben Morton.

But Labor frontbencher Kristina Keneally is expected to be defeated in her bid to win the Sydney seat of Fowler. The seat is likely to be taken by independent Dai Le.

Other teal successes
Apart from Kooyong, teal independents have defeated Liberals in Goldstein in Victoria, and North Sydney, Mackellar and Wentworth in NSW. Kate Chaney appears likely to win Curtin in WA.

Frydenberg told supporters on Saturday night that while mathematically it was still possible to win his seat, it was definitely difficult.

The election has also been a big victory for the Greens, who have won Ryan from the Liberals in Queensland. The Greens may also pick up the Queensland Labor seat of Griffith.

The Liberal seat of Brisbane is in play between Greens and Labor. In the previous parliament, the Greens have only had the seat of Melbourne held by their leader Adam Bandt.

Scott Morrison conceded defeat shortly before 11pm. He announced to supporters that he would quit the leadership.

“I will be handing over the leadership at the next party room meeting to ensure the party can be taken forward under new leadership, which is the appropriate thing to do,” Morrison said.

‘Hold their heads high’
“Tonight, it’s a night of disappointment for the Liberals and Nationals, but it’s also a time for Coalition and members and supporters all across the country to hold their heads high.

“We have been a strong government, we have been a good government. Australia is stronger as a result of our effort over these last three terms.”

“We hand over this country as a government in a stronger position than we inherited it when we came to government those years ago under Tony Abbott,” he said.

Thank you Australia. pic.twitter.com/58ZHJCRIlO

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) May 21, 2022

Albanese said: “Tonight the Australian people have voted for change.

“My Labor team will work every day to bring Australians together and I will lead a government worthy of the people of Australia”.

“I think people want to come together, look for our common interest, look towards that sense of common purpose.

“I think people have had enough of division. What they want is to see us come together as a nation and I intend to lead that,” he said.

‘Common ground for dreams’
“I want to find that common ground where we can plant our dreams,” he told supporters.

He said: “Together we can end the climate wars”.

“I hope that my journey in life inspires Australians to reach for the stars.”

The loss of Frydenberg leaves Peter Dutton as the favourite to become leader of the opposition.

The Coalition and Labor both have very low primary votes, an indication of the disillusionment of voters with both sides.

The national swing to Labor was about 3% on the latest figures. The Coalition primary vote was about 36%, Labor’s vote about 32% and the Greens 12%.

In Western Australia, where Morrison campaigned on Friday, the Liberal vote collapsed, with a swing against them of more than 10%.

‘Sends message … [about] respect, diversity’
Finance Minister and senior moderate Simon Birmingham, speaking about Warringah, where independent Zali Steggall has retained her seat against controversial Liberal candidate Katherine Deves, said: “I think it sends a message about what Australians believe when it comes to issues of respect, of inclusion, of diversit”.

Birmingham suggested there had been a “contagion effect” from Warringah that punished Liberals in neighbouring seats.

Teal independent Zoe Daniel, who has won Goldstein, named after suffragette Vida Goldstein, who failed in her effort to enter federal parliament, said: “Today I take her rightful place”.

Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow, University of Canberra. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

You first have to lose an election on principle if you want to win one on principle.

This was how Labor rationalised the miscalculations that led to its “Don’s Party” disappointment in 1969, followed by the 1972 triumph of the “It’s Time” campaign.

Half a century later, the idea of sticking with unpopular policy seems romantic, unthinkable. Principles are not just old-hat in an era of professionalised politics, but absurd.

• READ MORE: Canberra must stop wasting time – and urgently support ABC in the Pacific
• Other Australian election reports

Swamped by voter-attitude metrics, modern democratic leaders are not leaders in the traditional sense. Rather, they are followers.

Followers of market researchers and media proprietors who disabuse them of ambitious conceits like national leadership, or anything that might tempt them to make changes based on electoral judgment, the national interest, or even ideology.

Still, a few months ago, one starry-eyed fool (to wit, this author) described the looming 2022 federal election as the most important national choice to be put before voters since that 1972 hinge-point.

If it was an invitation to Labor leader Anthony Albanese to paint in bold brushstrokes, he didn’t receive it.

Instead, Labor’s risk-averse policy presentation has largely mirrored the reform-shy government it seeks to replace. This makes for the least policy-divergent choice in the 50 years since 1972.

The 2022 election more closely resembles a velodrome match-sprint where the two riders have almost stopped on the banked section, each terrified of leading off and being overtaken in the final dash for the line.

Whitlam’s re-imagining
The 1972 comparison gets even harder when you look at former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s first month in office.

He promised to establish diplomatic relations with Peking (now Beijing), following his audacious trip to “Red China” in 1971. Imagine this (or any) opposition making a play of similar foreign policy gravity today.

Whitlam’s bold Australian re-imagining, which historian Stuart McIntyre later characterised as “a nationalism attuned to internationalism”, kick-started a lucrative economic co-dependency that has propelled Australian prosperity to this day. Hungry for commodities and services imports, China’s staggering growth has also insulated Australia through global shocks like the Asian Financial Crisis, Global Financial Crisis, and the covid-19 pandemic.

While the Coalition would no doubt have come to it eventually, Whitlam acted without hesitation or American permission. Crucially, he backed his capacity to explain it to the country, despite the danger of being tagged as soft on communism.

Again, leaders taking decisions and then relying on their persuasive powers to win arguments seems fanciful amid the timidity of contemporary politics.

A shot of adrenaline
In those first days, Whitlam also ended conscription, withdrew from Vietnam, granted independence to Papua New Guinea, and set about ratifying long-deferred international conventions on basic labour conditions, racial non-discrimination, and nuclear weapons proliferation.

With his pared back, don’t-frighten-the-horses agenda, Albanese might have less to do over a whole term, and Whitlam was only getting started.

Before his government crashed, Whitlam would end the White Australia Policy, scrap royal honours, appoint the first women’s adviser, reform draconian divorce laws, champion multiculturalism, dramatically ratchet up funding for the arts and humanities, abolish university fees, revive urban development, and more.

To a slumbering post-war Australia, it was a shot of late 20th Century adrenaline and the results were startling. Australian historian Manning Clark described it as the “end of the Ice Age”.

But in 1975, it ended in ignominy. As McIntyre later observed, “the golden age was over”.

History rhyming, not repeating
So far, the case for equivalence between 1972 and 2022 is not obvious, right?

But what if it is not Labor that now represents the radical option but the status quo? What if changing governments offers the safer, more conventional course for nervous voters? As Mark Twain noted, history doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.

Labor’s 1972 manifesto was inspiring, but it was the urgency with which its modernising promise was articulated after 23 years of Coalition rule that had impatient voters energised. The McMahon Coalition government was a no ideas factory in the lead-up to the 1972 election, although it did not exhibit the insidious corrosive streak of its modern-day equivalent.

This is the rhyme. While the 2022 election is not about the magisterial reform possibilities of an incoming government, it is about the urgent need to rescue longstanding governing norms around transparency, accountability, ministerial standards, trust and the honesty, and of course, the viability of the public service.

It is in this critical sense that the two elections might be compared.

Divide and dither
The radicalism absent from Labor’s 2022 manifesto is made up for in the unspoken but no-less transformative erosion of standards by the government. The Coalition is primarily intent on the political dividends of division, on courting the applause of media vassals, religious conservatives, and a populist Nationals rump.

Morrison’s approach can be described as divide and dither.

It finds its expression in the Coalition’s reflexive recourse to politics over policy — frequently at the direct expense of the national interest such as in the weaponisation of climate change and more recently, the attempts to weaken the outward presentation of domestic bipartisanship on national security.

The former is a classic of the genre. Morrison’s hollow embrace of net zero by 2050 ahead of Glasgow last year was greeted by political insiders as a triumph of prime ministerial skill, when all it really did was expose how utterly pointless the Coalition’s decade-long negation had been.

Moreover, it brought no revision to interim targets nor adjusted any other policy architecture.

Its real aim — in which it was successful — was the neutralisation of a Coalition stance that had morphed into a clear electoral negative.

The latter, national security, was tickled along last Friday in Defence Minister Peter Dutton’s ultra-earnest press conference transparently called to (re)frighten voters about a Chinese “warship” that was “hugging” Australia’s north-western coast at a distance of 400 kilometres.

Manufactured wars and textimonials
Divide and dither revels in manufactured culture wars over transgender teens and identity politics, fumes about supposed attacks on faith, and white-ants efforts to build support for a First Nations Voice in the Constitution.

Witness the government’s pillorying responses to anti-discrimination campaigners with dismissive throw-aways like “all lives matter”.

Divide and dither’s existence was spectacularly laid bare in a series of explosive “textimonials” regarding Morrison’s character from his own colleagues — people much closer to him than voters, including Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce. These described him variously as a “hypocrite and a liar”. A New South Wales Liberal senator called him a “bully with no moral compass”.

It’s there, too, in the vicious campaigns against “fake” independent women – simply for standing for office. In a democracy.

The Liberals’ refusal to acknowledge and address female under-representation has invited the very rebellion it now faces from high-calibre female candidates in safe Liberal seats.

The overall impression is of a government shamelessly enabled by a pseudo-independent media that makes no serious attempt to govern for all Australians.

No change means no consequences
In light of these multiple failures, in opting for no change, Australian voters would be saying there is no cost for governing like this.

The Coalition’s take-out would be — keep misleading and pork-barrelling and fomenting useless culture wars.

Keep stacking boards and cutting taxes for the rich and emaciating the public service. Keep denying an anti-corruption commission even as its need becomes ever-more pressing.

Psychologists would call such a verdict “learned helplessness” — an acceptance that such corruptions are inevitable, and no more than we deserve.

Accountable government, national unity, evidence-based policy, and democratic accountability are all on the ballot at this election.

It is not 1972, but the choice might be equally stark, despite Labor’s timidity.

Dr Mark Kenny, is professor at the Australian Studies Institute, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The bell has been rung, the shadow campaign is now official, and Australia heads to the polls on May 21. As the government enters caretaker mode, Australia enters a highly consequential period of democratic deliberation, but not for the reasons you might think.

It suits politicians — and many in the media — to portray a federal election as a grand job application process in which voters comprise the selection panel. But that’s really only half the story.

Political commentator Sean Kelly has written a convincing book on how Scott Morrison turned the 2019 election into a choice between him and the then Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.

• READ MORE: Other The Conversation articles on Asia Pacific Report

Morrison won when Australians were more attracted to his persona than that of his opponent. Policy played a small part, notably when bold proposals on the Labor side became a lightening rod for fear.

This time around we are again likely to see a focus on leadership eclipse policy debate. Morrison enters this campaign behind in the polls and as an unusually unpopular prime minister, but with an unshakeable faith he can turn it around.

Labor knows Morrison is on the nose, and will be perfectly happy to cast the election to a referendum on their leader Anthony Albanese versus an unpopular PM.

If we let this happen it will be a poor outcome, no matter who wins. The great drawback of democracy is that while voters get to decide who forms government, we have little power to set the agenda.

Wasting a precious chance
Yet if we can’t have a proper policy debate during a campaign, we waste a precious chance to talk about the things that matter most to us.

The US journalism academic Jay Rosen takes a keen interest in Australian media. For for many years, he has been critical of Australian media’s over-reliance on polls and tendency to treat covering politics like calling a horse race.

Rosen says this means the media allows the politicians to decide what gets talked about. Important topics get neglected as the spin-doctors steer the discussion to narrow areas where they think their party might have an advantage.

With this in mind, The Conversation is determined to cover this election differently. We are going to talk about what what matters most to us — the policies that affect our lives and the future of the planet.

As a first step, we are going to set our own citizens’ policy agenda in collaboration with our readers. Please help us by filling out our #SetTheAgenda poll.

Once we know more about what you’d like to see on the agenda, we will report back on what you’ve said and tap into the deep expertise of the thousands of academic experts who write for The Conversation.

We will bring you coverage with a clear focus on the major problems we face as a society, and try to provide evidence-based solutions that the experts think could actually work.

Final ingredient
The final ingredient is the best coverage of the politics of the campaign from one of Australia’s most respected political correspondents, Michelle Grattan, backed up by the economic nous and insight of Peter Martin.

Michelle will be writing regularly throughout the campaign and you can subscribe to her politics podcast for in-depth interviews and informed commentary

We’re also bringing back the much-loved ABC radio presenter Jon Faine for Below the Line, an election podcast with political scientists Anika Gauja and Simon Jackman from the University of Sydney and La Trobe University’s Andrea Carson.

As always, we will do everything in our power to be evidence-led and non-partisan. In a media environment manipulated by vested interests and saturated with opinions, we are committed to covering issues chosen by you and hosting a genuine debate that focuses on the public interest.

Please take advantage of this opportunity to have your say and contribute to our efforts to ensure the democratic discussion is calm, compassionate, accountable and fair.

Misha Ketchell is editor and and executive director, The Conversation. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.