When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, New Zealand responded with unusual speed. Sanctions followed. Condemnations were issued. The language was unambiguous.

We were told this was about defending the “rules-based international order” — a phrase our politicians have grown remarkably fond of. Winston Peters has deployed it frequently in his time as Foreign Minister.

So where is that principled clarity now?

• READ MORE: Malcolm Evans: What have we become that we accept such brigandry?
• Trump says Venezuela to hand over up to 50m barrels of oil to US
• Fact-checking Trump on promised US oil company investment in Venezuela
• US says military ‘always an option’ in Greenland as Europe rejects threats
• ‘I am still president of my country,’ kidnapped Nicolas Maduro tells US court

On Saturday, the United States attacked the Venezuelan capital Caracas, seized President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and spirited them away to face charges in New York.

President Donald Trump then declared that America would “run” Venezuela — including, he made abundantly clear, its oil reserves. He threatened the acting president with a fate “probably worse than Maduro” if she failed to cooperate.

This is, by any reasonable definition, an invasion. An act of aggression against a sovereign state. A violation of Article Two of the UN Charter. The kind of thing New Zealand normally objects to, or used to.

Peters’ response? After about 24 hours, he made a brief statement on social media: “New Zealand is concerned by and actively monitoring developments in Venezuela and expects all parties to act in accordance with international law.”

That’s it. “Concerned”. “Monitoring”. Expecting all parties to behave. One party has just bombed a capital city, kidnapped a head of state, and announced it will control the country’s resources. But sure, let’s urge “all parties” to play by the rules.

The Prime Minister’s Office, when asked for a response at the highest level, simply referred journalists back to Peters’ tweet. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon himself has said nothing.

As Geoffrey Miller, the independent geopolitical analyst, observed: “Luxon will probably be grateful to escape the media spotlight by virtue of the weekend’s events falling in the depths of New Zealand’s typically elongated summer holidays.”

The language tells you everything
Pay attention to the words politicians choose and the words they avoid. Peters didn’t name the United States. He didn’t describe what happened as an invasion, an attack, or even an intervention. The carefully crafted statement avoids assigning responsibility to anyone. It’s diplomatic jelly.

Compare this to how other countries have responded. Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay issued a joint statement expressing “deep concern and rejection of the military actions carried out unilaterally in the territory of Venezuela, which contravene fundamental principles of international law.”

They warned that “such actions set an extremely dangerous precedent for regional peace and security and for the rules-based international order.”

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez was equally direct: “Spain did not recognise the Maduro regime. But neither will it recognise an intervention that violates international law and pushes the region toward a horizon of uncertainty and belligerence.”

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide put it simply: “International law is universal and binding for all states. The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law.”

Even Singapore, which is hardly known for picking diplomatic fights, issued a statement saying it was “gravely concerned” and “strongly condemned any unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country under any pretext.” That echoes the language Singapore used after Russia invaded Ukraine.

New Zealand? “Concerned” and “monitoring”.

The vested interests behind timidity
Maduro is no martyr; he is a dictator who ran his country into the ground. He lost the 2024 election by an enormous margin and then stole it. His regime was corrupt, authoritarian, and responsible for the flight of eight million Venezuelans from their own country. No tears should be shed for him personally.

But that’s not the point. The question isn’t whether Maduro deserved power. He didn’t. The question is whether the United States can bomb sovereign nations, kidnap their leaders, and declare control of their natural resources whenever it feels like it.

The answer, if you believe in national sovereignty or the rules-based order our government claims to defend, should be an emphatic no.

Why can’t New Zealand say so? The answer lies in vested interests: both American and our own.

Start with Washington. Trump’s intervention is not primarily about narcotics or democracy.

As Professor Robert Patman of Otago University has noted, Venezuela is not at the centre of America’s drug problems. Fentanyl and other drugs mainly come from places like China and Mexico. Trump’s announcement that America would “run” Venezuela and take its oil reserves revealed the true motivation.

At his news conference, Trump made clear his major objective was securing Venezuela’s oil resources, which he claims the United States “owns”. This from the man who once said America made a mistake in not grabbing Iraq’s oil reserves after the 2003 invasion.

The vested interests of American corporations are driving this policy, dressed up in the language of law enforcement and regional security. The military is simply being used to secure assets for private corporations.

And what about New Zealand’s own vested interests in staying quiet? Here the picture becomes clearer. Our farming and export sectors have already been hit by Trump’s tariff regime. An initial 10 percent rate in April was raised to 15 percent.

A November decision to roll back tariffs on food imports provided some relief, but American trade policy remains a constant threat. India has been hit with 50 percent tariffs for buying Russian oil. Brazil was targeted because of its prosecution of Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro.

Our agricultural and export lobby groups watch these retaliatory tariffs nervously. Any government criticism of Trump risks placing New Zealand next on the punishment list. This explains why Peters has been so careful not to name the United States in his statement.

The economic interests of New Zealand’s export sector — farmers, meat processors, dairy companies — are being prioritised over principles. It’s the politics of fear, wrapped in the language of diplomacy.

Stephen Nagy, a professor at the International Christian University in Tokyo, put it bluntly when explaining why America’s Asian allies have been so reluctant to criticise Trump: “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” This is what happens when a country’s foreign policy becomes subordinate to its immediate economic interests.

The double standard is breathtaking
Consider how this would play out if the roles were reversed. Imagine China had just bombed Taipei, sent special forces to capture Taiwan’s leader, and declared it would “run” the island.

Would Winston Peters be tweeting about how New Zealand “expects all parties” to respect international law? Would Chris Luxon be hiding behind his summer holiday?

Of course not. The response would be immediate, forceful, and unambiguous. We would be told that Chinese aggression cannot be tolerated. Gordon Campbell made this point sharply: “If the Chinese military were blowing up merchant shipping in the South China Sea, bombing Taipei and sending in special forces to kidnap Taiwan’s leader . . .  New Zealand wouldn’t be meekly asking both sides to show restrained respect for international law. We would be outraged.”

The same double standard has been on display over Gaza. Peters’ line about expecting “all parties” to respect international law has been the government’s exact position there too, as if both sides in that conflict have been equally responsible for bombing hospitals and blocking humanitarian aid.

Only last week, New Zealand opted not to join a joint statement by foreign ministers from Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom calling for Israel to abide by ceasefire terms. Peters sat that one out.

Opposition voices show what’s possible
Not everyone in New Zealand politics has been so timid. Phil Twyford of the Labour Party issued a stronger statement, actually naming the United States and describing the action as a violation of international law.

It’s not revolutionary language (more like stating the obvious) but in the context of the government’s mealy-mouthed response, it stands out. Opposition Leader Chris Hipkins should be speaking out likewise.

Helen Clark has been characteristically direct, telling RNZ that the US attack was “clearly illegal under the UN Charter.” When former prime ministers speak more clearly than current foreign ministers, something has gone badly wrong.

Professor Patman told RNZ that New Zealand’s response should be “firm and robust” and noted that the days of “softly, softly diplomacy” with Trump are over. Patman says: “New Zealand has persisted for the last 12 months in what I call softly, softly diplomacy towards Trump. The idea is if we keep our heads beneath the radar, we say nice things, we have photo opportunities with the great men at international meetings, he will soften and we’ll be able to nudge him in a more moderate direction. I’m afraid that’s over.”

He labelled Peters’ statement as “limp”.

The credibility at stake
The consequences of this craven approach go beyond the immediate crisis. Geoffrey Miller warned that the inconsistency between how Western allies responded to Russia and how they’re responding to America “may come back to haunt them, particularly when it comes to their credibility with the Global South.”

He’s right. Countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are watching. They’ve heard endless lectures from Western nations about the importance of the rules-based order, about sovereignty, about international law.

Now they’re watching those same nations stay quiet — or worse, make excuses — when the violator is the United States. Beijing and Moscow will exploit this at every opportunity. They’ll point to Venezuela whenever anyone raises Ukraine or Taiwan. And they’ll have a point.

As Nathalie Tocci wrote in The Guardian, the European failure to condemn Trump’s action “embodies the law of the jungle so dear to dictators such as Putin. For Europeans to silently condone such a vision is not just unethical. It is plain stupid.”

After all, Trump is now speaking out loud about annexing Greenland too. And increasingly, the concept of “Spheres of Influence” seems to be rising, whereby military superpowers such as the US, Russia, China, etc can operate on a “might is right” basis to intervene however they want in their own regions.

If the world reverts to such “Spheres of Influence”, New Zealand is left exposed. If the US can claim the Americas, what is to stop a superpower from claiming the Pacific?

New Zealand has spent years positioning itself as “a good international citizen”. It has sought seats on the UN Security Council. It has championed multilateralism. It has talked endlessly about the importance of small states having a voice in international affairs.

How does that square with staying silent when a great power simply ignores international law because it can?

The integrity test New Zealand is failing
This is ultimately a question of integrity — the kind of integrity New Zealand claims to stand for on the world stage. Either international law applies to everyone, or it doesn’t. Either sovereignty matters, or it’s just a convenient talking point when it suits politicians.

Either New Zealand is willing to call out violations regardless of who commits them, or else the politicians are just selective critics who only speak up when the target is someone they already dislike.

Winston Peters once prided himself on being willing to speak uncomfortable truths. New Zealand First has long positioned itself as independent-minded, unwilling to simply follow the crowd. Where is that independence now?

What we’re seeing instead is a government so afraid of offending Trump, and so captured by the economic interests of our export sector, that it can’t even name the United States in a statement about an American military attack.

As Professor Patman observed: “Foreign policy in this country has been traditionally bipartisan. We have stood up for the rule of law internationally.” If that’s true, then it’s certainly time to show some element of independence from the US and Five Eyes.

But doing so requires the New Zealand government to put principles ahead of the vested interests of farmers and exporters, and ahead of the political calculation that offending Trump carries too high a price.

Murray McCully, not exactly a darling of the left, showed more backbone when he championed UN Security Council Resolution 2334 on Israeli settlements in 2016. As Gordon Campbell observed, the current situation almost makes you yearn for the days when McCully was foreign minister.

That’s a damning indictment of how far New Zealand has fallen.

So, as we head towards an election year, foreign policy needs to be made a major issue. Voters now deserve to know whether New Zealand will continue to subordinate its principles to its perceived economic interests.

Dr Bryce Edwards is a political commentator and analyst. He is director of the Democracy Project, focused on scrutinising and challenging the role of vested interests in the political process. Republished with the author’s permission.

Donald Trump campaigned for the White House by unleashing a nearly endless barrage of insults against journalists and news outlets.

He repeatedly threatened to weaponise the federal government against media professionals whom he considers his enemies.

In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has already shown that he was not bluffing.

• READ MORE: Pacific editor welcomes US court ruling in favour of Radio Free Asia
• Other RSF reports

“The day-to-day chaos of the American political news cycle can make it hard to fully take stock of the seismic shifts that are happening,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF North America.

“But when you step back and look at the whole picture, the pattern of blows to press freedom is quite clear.

“RSF refuses to accept this massive attack on press freedom as the new normal. We will continue to call out these assaults against the press and use every means at our disposal to fight back against them.

“We urge every American who values press freedom to do the same.”

Prime Minister Mark Brown has survived a motion in the Cook Islands Parliament aimed at ousting his government, the second Pacific Island leader to face a no-confidence vote this week.

In a vote yesterday afternoon (Tuesday, Cook Islands time), the man who has been at the centre of controversy in the past few weeks, defeated the motion by 13 votes to 9. Two government ministers were absent for the vote.

The motion was put forward by the opposition MP Teariki Heather, the leader of the Cook Islands United Party.

• READ MORE: Other Cook Islands leadership reports

Ahead of the vote, Heather acknowledged that Brown had majority support in Parliament.

However, he said he was moving the motion on principle after recent decisions by Brown, including a proposal to create a Cook Islands passport and shunning New Zealand from deals it made with China, which has divided Cook Islanders.

“These are the merits that I am presenting before this House. We have the support of our people and those living outside the country, and so it is my challenge. Where do you stand in this House?” Heather said.

Brown said his country has been so successful in its development in recent years that it graduated to first world status in 2020.

‘Engage on equal footing’
“We need to stand on our own two feet, and we need to engage with our partners on an equal footing,” he said.

“Economic and financial independence must come first before political independence, and that was what I discussed and made clear when I met with the New Zealand prime minister and deputy prime minister in Wellington in November.”

Brown said the issues Cook Islanders faced today were not just about passports and agreements but about Cook Islands expressing its self-determination.

“This is not about consultation. This is about control.”

“We cannot compete with New Zealand. When their one-sided messaging is so compelling that even our opposition members will be swayed.

“We never once talked to the New Zealand government about cutting our ties with New Zealand but the message our people received was that we were cutting our ties with New Zealand.

“We have been discussing the comprehensive partnership with New Zealand for months. But the messaging that got out is that we have not consulted.

Cook Islands PM accuses NZ media, experts of thinking ‘we are too dumb’ https://t.co/ADrWN4Yjp9

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) February 25, 2025

‘We are not a child’
“We are a partner in the relationship with New Zealand. We are not a child.”

He said the motion of no confidence had been built on misinformation to the extent that the mover of the motion has stated publicly that he was moving this motion in support of New Zealand.

“The influence of New Zealand in this motion of no confidence should be of concern to all Cook Islands who value . . . who value our country.

“My job is not to fly the New Zealand flag. My job is to fly my own country’s flag.”

Last week, hundreds of Cook Islanders opposing Brown’s political decisions rallied in Avarua, demanding that he step down for damaging the relationship between Aotearoa and Cook Islands.

The Cook Islands is a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. It is part of the Realm of New Zealand, sharing the same Head of State.

This year, the island marks its 60th year of self-governance.

According to Cook Islands 2021 Census, its population is less than 15,000.

New Zealand remains the largest home to the Cook Islands community, with over 80,000 Cook Islands Māori, while about 28,000 live in Australia.

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

By the time US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on China and Canada last Monday which could kickstart a trade war, New Zealand’s diplomats in Washington, DC, had already been deployed on another diplomatic drama.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz had said on social media it was “difficult to treat New Zealand as a normal ally . . .  when they denigrate and punish Israeli citizens for defending themselves and their country”.

He cited a story in the Israeli media outlet Ha’aretz, which has a reputation for independence in Israel and credibility abroad.

• READ MORE: Mark Brown on China deal: ‘No need for NZ to sit in the room with us’
• NZ-Kiribati fallout: Maamau’s inability to engage with NZ difficult to defend
• NZ-Kiribati fallout: A ‘Pacific way’ perspective on the Peters spat

But Ha’aretz had wrongly reported Israelis must declare service in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as part of “new requirements” for visa applications.

Winston Peters replied forcefully to Cruz on X, condemning Ha’aretz’s story as “fake news” and demanding a correction.

But one thing Trump’s Republicans and Winston Peters had in common last week was irritating Mexico.

His fellow NZ First MP Shane Jones had bellowed “Send the Mexicans home” at Green MPs in Parliament.

Winston Peters then told two of them they should be more grateful for being able to live in New Zealand.

‘We will not be lectured’
On Facebook he wasn’t exactly backing down.

“We . . .  will not be lectured on the culture and traditions of New Zealand from people who have been here for five minutes,” he added.

While he was at it, Peters criticised media outlets for not holding other political parties to account for inflammatory comments.

Peters was posting that as a politician — not a foreign minister, but the Mexican ambassador complained to MFAT. (It seems the so-called “Mexican standoff” was resolved over a pre-Waitangi lunch with Ambassador Bravo).

But the next day — last Wednesday — news of another diplomatic drama broke on TVNZ’s 1News.

“A deal that could shatter New Zealand’s close relationship with a Pacific neighbour,” presenter Simon Dallow declared, in front of a backdrop of a stern-looking Peters.

TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver reported the Cook Islands was about to sign a partnership agreement in Beijing.

“We want clarity and at this point in time, we have none. We’ve got past arrangements, constitutional arrangements, which require constant consultation with us, and dare I say, China knows that,” Peters told 1News.

Passports another headache
Cook Islands’ Prime Minister Mark Brown also told Barbara Dreaver TVNZ’s revelations last month about proposed Cook Island passports had also been a headache for him.

“We were caught by surprise when this news was broken by 1News. I thought it was a high-level diplomatic discussion with leaders to be open and frank,” he told TVNZ this week.

“For it to be brought out into the public before we’ve had a time to inform our public, I thought was a breach of our political diplomacy.”

Last week another Barabara Dreaver scoop on 1News brought the strained relationship with another Pacific state into the headlines:

“Our relationship with Kiribati is at breaking point. New Zealand’s $100 million aid programme there is now on hold. The move comes after President [Taneti] Maamau pulled out of a pre-arranged meeting with Winston Peters.”

The media ended up in the middle of the blame game over this too — but many didn’t see it coming.

Caught in the crossfire
“A diplomatic rift with Kiribati was on no one’s 2025 bingo card,” Stuff national affairs editor Andrea Vance wrote last weekend in the Sunday Star-Times.

“Of all the squabbles Winston Peters was expected to have this year, no one picked it would be with an impoverished, sinking island nation,” she wrote, in terms that would surely annoy Kiribati.

“Do you believe Kiribati is snubbing you?” RNZ Morning Report’s Corin Dann asked Peters.

“You can come to any conclusion you like, but our job is to try and resolve this matter,” Peters replied.

Kiribati Education Minister Alexander Teabo told RNZ Pacific there was no snub.

He said Kiribati President Maamau — who is also the nation’s foreign minister — had been unavailable because of a long-planned and important Catholic ordination ceremony on his home island of Onotoa — though this was prior to the proposed visit from Peters.

On Facebook — at some length — New Zealand-born Kiribati MP Ruth Cross Kwansing blamed “media manufactured drama”.

“The New Zealand media seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati, and the familiar whispers about Chinese influence began to circulate,” she said.

She was more diplomatic on the 531pi Pacific Mornings radio show but insistent New Zealand had not been snubbed.

Public dispute “regrettable’
Peters told the same show it was “regrettable” that the dispute had been made public.

On Newstalk ZB Peters was backed — and Kiribati portrayed as the problem.

“If somebody is giving me $100m and they asked for a meeting, I will attend. I don’t care if it’s my mum’s birthday. Or somebody’s funeral,” Drive host Ryan Bridge told listeners.

“It’s always very hard to pick apart these stories (by) just reading them in the media. But I have faith and confidence in Winston Peters as our foreign minister,” PR-pro Trish Shrerson opined.

So did her fellow panellist, former Labour MP Stuart Nash.

“He’s respected across the Pacific. He’s the consummate diplomat. If Winston says this is the story and this is what’s happening, I believe 100 percent. And I would say, go hard. Winston — represent our interests.”

‘Totally silly’ response
But veteran Pacific journalist Michael Field contradicted them soon after on ZB.

“It’s totally silly. All this talk about cancelling $104 million of aid is total pie-in-the-sky from Winston Peters,” he said.

“Somebody’s lost their marbles on this, and the one who’s possibly on the ground looking for them is Winston Peters.

“He didn’t need to be in Tarawa in early January at all. This is pathetic. This is like saying I was invited to my sister’s birthday party and now it’s been cancelled,” he said.

Not a comparison you hear very often in international relations.

In his own Substack newsletter Michael Field also insisted the row reflected poorly on New Zealand.

“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still-viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls [from] being used as bases without Washington approval,” he added.

Kiribati ‘hugely disrespectful’
But TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver said Kiribati was being “hugely disrespectful”.

In a TVNZ analysis piece last weekend, she said New Zealand has “every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.”

Dreaver — who was born in and grew up in Kiribati and has family there — also criticised “the airtime and validation” Kwansing got in the media in New Zealand.

“She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected,” Dreaver said.

Kwansing hit back on Facebook, accusing Dreaver of “publishing inane drivel” and “irresponsible journalism causing stress to locals.”

“You write like you need a good holiday somewhere happy. Please book yourself a luxury day spa ASAP,” she told TVNZ’s Pacific Affairs reporter.

Two days later — last Tuesday — the Kiribati government made percent2CO percent2CP-R an official statement which also pointed the finger at the media.

“Despite this media issue, the government of Kiribati remains convinced the strong bonds between Kiribati and New Zealand will enable a resolution to this unfortunate standoff,” it said.

Copping the blame
Another reporter who knows what it’s like to cop the blame for reporting stuff diplomats and politicians want to keep out of the news is RNZ Pacific’s senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis.

Last year, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese questioned RNZ’s ethics after she reported comments he made to the US Deputy Secretary of State at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga — which revealed an until-then behind closed doors plan to pay for better policing in the Pacific.

She’s also been covering the tension with Kiribati.

Is the heat coming on the media more these days if they candidly report diplomatic differences?

“There’s no study that says there are more people blaming the media. So it’s anecdotal, but definitely, both the public and politicians are saying the media (are) making a big deal of things,” Lewis told Mediawatch.

“I would put the question back to the public as to who’s manufacturing drama. All we’re doing is reporting what’s in front of us for the public to then make their decision — and questioning it. And there were a lot of questions around this Kiribati story.”

Lewis said it was shortly before 6pm on January 27, that selected journalists were advised of the response of our government to the cancellation of the meeting with foreign minister Peters.

Vice-President an alternative
But it was not mentioned that Kiribati had offered the Vice-President for a meeting, the same person that met with an Australian delegation recently.

A response from Kiribati proved harder to get — and Lewis spoke to a senior figure in Kiribati that night who told her they knew nothing about it.

Politicians and diplomats, naturally enough, prefer to do things behind the scenes and media exposure is a complication for them.

But we simply wouldn’t know about the impending partnership agreement between China and the Cook Islands if TVNZ had not reported it last Monday.

And another irony: some political figures lamenting the diplomatically disruptive impact of the media also make decidedly undiplomatic responses of their own online these days.

“It can be revealing in the sense of where people stand. Sometimes they’re just putting out their opinions or their experience. Maybe they’ve got some sort of motive. A formal message or email we’ll take a bit more seriously. But some of the things on social media, we just take with a grain of salt,” said Lewis.

“It is vital we all look at multiple sources. It comes back to balance and knowledge and understanding what you know about and what you don’t know about — and then asking the questions in between.”

Big Powers and the Big Picture
Kwansing objected to New Zealand media jumping to the conclusion China’s influence was a factor in the friction with New Zealand.

“To dismiss the geopolitical implications with China . . .  would be naive and ignorant,” Dreaver countered.

Michael Field pointed to an angle missing.

“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls being used as bases without Washington approval,” he wrote in his Substack.

In the same article in which Vance called Kiribati “an impoverished, sinking island nation” she later pointed out that its location, US military ties and vast ocean territory make it strategically important.

Questions about ‘transparency and accountability’
“There’s a lot of people that want in on Kiribati. It has a huge exclusive economic zone,” Lewis said.

She said communication problems and patchy connectivity are also drawbacks.

“We do have a fuller picture now of the situation, but the overarching question that’s come out of this is around transparency and accountability.

“We can’t hold Kiribati politicians to account like we do New Zealand government politicians.”

“I don’t want to give Kiribati a free pass here but it’s really difficult to get a response.

“They’re posting statements on Facebook and it really has raised some questions around the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability for all journalists . . .  committed to fair media reporting across the Pacific.”

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

COMMENTARY: By Michelle Pini, managing editor of Independent Australia

With President Donald Trump now into his second week in the White House, horrific fires have continued to rage across Los Angeles and the details of Elon Musk’s allegedly dodgy Twitter takeover began to emerge, the world sits anxiously by.

The consequences of a second Trump term will reverberate globally, not only among Western nations. But given the deeply entrenched Americanisation of much of the Western world, this is about how it will navigate the after-shocks once the United States finally unravels — for unravel it surely will.

• READ MORE: Palestinians reject Trump’s relocation plan as they return to Gaza’s north
• Other Donald Trump reports

Leading with chaos
Now that the world’s biggest superpower and war machine has a deranged criminal at the helm — for a second time — none of us know the lengths to which Trump (and his puppet masters) will go as his fingers brush dangerously close to the nuclear codes. Will he be more emboldened?

The signs are certainly there.

So far, Trump — who had already led the insurrection of a democratically elected government — has threatened to exit the nuclear arms pact with Russia, talked up a trade war with China and declared “all hell will break out” in the Middle East if Hamas hadn’t returned the Israeli hostages.

Will his cruelty towards migrants and refugees escalate, matched only by his fuelling of racial division?

This, too, appears to be already happening.

Trump’s rants leading up to his inauguration last week had been a steady stream of crazed declarations, each one more unhinged than the last.

He wants to buy Greenland. He wishes to overturn birthright citizenship in order to deport even more migrant children, such as  “pet-eating Haitians” and “insane Hannibal Lecters” because America has been “invaded”.

It will be interesting to see whether his planned evictions of Mexicans will include the firefighters Mexico sent to Los Angeles’ aid.

At the same time, Trump wants to turn Canada into the 51st state, because, he said,

“It would make a great state. And the people of Canada like it.”

Will sexual predator Trump’s level of misogyny sink to even lower depths post Roe v Wade?

Probably.

Denial of catastrophic climate consequences
And will Trump be in even further denial over the catastrophic consequences of climate change than during his last term? Even as Los Angeles grapples with a still climbing death toll of 25 lives lost, 12,000 homes, businesses and other structures destroyed and 16,425 hectares (about the size of Washington DC) wiped out so far in the latest climactic disaster?

The fires are, of course, symptomatic of the many years of criminal negligence on global warming. But since Trump instead accused California officials of “prioritising environmental policies over public safety” while his buddy and head of government “efficiency”, Musk blamed black firefighters for the fires, it would appear so.

Will the madman, for surely he is one, also gift even greater protections to oligarchs like Musk?

Trump has already appointed billionaire buddies Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to:

 “…pave the way for my Administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal agencies”.

So, this too is already happening.

All of these actions will combine to create a scenario of destruction that will see the implosion of the US as we know it, though the details are yet to emerge.

What happens Down Under?
US allies — like Australia — have already been thoroughly indoctrinated by American pop culture in order to complement the many army bases they house and the defence agreements they have signed.

Though Trump hasn’t shown any interest in making it a 52nd state, Australia has been tucked up in bed with the United States since the Cold War. Our foreign policy has hinged on this alliance, which also significantly affects Australia’s trade and economy, not to mention our entire cultural identity, mired as it is in US-style fast food dependence and reality TV. Would you like Vegemite McShaker Fries with that?

So what will happen to Australia once the superpower we have followed into endless battles finally breaks down?

As Dr Martin Hirst wrote in November:

‘Trump has promised chaos and chaos is what he’ll deliver.’

His rise to power will embolden the rabid Far-Right in the US but will this be mirrored here? And will Australia follow the US example and this year elect our very own (admittedly scaled down) version of Trump, personified by none other than the Trump-loving Peter Dutton?

If any of his wild announcements are to be believed, between building walls and evicting even US nationals he doesn’t like, while simultaneously making Canadians US citizens, Trump will be extremely busy.

There will be little time even to consider Australia, let alone come to our rescue should we ever need the might of the US war machine — no matter whether it is an Albanese or sycophantic Dutton leadership.

It is a given, however, that we would be required to honour all defence agreements should our ally demand it.

It would be great if, as psychologists urge us to do when children act up, our leaders could simply ignore and refuse to engage with him, but it remains to be seen whether Australia will have the mettle to be bigger than Trump.

Republished from the Independent Australia with permission.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s aid for Kiribati is being reviewed after its President and Foreign Minister cancelled a meeting with him last week.

Terms of Reference for the review are still being finalised, and it remains unclear whether or not funding will be cut or projects already under way would be affected, with Peters’ office saying no decisions would be made until the review was complete.

His office said Kiribati remained part of the RSE scheme and its eligibility for the Pacific Access Category was unaffected — for now.

• READ MORE: Other Kiribati aid reports

Peters had been due to meet with President Taneti Maamau last Tuesday and Wednesday, in what was to be the first trip by a New Zealand foreign minister to Kiribati in five years, and part of his effort to visit every Pacific country early in the government’s term.

Kiribati has been receiving increased aid from China in recent years.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Peters said he was informed about a week before the trip President Maamau would no longer be available.

“Around a week prior to our arrival in Tarawa, we were advised that the President and Foreign Minister of Kiribati, Taneti Maamau, was no longer available to receive Mr Peters and his delegation,” the statement said.

‘Especially disappointing’
“This was especially disappointing because the visit was to be the first in over five years by a New Zealand Minister to Kiribati — and was the result of a months-long effort to travel there.”

The spokesperson said the development programme was being reviewed as a result.

“New Zealand has been a long-standing partner to Kiribati. The lack of political-level contact makes it very difficult for us to agree joint priorities for our development programme, and to ensure that it is well targeted and delivers good value for money.

“That’s important for both the people of Kiribati and for the New Zealand taxpayer. For this reason, we are reviewing our development programme in Kiribati. The outcomes of that review will be announced in due course.

“Other aspects of the bilateral relationship may also be impacted.”

New Zealand spent $102 million on the development cooperation programme with Kiribati between 2021 and 2024, including on health, education, fisheries, economic development, and climate resilience.

Peters’ office said New Zealand deeply valued the contribution Recognised Seasonal Employer workers made to the country, and was committed to working alongside Pacific partners to ensure the scheme led to positive outcomes for all parties.

Committed to positive outcomes
“However, without open dialogue it is difficult to meet this commitment.”

They also said New Zealand was committed to working alongside our Pacific partners to ensure that the Pacific Access Category leads to positive outcomes for all parties, but again this would be difficult without open dialogue.

The spokesperson said the Kiribati people’s wellbeing was of paramount importance and the terms of reference would reflect this.

New Zealand stood ready “as we always have, to engage with Kiribati at a high level”.

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

It is the final day of election campaigning in Solomon Islands and there is a palpable sense of anticipation in the country, which is holding national and provincial elections simultaneously for the first time this year.

There is also significant international interest this year in the outcome of the National Election, as it is the first to be held since 2019 when Taiwan cut its decades-long diplomatic ties with the country — leaving Honiara in the lurch as it moved to formally establish diplomatic relations with Beijing.

The elections this week were officially scheduled to take place last year but were postponed, somewhat controversially, so that the country could host the Pacific Games.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Excitement in Solomon Islands as election nears

Most of the voters RNZ Pacific has spoken to in Honiara so far seem both excited and determined to exercise their democratic right.

In and around the capital, stages are being erected for final campaign rallies and all manner of vehicles are being decked out for colourful and noisy float parades.

Overnight, down at the main Point Cruz wharf, hundreds of voters were still boarding ferries paid for by election candidates trying to shore up their numbers.

Many of the ships are not actually designed for passengers — they are converted fishing or cargo vessels purchased through Special Shipping Grants given to MPs to help meet transportation needs for their constituents.

Voter ferries
One such vessel is the MV Avaikimaine run by Renbel Shipping for the Rennell and Bellona constituency.

The man in charge of boarding last night, Derek Pongi, said voters for all election candidates were allowed to travel on the vessel.

Pongi said some people had their fares paid for by the candidates they support, while others meet their own travel costs.

He said the vessel had completed four trips carrying 400 or more passengers each time.

“It’s important because people from Rennell and Bellona can go back and participate in these elections and exercise their right to vote for their member of Parliament and the members of the Provincial Assembly,” Pongi said.

But not all vessels have such an open policy — some of the wealthier candidates in larger constituencies either charter or call in favours to get potential voters to the polls.

A couple of jetties over from the Avaikimaine was the bright neon green-coloured Uta Princess II.

Her logistics officer, Tony Laugwaro, explained the vessel was heading to the Baegu Asifola constituency and that most of the people on board were supporters of the incumbent MP John Maneniaru.

Three trips
He said they had made three trips already, but had to be wary of remaining within the campaign expenses’ maximum expenditure limit.

“It’s only around SBD$500,000 (US$58,999) for each candidate to do logistics, so we have to work within that amount for transporting and accommodating voters,” Tony Laugwaro said.

According to Solomon Islands electoral laws, candidates are also only allowed to accept donations of up to SBD$50,000 (US$5900) for campaigning.

As each ship pulls away from the jetty and disappears into the night, another appears like a white ghost out of the darkness and begins the process of loading more passengers.

The official campaign period ends at midnight today, followed immediately by a 24-hour campaign blackout.

Polls open on Wednesday at 7am and close at 4pm. Counting is expected to continue through until the weekend.

Depending on the official results, which will be announced by the Governor-General, lobbying to form the national and provincial governments could last anywhere from a few days to several weeks.

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

South Auckland was a hub of indigenous pride as the Auckland Polyfest 2024 revealed a vibrant celebration of cultural diversity, youth empowerment, and the enduring legacy of Pasifika heritage.

From the rhythmic beats of Cook Islands drums to the grace and elegance of Siva Samoa, the festival brought together over 200 teams from 69 schools across Aotearoa.

Polyfest, now in its 49th year, continues to captivate audiences as one of the largest Pacific festivals in Aotearoa.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific culture reports

What began in 1976 as a modest gathering to encourage pride in cultural identities has evolved into a monumental event, attracting up to 100,000 visitors annually.

Held at the Manukau Sports Bowl, secondary school students from across New Zealand share traditional dance forms and compete on six stages over four days.

Five stages are dedicated to the Cook Islands, New Zealand Māori, Niue, Samoa and Tonga.

A sixth “diversity” stage encourages representation and involvement of students from all other ethnicities, ranging from Fijian, Kiribati and Tuvaluan, through to Chinese, Filipino, Indian and South Korean.

‘Rite of passage’
For festival director Terri Leo-Mauu, Polyfest represents more than just a showcase of talent — it’s a platform for youth to connect with their cultural heritage and celebrate their identities.

Auckland Polyfest 2024 – a vibrant showcase.  Video: RNZ

“It’s important for them to carry on the tradition, a rite of passage almost,” Leo-Mauu said.

“It’s also important to them because they get to belong to something, they get to meet friends along the way and get to share this journey with other people.”

The sentiment is echoed by participants like Allen Palemia and Abigail Ikiua, who serve as youth leaders for their respective cultural teams.

For Palemia, leading Aorere College’s Samoan team, Polyfest is a chance to express cultural pride and forge lifelong connections.

“Polyfest is great . . .  it is one of the ways we can express our culture and further connect and appreciate it.”

Similarly, Ikiua, a team lead for the Niue team, sees Polyfest as a platform for cultural revival and self-discovery.

Reconnecting culture
“I think Polyfest is a good place for people to reconnect to their culture more, and just a way for people to find out who they are and embrace it more.”

Connection to their indigenous heritage plays a huge role in the identities of the young ones themselves.

Fati Timaio from Massey High School is representing Tuvalu, the third smallest country in the world.

He shared how proud he is to be recognised as Tuvaluan when he performs.

“It’s important to me cus like when people ask me oh what’s your nationality? and you say Tuvaluan they will only know cus you told them aye but like when you come to Polyfest and perform, they know, they will look at you and say oohh he’s Tuvaluan . . .  you know what I mean.”

Festival goers say this celebration of cultural identities from te moana nui o kiva and beyond is reinvigorating the young ones of Aotearoa.

The caliber of performances was astronomical, an indication of what to expect at next year’s event, which will also be the 50th anniversary of Polyfest.

50 years event
The 50 year’s celebrations next year are expected to be even bigger and better following the announcement of a $60,000 funding boost by the Minister for Pacific Peoples, Dr Shane Reti.

Reti said the government’s sponsorship of the festival recognises the value and role languages play in building confidence for Pacific youth.

An additional $60,0000 funding boost will also be given to the festival in 2030 to mark its 55th year.

With the 50th anniversary of Polyfest on the horizon, the future of the festival looks brighter than ever, promising even greater opportunities for cultural exchange, community engagement, and youth empowerment.

Festival organisers are expecting participant figures to surpass pre-covid numbers at next year’s event.

The pre-pandemic record saw 280 groups from 75 schools involved.

• Competition results are available here

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

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 leaders of five Melanesian countries and territories avoided a definitive update on the status of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua’s application for full membership in the Melanesian Spearhead Group in Port Vila.

However, the 22nd MSG Leaders’ Summit was hailed as the “most memorable and successful” by Vanuatu’s prime minister as leaders signed off on two new declarations in their efforts to make the subregion more influential.

As well as the hosts, the meeting was attended by Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) of New Caledonia.

• READ MORE: ‘The world is watching’ – it’s a test for Melanesian leaders over West Papua, says Wenda
• Other MSG reports

But the meeting had an anticlimactic ending after the leaders failed to release the details about the final outcomes or speak to news media.

The first agreement that was endorsed is the Udaune Declaration on Climate Change to address the climate crisis and “urging countries not to discharge potentially harmful treated nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean”.

“Unless the water treated is incontrovertibly proven, by independent scientists, to be safe to do and seriously consider other options,” Vanuatu Prime Minister Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau said at the event’s farewell dinner last night.

The leaders also signed off on the Efate Declaration on Mutual Respect, Cooperation and Amity to advance security initiatives and needs of the Melanesian countries.

This document aims to “address the national security needs in the MSG region through the Pacific Way, kipung, tok stori, talanoa and storian, and bonded by shared values and adherence to the Melanesian vuvale, cultures and traditions,” Kalsakau said.

He said the leaders “took complex issues such as climate change, denuclearisation, and human rights and applied collective wisdom” to address the issues that were on the table.

Stefan Armbruster reporting from Port Vila.  Video: SBS World News

No update on West Papua
The issue of full membership for the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP)  was a big ticket item on the agenda at the meeting in Port Vila, according to MSG chair Kalsakau.

However, there was no update provided on it and the leaders avoided fronting up to the media except for photo opportunities.

ULMWP leader Benny Wenda (above) told RNZ Pacific late on Thursday he was still not aware of the result of their membership application but that he was “confident” about it.

“I don’t know the outcome. Maybe this evening the leaders will announce at the reception,” Wenda said.

“From the beginning I have been confident that this is the time for the leaders to give us full membership so we can engage with Indonesia.”

According to the MSG Secretariat the final communique is now expected to be released on Friday.

Referred to Pacific Islands Forum
However, it is likely that the West Papua issue will be referred to the Pacific Islands Forum to be dealt with.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape said after the signing: “on the issues that was raised in regards to West Papua…these matters to be handled at [Pacific Islands Forum]”.

“The leaders from the Pacific will also visit Jakarta and Paris” to raise issues about sovereignty and human rights,” he said.

Kalsakau said he looked forward to progressing the implementaiton of important issue recommendations from the 22nd MSG Leaders’ Summit which also include “supporting the 2019 call by the Forum Leaders for a visit by the OHCHR to West Papua”.

Indonesia ‘proud’
Indonesia’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Pahala Mansury, said Indonesia was proud to be part of the Melanesian family.

Indonesia is an associate member of MSG and has said it does not accept ULMWP’s application to become a full member because it claims that this goes against the MSG’s founding principles and charter.

During the meeting this week, Indonesian delegates walked out on occasions when ULMWP representatives made their intervention.

Some West Papua campaigners say these actions showed that Indonesia did not understand “the Melanesian way”.

“You just don’t walk out of a sacred meeting haus when you’re invited to be part of it,” one observer said.

However, Mansury said Indonesia hoped to “continue to increase, enhance and strengthen future collaboration between Indonesia and all of the Melanesian countries”.

“We are actually brothers and sisters of Melanesia and we hope we can continue to strengthen the bond together,” he said.

Australia and China attended as special guests at the invitation of the Vanuatu government.

China supported the Vanuatu government to host the meeting.

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

An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

• READ MORE: Other AUKUS reports

The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

The visit came after he visited Tonga.

Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

“Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

Sharing defence information
Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

“We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

“The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

“New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

“We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

Not committed
But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

“[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

“We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

French President Emmanuel Macron jets into Port Moresby late tomorrow for his historic visit to Papua New Guinea and will be met by Prime Minister James Marape with a 21-gun salute and other ceremonies.

Marape yesterday expressed profound enthusiasm for the upcoming visit of President Macron — currently in New Caledonia — considering it a significant milestone in the nation’s global engagement.

President Macron’s visit marks the first time a French president has visited an independent country in the Pacific, showcasing Papua New Guinea’s growing connectivity with the world, Marape said.

• READ MORE: Macron in New Caledonia to bolster France’s Indo-Pacific strategy
• Other French Pacific reports

“This historic visit by President Macron exemplifies the profound connectivity that Papua New Guinea, under my leadership, is forging with the international community,” he said.

“In today’s interconnected virtual realm of commerce, real-time trade, and foreign relations, the visit by the esteemed French president bodes exceedingly well for PNG.

“We eagerly anticipate strengthening our ties with this influential G7 economy.”

This meeting follows a previous encounter between President Macron and Prime Minister Marape earlier this year in Gabon, Central Africa, during the “One-Forest” Summit.

Bilateral cooperation
The forthcoming visit further cements the amicable relations between the two leaders and enhances bilateral cooperation.

In recent months, the Prime Minister has had fruitful discussions with several world leaders, demonstrating PNG’s growing prominence on the global stage.

A one-day state visit of Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, resulted in tangible benefits, including the establishment of direct flights between Port Moresby and Bali.

Discussions with the President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, during the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, fostered constructive engagements and cooperation between the nations.

Papua New Guinea also hosted leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, further strengthening ties and fostering positive developments.

Leaders of all Pacific countries were also present for the visit of Prime Minister Modi.

Critical issues
Reflecting on these milestones, Marape expressed his commitment to advancing bilateral relations and addressing critical issues of mutual concern with visiting dignitaries.

He hailed the visit of Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, earlier this year, which marked a turning point in the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia after 47 years of independence.

“In anticipation of President Macron’s visit, Papua New Guinea stands ready to engage in productive dialogues and explore new avenues of cooperation with France.

“The visit bears the potential to further elevate PNG’s global presence and unlock new opportunities for mutual growth and prosperity,” Marape said.

President Macron will also be visiting Vanuatu and Fiji.

Republished with permission.

Prime Minister Chris Hipkins says New Zealand’s largest ever trade delegation to China has been “knocking on open doors”.

Hipkins held a media briefing yesterday on the final day of his week-long trip to China.

Hipkins has headed the trade delegation to China and has had successful meetings with top-ranking politicians, including Chinese President Xi Jingping.

• READ MORE: Other NZ-China relationship reports

He said it had been a great trip, and he had been heartened by the positive reaction business leaders in the delegation had received.

“There is a huge market here for New Zealand products and services and so I think for me one of the big insights was the door is wide open.”

Hipkins said he had had the opportunity to see just how thriving the relationship between New Zealand and China was, “particularly building on a very successful event last night which had hundreds of local and New Zealand business people able to get together”.

The relationship with China was “in good heart”, he said.

He said he had navigated the relationship with China in the same way New Zealand always had, “to be open, to be candid, to be transparent and to be consistent in our position”.

Watch the media briefing:

“We knew it was going to be a bit of a bumpy road when we reopened the border and had this huge backlog to work our way through — particularly in areas like international student visas for example, which can be quite time consuming to process because there’s a lot more in them.

“The timeliness around international student visa applications is looking pretty good, the timeliness around business visas is improving, the timeliness around visitor visas remains a challenging area for us because there’s a high volume of them and obviously the frequency with which they are flooding in continues to put the system under pressure.”

He said things like identity verification were causing delays, but “certainly we’re working hard to try and speed that up”.

A ‘very positive vibe’
Sealord chairperson Jamie Tuuta, the head of the business delegation, said there had been a “very positive vibe”.

“It’s been wonderful to be part of the delegation, really promoting Aotearoa New Zealand as one and I think it’s been a real success.”

He said the fact the prime minister had access to the top three politicians in China had been very important for business in China and economic relationships.

“I think it really just demonstrates the longstanding relationship that New Zealand has had with China.”

He said New Zealanders probably did not understand the level of coverage the trip has brought to the Chinese people in the media and social media, and said the large size of the delegation has been very beneficial.

Tuuta said the feedback from everyone on the trip is that it has been “a great success and the nature of the conversations that have been had are warm and constructive, are such where actually it’s positioned us well as a country and as businesses to grow trade and to work constructively with our customers and market”.

He said looking at other countries doing business in China, New Zealand businesses did punch above their weight.

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

The last 10 days has seen the entire media focus (aside from the ubiquitous concern for the All Black prospects in a rugby test and then the fate of coach Ian Foster) has been on allegations of bullying by new opposition National MP Sam Uffindell and bullying of first term Labour government MP Gaurav Sharma.

Sam Uffindell’s future is still up in the air while Dr Sharma’s political career has resembled a meteorite — a brief, bright burn.

Meanwhile, over this time we were visited by US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who was on a whirlwind visit through the Pacific which the US has just rediscovered after finding China has been courting our Pacific neighbours.

• READ MORE: US would have conversations with New Zealand if time comes for others to join AUKUS — top diplomat
• Other John Minto articles

Sherman was here to remind us the US fought in the Pacific 75 years ago, that it is ready to fight here again (on the side of “democracy” and “freedom” of course) and probably assessing when best for the US to launch a destabilising campaign against Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, who has had the audacity, from the US point of view, to sign a development agreement with China.

There is a host of good, hard questions that should have been put to Sherman by our journalists but alas there is nothing of substance anywhere.

Here for example is RNZ’s Morning Report interview with Sherman.

Calling it a “soft” interview doesn’t describe it well — “cringing embarrassment” would be better.

Full of talking points
Sherman was full of US talking points such as the importance of the “[US] rules-based international order developed after World War II” and “no country should decide the political future of another country or bend that country to their political will”.

Just read that last Sherman quote again. She is aiming at China but probably three quarters of humanity have experienced precisely that interference at the hands, guns, banks and bombs of the US since World War II — democracies included.

RNZ let it all go unchallenged. The US is already on the record as saying they will “not sit by” and allow China to get a foothold in the Solomon Islands or the Pacific.

Why wasn’t Sherman interrogated on this? Why weren’t hard questions asked? The danger signs for our corner of the world are everywhere — but invisible to RNZ.

Instead the hard questions were saved for the hapless thug Uffindell and those responsible for Dr Sharma’s meteoric career.

Aotearoa New Zealand got closest to an independent foreign policy in the mid-1980s but there seems no journalistic memory. Instead of asking about US intentions in the Pacific and suggesting that New Zealanders don’t want to see superpower rivalry on our doorstep, RNZ simply asks what are the prospects of New Zealand joining the AUKUS alliance (Australia, the UK and the US who are joining forces to arm Australia with nuclear submarines to counter China)

Meanwhile, Aotearoa New Zealand moves insidiously closer to the US military.

Here in Christchurch, protests will accompany the Rocket Lab presence at the 2022 Aerospace Summit.

In case anyone hasn’t caught up with developments, Rocket Lab is now majority owned by the US military and has launched numerous rockets for direct military purposes.

The protest will have some hard questions for Peter Beck — don’t expect them from the news media.

John Minto is a political activist and commentator. This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished with the author’s permission.

Sixty years ago today — on 15 August 1962 — the fate of a newly born nation-state West Papua was stolen by men in New York. The infamous event is known as “The New Agreement”, a deal between the Netherlands and Indonesia over West Papua’s sovereignty.

A different fate had been intended for the people of West Papua in early 1961 when they elected their national Council from whom the Dutch were asking guidance for the transfer of administration back to Papuan hands.

Shockingly, the threat of colonialism came from America several months later when a journalist advocating liberty denounced a secret Washington proposal to betray America’s Pacific War ally Papua to an Asian colonial power.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua self-determination reports

The Council’s response was to present to the Dutch a flag and manifesto of independence asking all the peoples of West Papua to unite as one people under their new Morning Star flag.

On 1 December 1961, the Dutch raised the Morning Star flag, and for more than 60 years the people have united as one raising their Morning Star flag.

But declassified American records reveal horrific deceptions. A group inside the White House had begun secret negotiations with the Republic of Indonesia around a proposal for an illegal use of the International Trusteeship System, or to quote the US, “a special United Nations trusteeship of West New Guinea” that irrespective of Papua’s objections would then ask Indonesia to assume control.

The “special” nature of the US proposal had the opposite intent than that of the international law. The International Trusteeship System, Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter is meant protect a people’s right of independence and have the UN prepare annual reports about their welfare and progress towards independence for each territory the United Nations has become responsible for, including those invaded and subjugated by UN troops.

West Papua is both.

Instead of protection and annual reports, the United Nations by omission of duty is enabling Indonesian impunity for military campaigns of terror and administrative suspension of all human rights.

West Papuans have suffered hundreds of thousands of extrajudicial deaths, disappearances and looting of many hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the UN appointed administration by Indonesia.

Weekly stories of horror hidden from international news media by an ongoing Indonesian declaration that Papua is a quarantine zone requiring special permission for NGOs and journalists to enter.

It is beyond time that the UN took steps to put right the wrongs of the past. #selfdetermination pic.twitter.com/vsWBO0wXpo

— Free West Papua (@FreeWestPapua) August 7, 2022

Fiscal and geopolitical deceptions
Every principle written into the UN’s charter, the Rules of Procedure of the Trusteeship Council, and even Indonesia’s own New York Agreement have been violated by the ongoing Indonesian conduct, international mining and United Nations omission of lawful conduct.

These events proceeded against the backdrop of a global movement calling for decolonialisation that rippled across Asia, Africa and the Pacific, with the West and the Communist bloc supporting or opposing one another to gain influence in these movements.

The newly independent nation of Indonesia, which had been under Dutch rule for more than 300 years, declared independence on 17 August 1945. Sukarno was the man of this era, leading the outburst of a long-awaited human desire for freedom and equality.

In the same era, wars broke out in Korea and Vietnam; the world endured the Cuban missile crisis as forces of the West and the Communist bloc continued to clash and reshape the destiny of these new nation-states.

Leading up to the final recognition of their new republic in December 1949, Indonesians experienced another brutal, protracted war with the Dutch. The Netherlands side wanted to reclaim their past colonial glory, and the Indonesian side wanted to removed Dutch occupation and authority from their nation.

Indonesia’s founding fathers, Sukarno and Suharto, were significant men of their era, with ambitions to match — ambitions that led to the massacre of millions of alleged Indonesian Chinese communists in the mid-1960s; the same ambition that placed the Papuan people on the path they are on now, carved by blood, tears, trauma, war, killing, rape, exploitation, betrayal, and being cheated at every turn by the world’s highest institutions.

Many nations around the world had to face difficult choices, with emerging leaders of all types avoiding the cause of their own imagined nation-state. This was a most turbulent era of development and globalisation.

Arguably, most conflicts around the world today stem from unresolved grievances brought about by this turbulence and divisive historical events.

West Papua’s extended conflicts for the last 60 years are a direct result of being mishandled by Western forces who sought to take Papua’s independence for themselves.

As of today, Indonesians (and those unaware of West Papua’s legal status under international law) think that this is a domestic issue, a narrative which Jakarta elites insist on propagandising to the world.

The truth is that West Papua remains an unresolved issue with international implications. More specifically, the UN still has the responsibility to correct their sixty-year-old mistake.

The UN breached its own charter
At least in principle, all 111 articles of the UN Charter are aimed at promoting peace, dignity, and equality. One of the key elements of the charter (in relation to decolonisation) is its declaration that colonial territories would be considered non-self-governing territories. The United Nations’ responsibility was to provide a “full measure of self-government” to those nations colonised by foreign powers. West Papua’s story as a new nation began within these international frameworks.

West Papua was already listed under the UN’s decolonisation system as a non-self-governing territory before 1962 and the Dutch were preparing Papuans for full independence in accordance with the UN charter guidelines. The public has been deceived by trivialising this agreement and downplaying it as simply two powers — Netherlands and Indonesia — fighting over West Papuan territory.

The UN, as a caretaker of this trust, had a responsibility to provide a measure for Papuans to achieve independence. The UN instead handed (abandoned) this trust to Indonesia, who then abused that international trust by invading West Papua in May 1963. This scandalous historical error has brought unprecedented cataclysm to Papuans to date.

The Indonesian perspective
Most Indonesians have been fooled by their government to think that West Papua’s fate was decided during a referendum, known as “Pepera” or “Act of Free Choice” in 1969, which Papuans now refer to as the “Act of No Choice”. Indonesians assume that Indonesian occupancy is good for West Papua, but this is not true: they are unaware that Indonesia is illegally occupying West Papua and their government is in breach of many international laws.

It seems that the Western powers have no issue turning a blind eye when one of their endorsed global players are breaking their laws.

During the period of July to September 1969, the Act of Free Choice was carried out by the Indonesian government. The UN was there but did not act or speak against it. This referendum was one of the items stipulated in the New York Agreement seven years earlier.

About 2025 Papuan elders among the one million Papuans who were handpicked at gunpoint and forced to say “yes” to remain with Indonesia. The UN acted as a bystander, unwilling to interfere with the tyranny taking place before them.

What we seem to forget is the fact that before the referendum in 1969, Indonesia had already launched a large-scale martial and administrative operation throughout West Papua, instilling fear and setting the stage for the rubber stamp referendum to proceed.

What happened in 1969 was a tragedy and a farce of human autonomy. The UN and international community betrayed West Papua on the world’s stage.

The New York Agreement
Andrew Johnson and Julian King, Australian researchers who specialised in this case, have argued that West Papua is still a non-self-governing territory, and that Indonesia has no legal or moral right to claim sovereignty over West Papua. These researchers insist that West Papua is still a non-self-governing territory, and Indonesia is only there temporarily as an administrator — they have no legal basis to introduce any law or policy towards West Papua.

In their ground-breaking seminal work West Papua Exposed: An Abandoned Non-Self-Governing or Trust Territory, Johnson and King conclude that:

Either as a Non-Self-Governing Territory or a Trust Territory, the legal rights of the people of West Papua have been denied with every UN Member responsible and legally bound to uphold the Charter in order to correct this breach of international law.

No Papuan was invited or included during the agreement. This act itself speaks volumes – the complete denial of Papuans’ intrinsic worth as human beings to have any input into their fate is the basis for all kinds of violence, abuse, torture and mistreatment towards Papuan people.

This is the first violation and the most egregious because the Indonesian government’s draconian policies towards Papuans have consistently exhibited and reinforced this prejudiced behaviour over the past 60 years. Indonesians do not treat Papuans as equal human beings, therefore, what Papuans think, desire and feel doesn’t matter.

It was the right move for the UN to accept West Papua as a Trust Territory. However, the UN abandoned this sacred trust to Indonesia a year later, even though Indonesia’s behaviour prior to, during, and after this agreement had already been in breach of many UN charters and principles.

For example, Chapters 11 (XI), 12 (XII), and 13 (XIII) of the UN Charter governing decolonisation and Papua’s right to self-determination, as specified in the New York Agreement’s Articles 18 (XVII), 19 (XIX), 20 (XX), 21 (XXI), and 22 (XXII) have not been followed.

Additionally, the UN’s failure to uphold its principles and its silence on its disastrous mistake constitutes a serious breach of international law.

Secret documents
Declassified documents from the United States, Australia, and the United Nations reveal irrefutable evidence of what went wrong behind the scenes prior to, during, and after the Netherlands-Indonesia agreement.

The idea of exploiting the UN Trusteeship system to transfer the sovereignty of West Papua to Indonesia was already proposed in 1959 by the US embassy in Jakarta.

Now-declassified document titled “A proposal for Settlement of the West New Guinea Dispute”, dated on May 26, 1959, stated:

Our position of neutrality has served its purpose. It is time we developed a formula to remove this major irritant to Indonesian relations with the West.

In the US minds, the formula was exploiting the UN’s mechanisms to give West Papua sovereignty to Indonesia.

A year later on 3 March 1961, the US embassy wrote:

Unless New Guinea question can be promptly removed as source of Soviet strength and US weakness, as incipient cause of war and as platform for variety of unhealthful isms within Indonesia, our best efforts in any other direction will fail to achieve our objectives here.

According to King and Johnson, the 1962 New York Agreement story has been a deception for 60 years; the agreement was not drafted after the Indonesian invasion in 1962. The agreement was proposed by an American lawyer in May 1959, modified in 1960, proposed to Indonesia in March 1961, and executed in 1962.

West Papua is not sold or traded under the Agreement. It is an agreement between UN members to share the responsibility for the welfare of West Papuan people (trusteeship), and it asks the UN to be the “administrator” (occupying force) in 1962. When the United Nations backed the agreement, Pakistani troops were appointed to administer West Papua in 1962, followed by Indonesian troops in 1963.

As it turns out, armies of secret dealers in UN uniforms were behind the scenes setting agendas, proposing solutions, and implementing them without consequences.

It appears then that the New York Agreement itself, the terms of reference upon which the UN General Assembly voted on the agreement, the UN’s role from 1962 to 1963, the final Act of Free Choice in 1969, and the UN General Assembly vote on the Act of Free Choice’s outcome were all facades — a treacherous performance fit for a tragic drama.

A carefully orchestrated plan was devised to sacrifice West Papua to Indonesia by manipulating the UN’s system by the United States — the leader of the free democratic world and the tyrant flexing its vast military power.

The fight to reclaim stolen sovereignty lives on
Papua played an important role in reshaping geopolitical arrangements between the West and the communist bloc, and it will continue to do so if this issue remains unresolved.

The future in which West Papua will play a critical role has arrived. The US and its allies will have to face China or any other power or ideological forces that are challenging the liberal world order.

The responses, criticisms, or reactions arising from nations around the world — whether it be on the issues of covid-19, the Ukraine war, Taiwan, Solomon Islands-China security deals, or any other global issue — suggest that the grand narrative of the West as the saviour of mankind pushed by the US is being questioned and rejected.

Another new grand narrative is now emerging, and that is China.

West Papua at a crossroads
What role will West Papua play in the current geopolitical tussle between the West and China is impossible to predict. This is something that must be dealt with by regional and international communities. West Papua’s issues do not dominate the headlines like Ukraine, Solomon Islands, or Taiwan, but they have their own significance in reshaping regional and global geopolitical arrangements.

The world of Papuans 60 years ago was different from now. More than half of a country abused, tortured and mistreated under Indonesia occupation is driving Papuans to become a minority in their own homeland. It has also strengthened their will to live and fight, and most Papuan youth are equipped with knowledge of the crimes against their people and what they can do to bring about justice and facilitate change.

Papuan resistance groups are increasingly becoming anti-Western, believing that the West is exploiting them while supplying arms to the Indonesian military. West Papuan students across Indonesia often wear revolutionary hats or t-shirts displaying socialist and communist revolutionary leaders such as Fidel Castro, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Ho-Chi Mi — they are well-versed in Leftist literatures.

The attitude of the general population in West Papua is also changing. Where previous generations have had a strong connection with the West due to shared experiences of World War II and influence by Western missionaries, young people are now questioning everything about the current state of affairs and asking why they are in this predicament.

Papua’s governor also praised Russia for its generous sponsorship of Papuans to study in the country. The Governor is currently building Russian and Papuan museums to strengthen this relationship and honour Russian anthropologist Nicholai Nicholaievich Mikluho Maklai, who advocated for the rights of New Guinea People 150 years ago.

The West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB)
The armed wing of the Free Papua Movement (OPM), the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), has also been changing its armed resistance strategy against Indonesian occupation.

They are shooting and killing anyone they consider a traitor or an invader, an attitude never seen before. It is dangerous because of not only their drastic approach, but the retaliation from heavily armed Indonesian security forces, who are aggressively shooting, burning, rampaging, and bombing anyone they consider to be OPM.

The TPNPB and Indonesian security forces have been at war for many years, and Jakarta has responded with heavy handed security measures by sending thousands of soldiers to hunt down the alleged perpetrators.

Recently, this has intensified, resulting in the displacement of thousands of Indigenous Papuans.

West Papua civilians could be subjected to an unprecedented mass atrocity if (or when) this situation escalates. According to a report published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, structural factors behind conflict in the region are showing signs of events that could trigger mass atrocities against civilians.

As reported by the UCA News, Gadjah Mada University researchers in Yogyakarta reported 348 violent acts in Papua between 2010 and March of this year. There were at least 464 deaths, including 320 civilians, and 1654 injuries, mostly civilians.

There are far more human tragedies unfolding in West Papua each day than what this figure represents. Unfortunately, Jakarta has blocked independent journalists from entering the region, making it difficult to verify these claims.

International voices for human rights investigation
In March 2022, UN experts from the Office of the Human Rights High Commissioner published a report highlighting serious violations and abuses against Papuans.

In addition, Jakarta has not granted a request for a visit by the UN High Commissioner to the region made by the UN Human Rights Council.

Despite the Tuvalu resolution of the Pacific Island Forum in 2019 and another resolution from African Caribbean and Pacific nations requesting Jakarta for a UN visit, the request has not yet yielded results.

On August 3, ABC Radio Australia hosted Benny Wenda, the UK-based exiled West Papua independence leader, to discuss the current situation in his homeland.

According to Wenda, the plight of West Papua to determine its own fate is clouded by the current geopolitical intrigues between the West and China. The status of West Papua is an unresolved international issue that has been swept under the carpet.

Even though the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting of heads of state and government held in Suva, Fiji from 11 to 14 July 2022 left West Papua out of the forum’s agenda, Wenda expressed optimism that West Papua would not be forgotten at the next meeting.

Indonesia and West Papua at a crossroads again
Although West Papua has been buried deep within diplomacy for 60 years, it remains the most important issue affecting Jakarta’s relations with China and the US, as well as the way big powers deal with the independent Indigenous nation states across Oceania.

Above all, geopolitical war via chequebook diplomacy, media, or forming military and trade alliances and deals in the Pacific has become a real issue that we all must face.

The peaceful blue Pacific (Oceania), which Australia and New Zealand consider their “backyard” could become a new Middle East.

In response to this fear, the White House invited Pacific leaders to dinner later this year with Joe Biden.

At the outset, West Papua issues might seem insignificant, irrelevant, or forgotten to the world, but in reality, it is one of the most significant issues influencing how Jakarta’s engage with the world and how the world engages with Jakarta.

Once again, Jakarta is caught in the middle between great powers, and they do not have the same leverage to play the same games as their ancestors did so many years ago. Jakarta elites need to recognise that they stole something so precious that belonged to Papuan people, and this must be returned to the rightful owner.

The only appropriate and adequate justice left for Papuans is to be given back their sovereignty. This is the only way for Papua to heal and have decades of violence against them reconciled.

Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

• Other Yamin Kogoya articles

The Solomon Islands government has prompted anger by ordering the censorship of the national broadcaster.

The government of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has forbidden it from publishing material critical of the government, which will vet all stories before broadcast.

The Guardian reports that on Monday the government announced that the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC), a public service broadcaster established in 1976 by an Act of Parliament, would be brought under government control.

• READ MORE: Outrage as Solomon Islands government orders vetting of stories on national broadcaster
• Censoring SIBC an ‘assault on media freedom’ in Solomons, says IFJ
• Solomon Islands orders national broadcaster SIBC to ‘self-censor news’
• Campaign over Solomons media freedom ‘misguided’, claims PM’s office
• Other Solomon islands media freedom reports

The broadcaster, which airs radio programmes, TV bulletins and online news, is the only way to receive immediate news for people in many remote areas of the country and plays a vital role in natural disaster management.

Staff at SIBC confirmed to media that as of Monday, all news and programmes would be vetted by a government representative before broadcast.

The development has prompted outrage and raised concerns about freedom of the press.

“It’s very sad that media has been curtailed, this means we are moving away from democratic principles,” said Julian Maka, the Premier for Makira/Ulawa province, and formerly the programmes manager and current affairs head at SIBC.

“It is not healthy for the country, especially for people in the rural areas who need to have balanced views available to them.”

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has also condemned the move.

“The censoring of the Solomon Islands’ national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process. The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands.”

Claims of bias
The restrictions follow what Sogavare has called biased reporting and news causing “disunity”.

The opposition leader, Matthew Wale, has requested a meeting with the executive of the Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) to discuss the situation.

The Guardian reports there have been growing concerns about press freedom in Solomon Islands, particularly in the wake of the signing of the controversial security deal with China in May.

During the marathon tour of the Pacific conducted by China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, Pacific journalists were not permitted to ask him questions and in some cases reported being blocked from events, having Chinese officials block their camera shots, and having media accreditation revoked for no reason.

At Wang’s first stop in Solomon Islands, MASI boycotted coverage of the visit because many journalists were blocked from attending his press conference. Covid-19 restrictions were cited as the reason.

Sogavare’s office was contacted by the newspaper for comment.

Mounting pressure on SIBC ‘disturbing’
In Auckland, Professor David Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and convenor of Pacific Media Watch, described the mounting pressure on the public broadcaster Solomon islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) as “disturbing” and an “unprecedented attack” on the independence of public radio in the country.

“It is extremely disappointing to see the Prime Minister’s Office effectively gagging the most important news service in reaching remote rural areas,” he said.

• The Solomon Islands is not yet ranked on the Reporters Without Borders World Media Freedom Index.

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

Frontline investigative articles on Aotearoa New Zealand’s 23-day Parliament protester siege, social media disinformation and Asia-Pacific media changes and adaptations are featured in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

The assault on “truth telling” reportage is led by The Disinformation Project, which warns that “conspiratorial thought continues to impact on the lives and actions of our communities”, and alt-right video researcher Byron C Clark.

Several articles focus on the Philippines general election with the return of the Marcos dynasty following the elevation of the late dictator’s son Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr and the crackdown on independent media, including Nobel Peace Prize co-laureate Maria Ressa’s Rappler.

• READ MORE: Pacific Journalism Review archives

Columbia Journalism School’s Centre for Investigative Journalism director Sheila Coronel writes of her experiences under the Marcos dictatorship: “Marcos is a hungry ghost. He torments our dreams, lays claim to our memories, and feeds our hopes.”

But with Marcos Jr’s landslide victory in May, she warns: “You will be in La-La Land, a country without memory, without justice, without accountability. Only the endless loop of one family, the soundtrack provided by Imelda.”

The themed section draws on research papers from a recent Asian Congress for Media and Communication conference (ACMC) hosted by Auckland University of Technology (AUT) introduced by convenor Khairiah A Rahman with keynotes by Asia Pacific Report editor David Robie and Rappler executive editor Glenda Gloria.

In the editorial titled “Fighting self-delusion and lies”, Philip Cass writes of the surreal crises in the Ukraine War and the United States and the challenges for journalists in the Asia-Pacific region:

“Similarly, there are national leaders in the Pacific who seem to truly want to believe that China really is their friend instead of being an aggressive imperialist power acting the same way the European powers did in the 19th century.”

With the Photoessay in this edition, visual storyteller and researcher Todd Henry explores how kava consumption has spread through the Pacific and into the diasporic community in Aotearoa New Zealand.

His “Visual peregrinations in the realm of kava” article and images also examine the way Pasifika women are carving their own space in kava ceremonies.

Unthemed topics include Afghanistan, the Taliban and the “liberation narrative” in New Zealand, industrial inertia among Queensland journalists, and Chinese media consumption and political engagement in Aotearoa.

Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 28th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

The latest edition is published this weekend.

• Pacific Journalism Review fulltext articles at the Informit database

Climate change remains the single greatest existential threat facing the Blue Pacific, as leaders concluded the biggest diplomatic regional meeting in Suva last week with a plea for the world to take urgent action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

While renewed commitments by Australia to reduce its carbon footprint by 43 percent come 2030 and a legislated net zero emission by 2050 were welcomed initiatives, Pacific leaders reiterated calls for rapid, deep and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, adding the region was facing a climate emergency that threatened the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of its people and ecosystems, backed by the latest science and the daily lived realities in Pacific communities.

PIF chairman and Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama said the need was for “more ambitious climate commitments” — actions that would require the world to align its efforts to achieving the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree temperature threshold.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Islands Forum reports
• Wansolwara News reports

“We simply cannot settle for anything less than the survival of every Pacific Island country –– and that requires that all high emitting economies implement science-based plans to decisively reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree temperature threshold,” he told journalists at the PIF Secretariat.

“That requires that we halve global emissions by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. Most urgently, it requires that we end our fossil fuel addiction, including coal,” he said.

“That is our ask of Australia. That is our ask of New Zealand, the USA, India, the European Union, China and every other high-emitting country.

“It is also what Fiji asks of ourselves, though our emissions are negligible.”

Crisis felt in Fiji, Pacific
Bainimarama said the world faced a global energy crisis that was felt in the Pacific and Fiji.

While he understood the political realities that existed, planetary realities must take precedence.

“It will take courage and surely extract some political capital. But if Pacific Island countries can respond to and rebuild after some of the worst storms to ever make landfall in history, advanced economies can surely make the transition to renewables.

“The benefits will be remarkable. Our region has the potential to become a clean energy superpower if we summon the will to make it happen. That path is no doubt the surest way to an open, resilient, independent, and prosperous Blue Pacific.”

Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Henry Puna told Wansolwara ahead of PIF51 that issues such as climate change, oceans, economic development, technology and connectivity as well as people-centered development were key priorities on the talanoa agenda for leaders from PIF’s 18-member countries, including Australia and New Zealand.

These priorities and the way forward to achieving it are incorporated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, a collective ambitious long-term plan to address global and regional geopolitical and development challenges in light of existing and emerging vulnerabilities and constraints.

Cook Islands is expected to host the next PIF Leaders and related meetings in 2023, the Kingdom of Tonga in 2024 and Solomon Islands in 2025.

Geraldine Panapasa is editor-in-chief of the University of the South Pacific journalism programme newspaper and website Wansolwara. The USP team is a partner of Asia Pacific Report.

The Solomon Islands government has confirmed the much anticipated high-level visit by the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to the country is ahead of schedule this week.

A statement yesterday said: “Mr Wang and his almost 20 member delegation will spend a day in Honiara, attending various high-level meetings, courtesy calls on the Prime Minister and acting Governor-General, and hosting a press conference alongside his counterpart, Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele.”

It said “the highlight of the visit is the signing of several key bilateral agreements with the national government”.

• READ MORE: Other China controversy reports

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare said the visit by Wang will be a milestone in the Solomon Islands-China relationship.

The ABC reports that the foreign minister will arrive in Honiara late on Wednesday night, and he will have meetings with Sogavare and other senior leaders on Thursday.

He is also expected to visit Fiji on Sunday and Monday, and Papua New Guinea next week Thursday and Friday.

According to the ABC, Wang will also have plans to travel to other Pacific Islands nations, including Vanuatu, Samoa, Tonga, and Kiribati, as part of China’s efforts to increase its influence in the region.

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

The Kanak people will not accept France’s attempt to “recolonise” New Caledonia, a pro-independence delegate has told the United Nations.

Addressing a UN Decolonisation Committee seminar on the Pacific in Saint Lucia, Dimitri Qenegei said since 2020 the French President, Emmanuel Macron, and his Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu had been taking unilateral decisions.

Qenegei said the signatories to the 1998 Noumea Accord stopped having their annual meetings in 2019 and the date for the referendum on independence last year was set without the consent of the Kanak people.

• READ MORE: Other Kanaky New Caledonia referendum reports

Paris decided to go ahead with the third and last referendum last December under the Noumea Accord despite pleas by the pro-independence camp to delay the vote because of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the Kanak people.

France insisted that the timetable for the vote had to be upheld.

Amid a boycott by the pro-independence camp, fewer than half of the voters took part in the referendum but of those who did vote more than 96 percent were in favour of staying with France.

Qenegei said Macron declared after the referendum that New Caledonia showed it wanted to stay French although it was known that 90 percent of Kanaks wanted independence.

Claims of manipulation and lies
To therefore proclaim that New Caledonia chose to stay French was not legitimate, he said, adding that it was a “manipulation and a lie” by France and the heirs of the colonial system.

He said France, as the administrative power, had reorientated its policies to the methods of bygone centuries to hold on to its non-autonomous territories.

Qenegei said France had reneged on its undertaking given in 1998 to accompany New Caledonia to its decolonisation.

He pointed out that in case of three rejections of independence in the referenda under the Noumea Accord, the political parties needed to be convened to discuss the situation.

Qenegei said nowhere did it say that in a case of three “no” votes, New Caledonia remained French.

He said on the international stage, France had been losing influence, which prompted President Macron in 2018 to work towards an Indo-Pacific axis from Paris to Noumea that included India and Australia.

However, he said France suffered a first humiliation when Australia backed out of a multi-billion dollar contract for French submarines.

New Caledonia becoming independent would be another blow to the military axis aimed at containing China, he said.

Parallel drawn with China
Qenegei drew a parallel between China and France, saying France decried the possibility of Chinese troops in Solomon Islands as imperialism while France had placed troops in New Caledonia to “contain the Kanaks”.

While France criticised China’s lending policies, Qenegei said France regarded its loans to New Caledonia, given with interest to be paid, as something different.

Qenegei said the recent French policies were nothing but a return to the source of colonisation.

He warned that France’s intention to open up the electoral rolls to French people who arrived after 1998 was the ultimate weapon to drown the Kanak people and recolonise New Caledonia.

The Kanaks would be made to disappear and that would not be accepted but inevitably lead to conflict.

Qenegei said his outline was not a threat a but a call for help to bring the administrative power to its senses.

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

The Kanak people won’t accept France’s attempt to recolonise New Caledonia, a pro-independence delegate has told the United Nations. https://t.co/UBRq27EyTi

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) May 17, 2022

Many of you will know that I am Filipina. The past few days have been quite a journey following the Philippine elections, culminating with a frightening win of the dictator’s son Bongbong Marcos Jr and Sara Duterte, daughter of the outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte.

There is speculation that their leadership style may be more despotic than their authoritarian parents (with proposals to “rewrite history” on previous dictatorship). I am worried that this is election result will genuinely risk lives in what could be a continued crackdown on activists and a prolonged massacre of the poor.

There are also significant fears around worries related to China’s influence in the South China Sea and beyond, especially on human rights matters.

• READ MORE: Philippines forgets history and sells its soul for another Marcos
• Other Philippine elections reports

This is an election the world should be paying close attention to, as it fortells the result of structural inequality through a lack of civics education and the influence of social media.

I have not yet seen an interpretation of the results for friends who may not be familiar with Filipino politics. I also think I may have a different view, given my family’s heritage as working class rural Filipinos and growing up in the Western world.

The Philippines was, and sadly still is, a place where you can be “redtagged” and assassinated for your political views.

The ousted President Ferdinand Marcos was known for a reign of terror through martial law, widespread torture, politically motivated violence and corruption.

A period of hope
After his rule, there was a period of hope with the Yellow Revolution where the country turned towards democracy and the idea of becoming a cosmopolitian and educated state.

This was the kind of pattern hoped for with this post-Duterte election, moving towards a country free from extrajudicial killings, punitive culture and violence against the poor.

But by Tuesday morning, this was not to be. Outgoing Vice-President Leni Robredo, the opposition leader who our hopes were on to win, fell further and further behind in the results.

Philippines has one of the highest percentage of social media users in the world, the majority of political engagement and general learning happens with the internet.

These past few days, several whistleblowers called into local radio stations and posted on Reddit revelations of mass paid troll farms and social media strategies to deliberately create discord.

One of the most worrying allegations was the use of double agents, which I fear is starting to create a divide within Filipino activist communities.

However, even without troll farms, many Filipino voters, especially in disenfranchised rural areas, are single issue voters or may vote in exchange for food and essentials for their family — this is something I have witnessed personally.

Petri dish for mass disinformation
This, combined with a country of varying levels of access to education and critical thinking, is a petri dish for mass disinformation. We may have seen seeds of this in the West, with the growth of disinformation and movements increasingly willing to turn to political violence.

I am watching the situation with apprehension, I am worried for my extended family. For those with family in the Philippines (or any other authoritarian country) who feels the same, it is high time to secure activist movements.

For those similarly disappointed by the result: Political participation is not just with the ballot box, it’s building awareness, learning as much as we can and thinking about how we can protect and empower vulnerable and disenfranchised people.

The popular campaign against the 1988 “NO” referendum of Chile marked a new era of people’s empowerment free from the dictator Pinochet and neoliberalism. This was documented in an inspirational 2012 film called No. And this is what many Filipinos were hoping for in this election, but alas…

Laban! … Fight on!

Keeara Ofren is a final year law student at the University of Auckland – Waipapa Taumata Rau and a former president of Amnesty On Campus. She works in communications for the Auckland Refugee Council. This article was first published on her Facebook page and is republished here with permission.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Singaporean counterpart Lee Hsien Loong have added a focus on climate and sustainability to the enhanced relationship between the two countries.

Speaking after bilateral talks in Singapore, the pair jointly announced a fifth pillar would be added to the agreement on the New Zealand-Singapore Enhanced Partnership.

They announced the initial enhanced partnership in 2019 during Ardern’s last official visit, with the four pillars of trade and economics; security and defence; science, technology and innovation; and people-to-people links.

• READ MORE: Other New Zealand and Singapore trade reports
• China and Solomon Islands sign security pact

The fifth pillar added today will be “climate change and the green economy”.

Ardern said given the existential threat posed by climate change, it was fitting.

“When it comes to climate change this is not an area where countries are seeking to be competitive, or we shouldn’t be seeking to be competitive unless the competition is who can reduce emissions the fastest.

“Globally we have entered what must be an age of action, and that includes the private sector as well. No government can do this alone.”

Call for stronger global cooperation
Lee echoed that sentiment, calling for stronger global cooperation on climate change.

“Climate change is the existential challenge of our times … we need stronger cooperation among most countries.”

He said areas that could be worked on included workshops for building joint capacity in responding to climate change, improved pricing for emissions trading, and work on sustainable aviation initiatives.

“Aviation is one of the major sources of carbon emissions … and New Zealand is at the end of the world and Singapore is not so close to Europe either.

“If we are going to call for a low-carbon world this is something we should be focused on.”

Ardern said Singapore was a trade hub which 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports funnelled through, and there were opportunities in reducing emissions for both shipping — including hydrogen fuel — and food, including research into urban farming.

Ardern’s trade delegation to Asia — including Trade Minister Damien O’Connor, officials, a dozen business people and media — landed in Singapore last night.

They travel to Japan tomorrow for a three-night stay, although three members of the roughly 50 people returned weak positive covid-19 test results today, believed to be from previous infections.

Because of Japan’s entry rules, they will not be allowed to enter.

Regional cooperation, defence and trade
Asked about the increasing influence of China in the Asia-Pacific region, Ardern said China had acknowledged the effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and Lee saying Singapore was unaware of the details of agreement between China and the Solomon Islands.

They expressed concern that the war in Ukraine could lead to increased protectionism in the region however, and reiterated their shared commitment to an “open, inclusive, rules-based and resilient Indo-Pacific region”, including free trade, open markets, and respect for countries’ sovereignty.

Lee also said they welcomed interest from other countries including China and Korea in joining the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, an agreement signed in 2020 between New Zealand, Singapore and Chile.

The agreement aims to support digital economies and trade, and guarantees cooperation on digital identity, policies, emerging technologies, data protection and digital products.

They said they also welcomed the efforts of the United States in pursuing an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.

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

It has been an interesting couple of weeks for Solomon Islands, with stories of policing, weapons, replica weapons and a security agreement with China dominating the local and regional media.

Let’s start with the issue of arming the police. After the tensions, for a long time Solomon police did not carry arms but this is an exception in our history.

Indeed, the precursor of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) created during the early colonial era was known as the “BSIP Armed Constabulary”.

• READ MORE: Other reports on the leaked Chinese security pact controversy

For as long as I can remember, our police have had access to some form of arms stored in the armoury. Their use traditionally was ceremonial, mostly during parades.

In fact, many of us who used to watch their parades loved to hear the sound made when the police and marine units lifted the guns as they responded to the orders of the parade commander.

The only time the weapons were used in my lifetime was during the Bougainville crisis and during the ethnic tensions.

The Bougainville crisis necessitated the importation by the Solomon Islands government of high-powered guns because of incursions by armed Papua New Guinean soldiers across the border and their use against Solomon Islands citizens at the PNG-Solomon Islands border.

Weapons bought via US broker
I recall that importation as at that time I was a legal adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The weapons were purchased from the US via a broker in Singapore.

Some questions were asked but, given the circumstances, their importation was justifiable.

A diplomatic request was made for their temporary storage in Australia before they were shipped to Honiara. These were government-procured arms and the procurement procedures for their acquisition duly complied with government procurement processes.

I have been advocating for some time the rearmament of the RSIPF and I am also supportive of the RSIPF to be trained by whoever can provide it. Many police officers have been trained in the US, Taiwan, Australia, UK, Singapore, New Zealand and Fiji.

Thus, I have no particular issues with them being trained by Chinese advisers as was the case recently.

However, I do have issues if the RSIPF is going to equip itself with high-powered guns, whether real ones (as supplied by Australia) or fake ones (as supplied by China). These concerns are exacerbated by the current level of secrecy and confusion around the security arrangements.

Firstly, it is questionable whether it is necessary for the RSIPF to be armed with high-powered weapons. Perhaps there are still a number of guns that were taken from the armoury that are still in the hands of former MEF (Malaitan Eagle Force) militants.

Moreover, this information might be known by a key member of the current political coalition who is a former MEF commander. Perhaps the police just want to be prepared.

Memories of the ethnic tensions
However, we also should not forget what happened 22 years ago during the ethnic tensions, when the armoury was compromised by police giving weapons to militants and militants raiding the armoury for weapons — weapons which were then used by Solomon Islanders to intimidate and kill their fellow citizens.

Members of the public are also genuinely concerned about the manner in which the Chinese fake guns were imported into the country — via a logging vessel which is, to say the least, an unusual means of transporting official government goods.

The shifting narratives from the Police Commissioner about this incident have raised more questions than they have answered.

There are also broader questions. Is security created through arming the police? Or should we instead focus on an approach to security whereby the community is recognised as a partner in building and maintaining peace, and build on the long history Solomon Islanders have of brokering conflict among themselves?

While, as I said, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with arming the police, the focus needs to be on using community policing, chiefs, and youth leaders to broker conflicts. It is unfortunate when the ordinary citizens of the country are viewed not as partners in development, but as threat to the hegemony and hold on power by some people.

Last year’s riots and covid-19 have revealed many underlying governance weaknesses. As I have argued earlier, they are symptomatic of a society that has become increasingly less pluralistic, and of political and economic institutions that have become less inclusive.

Then there is the leaked security agreement with China, which has exacerbated existing unease among the public about China. The increasing engagement with China is explained by the Prime Minister as an attempt by the government to diversify its engagement on security.

Chinese naval base unlikely
It is unlikely that China will build a naval base in Solomon Islands. The agreement does not specify that it will and, although it could be construed that way, the reality is that it is not going to happen.

Australia is already building a patrol base in Lofung, in the Shortland Islands which borders Papua New Guinea, and has announced that they will build another one in the eastern Solomon Islands. I would venture to suggest that the capacity of these investments should cater for a naval base if the need ever arises in the future.

What is unprecedented about this security arrangement is that it allows China, with the consent of the Solomon Islands government, to send armed personnel to protect its citizens and assets.

It also prohibits any publicity around these arrangements. It is ironic that a prime minister who invariably extols the virtues of national sovereignty should agree to cede a fundamental sovereign function — the protection of lives and property — to a foreign force.

It is not clear if this is inadvertent, but it would seem that its ramifications have not been thought through.

The security arrangement has also raised concerns in the region. The President of the Federated States of Micronesia has written to Prime Minister Sogavare requesting that he reconsider it.

There is perhaps nothing intrinsically wrong with Solomon Islands signing a security agreement with China. There should, however, be coherence with similar arrangements with other countries, which focus on the capacity of the Solomon Islands Police Force to deal with internal security uprisings, and preferably all assistance should be within a regional framework supported by the Pacific Islands Forum.

Cannot choose neighbours
While a country may choose its friends, it cannot choose its neighbours.

In Solomon Islands today, there is no opportunity for policy debate by the public except on Facebook. The public and constituents do not have the same ease of access to our ministers and prime minister as embassy officials, and mining and logging CEOs.

Such is the current degree of polarisation that any criticism or comment is viewed by the current political coalition as “anti-government”. There does not seem to be any scope for dissenting views, or even constructive ideas from outside the inner circle, to be accommodated.

Unless a more pluralistic society is promoted where people’s views are welcomed, and there are more inclusive political and economic institutions, the government will be forced to depend on regional troops to support it.

At some stage, regional partners must hold Solomon Islands politicians to account for the economic and political situation they have created and the resulting violence such as the rioting last year.

The current focus on arms, without attention to rights and responsibilities, cannot and should not be sustained.

Dr Transform Aqorau is CEO of iTuna Intel and founding director, Pacific Catalyst, and a legal adviser to the Marshall Islands. He is the former CEO of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office. This article was first published by Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre at The Australian National University and is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

This week, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security released its much anticipated report on national security threats affecting the higher education and research sector.

The 171-page report found the sector is a target for foreign powers using “the full set of tools” against Australia, which can undermine our sovereignty and threaten academic freedom.

It made 27 recommendations to “harden the operating environment to deny adversaries the ability to engage in the national security risks in the sector”.

• READ MORE: Kylie Moore-Gilbert is one of hundreds of victims of state attacks on academic freedom
• Academic freedom is paramount for universities. They can do more to protect it from China’s interference
• New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists

The committee’s recommendations, when correctly implemented, will go a long way towards combating the threat of espionage and foreign interference. But they are not enough to protect academic freedom.

This is because the laws that make espionage and foreign interference a crime could capture legitimate research endeavours.

National security risks to higher education and research
The joint committee found there are several national security threats to the higher education and research sector. Most significant are foreign interference against students and staff, espionage and data theft.

This includes theft via talent recruitment programmes where Australian academics working on sensitive technologies are recruited to work at foreign institutions.

These threats have been occurring through cyber attacks and human means, including actors working in Australia covertly on behalf of a foreign government.

Foreign adversaries may target information on research that can be commercialised or used for national gain purposes.

The kind of information targeted is not limited to military or defence, but includes valuable technologies or information in any domain such as as agriculture, medicine, energy and manufacturing.

What did the committee recommend?
The committee stated that “awareness, acknowledgement and genuine proactive measures” are the next steps academic institutions must take to degrade the corrosive effects of these national security risks.

Of its 27 recommendations, the committee made four “headline” recommendations. These include:

1. A university-wide campaign of active transparency about the national security risks (overseen by the University Foreign Interference Taskforce)
2. adherence to the taskforce guidelines by universities. These include having frameworks for managing national security risks and implementing a cybersecurity strategy
3. introducing training on national security issues for staff and students
4. guidance for universities on how to implement penalties for foreign interference activities on campus.

New & long-awaited parliamentary report (PJCIS) on foreign interference at Australian universities. It makes strong recommendations to unis & government on ways to counter state-backed harassment & intimidation & protect students & staff. https://t.co/7I8mI52gb9 pic.twitter.com/uTlMWzDCkv

— Elaine Pearson (@PearsonElaine) March 29, 2022

Other recommendations include creation of a mechanism to allow students to anonymously report instances of foreign interference on campus and diversification of the international student population.

What about academic freedom?
Espionage makes it a crime to deal with information on behalf of, or to communicate to, a foreign principal (such as a foreign government or a person acting on their behalf). The person may also need to intend to prejudice, or be reckless in prejudicing, Australia’s national security.

In the context of the espionage and foreign interference offences, “national security” means defence of Australia.

It also means Australia’s international relations with other countries. “Prejudice” means something more than mere embarrassment.

So, an academic might intend to prejudice Australia’s national security where they engage in a research project that results in criticism of Australian military or intelligence policies or practices; or catalogues Australian government misconduct in its dealings with other countries.

Because “foreign principals” are part of the larger global audience, publication of these research results could be an espionage offence.

The academic may even have committed an offence when teaching students about this research in class (because Australia has a large proportion of international students, some of whom may be acting on behalf of foreign actors), communicating with colleagues working overseas (because foreign public universities could be “foreign principals”), or simply engaging in preliminary research (because it is an offence to do things to prepare for espionage).

Foreign interference makes it a crime to engage in covert or deceptive conduct on behalf of a foreign principal where the person intends to (or is reckless as to whether they will) influence a political or governmental process, or prejudice Australia’s national security.

The covert or deceptive nature of the conduct could be in relation to any part of the person’s conduct.

So, an academic working for a foreign public university (a “foreign principal”, even if the country is one of our allies) may inadvertently commit the crime of foreign interference where they run a research project that involves anonymous survey responses to collect information to advocate for Australian electoral law reform.

The anonymous nature of the survey may be sufficient for the academic’s conduct to be “covert”.

Because it is a crime to prepare for foreign interference, the academic may also have committed an offence by simply taking any steps towards publication of the research results (including preliminary research or writing a first draft).

The kind of research criminalised by the espionage and foreign interference offences may be important public interest research. It may also produce knowledge and ideas that are necessary for the exchange of information which underpins our liberal democracy.

Criminalising this conduct risks undermining academic freedom and eroding core democratic principles.

So, how can we protect academic freedom?
In addition to implementing the recommendations in the report, we must reform our national security crimes to protect academic freedom in Australia. While the committee acknowledged the adequacy of these crimes to mitigate the national security threats against the research sector, it did not consider the overreach of these laws.

Legitimate research endeavours could be better protected if a “national interest” defence to a charge of espionage or foreign interference were introduced. This would be similar to “public interest” defences and protect conduct done in the national interest.

“National interest” should be flexible enough so various liberal democratic values — including academic freedom, press freedom, government accountability, and protection of human rights — can be considered alongside national security.

In the absence of a federal bill of rights, such a defence would go a long way towards ensuring legitimate research is protected and academic freedom in Australia is upheld.

Sarah Kendall is a PhD candidate in law, The University of Queensland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

On December 30, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade published a tweet condemning the forced closure of two Russian human rights groups, International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Centre.

The groups were shut down by the Russian Supreme Court which was enforcing strict laws relating to dealings with “foreign agents”.

In releasing the tweet, the government urged Russia to “live up to its civil and political rights commitments”.

• READ MORE: Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel system of domination and crime against humanity — Amnesty International

Our government has also been speaking out against human rights abuses in China against the Uighur people, to the extent of facilitating a parliamentary motion condemning the cruel policies of the Chinese government.

Compare the criticism of Russia and China with MFAT’s reaction to Israel’s outrageous attacks on Palestinian human rights groups last October when it declared six of them to be “terrorist” organisations.

The targeted groups (Bisan, Al-Haq, Addameer, Defence for Children International-Palestine, the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees, and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees) typically challenge human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority as well as Israel, both of which routinely detain Palestinian activists.

Israel’s “terrorist” claim against these groups was a blatant attempt to undermine some of the most effective Palestinian civil society organisations, stifle their collective voices, and cut their sources of funding.

Not a peep from MFAT
But not a peep from MFAT. No tweets, no public statements, nothing.

When our Foreign Minister is asked about these things her officials say the government is “very concerned” about developments in the Middle East and “keeping a close watch” on the situation. They say they regularly raise human rights concerns with the Israeli ambassador in meetings with officials.

Heaven only knows what goes on in those meetings but if all human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinian people were discussed, the Israeli ambassador would be in permanent residence at MFAT.

MFAT gives similar responses when massive human rights abuses are perpetrated against the people of West Papua by the Indonesian Army, which has occupied the territory since 1962. These are discussed behind closed doors, if they are raised at all, with Indonesian officials.

So what’s the difference that results in the Russian and Chinese governments being castigated for human rights abuses but for countries like Indonesia and Israel, there is minimal, if any, public comment?

The awful truth is that our current government has moved New Zealand closer to the US than at any time since the 1980s and MFAT calls out human rights abuses to a US agenda.

If the abuses are perpetrated by enemies of the US, such as in Russia or China, they get a full public blast but if US allies are killing unarmed people protesting the occupation of their country then it’s all hushed up.

Kept ‘in the family’
It’s kept “in the family”, behind closed doors. Martin Luther King’s comment about “the injustice of silence” applies.

Human rights abuses against Palestinians and the people of West Papua continue because countries like New Zealand have self-important ministry officials who think it’s clever to operate a public/private hierarchy of human rights abuses according to US criteria.

Aotearoa New Zealand is complicit in many ongoing human rights abuses through our silence.

Cowardice is another word that comes to mind. It’s not acceptable.

The hypocrisy of the US, and Aotearoa New Zealand’s, position on human rights was laid bare last week when Amnesty International released a 280-page report which concluded that Israel was an apartheid state. US Government officials attacked the report outright without reading it and without challenging any of the report’s substance.

MFAT hasn’t uttered a word
At a Washington press conference, a State Department official was left to try to explain why US Human Rights Reports have quoted extensively from Amnesty International regarding Ethiopia, China, Iran, Burma, Syria and Cuba but reject outright Amnesty’s report on Israel.

Needless to say, MFAT hasn’t uttered a word on the Amnesty report but is busy helping support a webinar intending to “build strategic partnerships in agriculture” with Israel through AgriTech New Zealand. This is deeply embarrassing to this country and MFAT should cancel Aotearoa New Zealand’s involvement in this webinar.

It goes without saying this country should stand against all abuses of human rights in a principled and forthright manner. This won’t happen until the current leadership of MFAT is stood down.

John Minto is a political activist and commentator, and spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article was first published by the New Zealand Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

The United States insists it is a Pacific nation and has unveiled a raft of new strategies to better engage with other nations in the Region.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the first Secretary of State to visit Fiji in nearly 37 years.

During his historic visit, Blinken announced that the US was pursuing deeper engagement plans with Pacific nations.

• READ MORE: US to reopen Solomon Islands embassy amid moves to counter China
• Transparency watchdog seeks US help to tackle Pacific corruption

A key element and motivation for those plans is the strengthening of the US presence to match the growing influence of China in the Pacific.

In its engagement strategy, he said that China had combined its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological might to pursue “a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world’s most influential power”.

During an eight-hour visit to Fiji, while returning from a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) meeting in Australia, Blinken announced climate change financing, military and other exchange initiatives and plans for a new embassy in the Solomon Islands among other foreign diplomacy engagements.

Blinken has been on a world tour for the past several months to discuss two main issues: covid-19 and China, with his counterparts including Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr S. Jaishankar and Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Hayashi Yoshimasa.

New Indo-Pacific engagement strategy
While in Fiji, Blinken met with acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and 18 Pacific Island leaders virtually, during which he announced the US government’s brand new Indo-Pacific engagement strategy, calling the region “vital to our own prosperity, our own progress”.

Blinken said that the new strategy was the result of a year of extensive engagement in the Asia Pacific region and would reflect US determination to strengthen its long-term position in the region.

“We will focus on every corner of the region, from Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, to South Asia and Oceania, including the Pacific Islands,” he said.

“We do so at a time when many of our allies and partners, including in Europe, are increasingly turning their own attention to the region; and when there is broad, bipartisan agreement in the U.S. Congress that the United States must, too.”

This American refocus is a direct response to the increasing influence of China in the Pacific.

Since 2006, Chinese trade and foreign aid to the Pacific has significantly increased. Beijing is now the third largest donor to the region.

Although Chinese aid still represents only 8 percent of all foreign aid between 2011 and 2017 (according to The Lowy Institute), many Pacific island governments have favoured concessional loans from China, to finance large infrastructure developments.

Chinese ‘coercion and aggression’
In Solomon Islands, where Blinken announced the latest US Embassy would be opened, almost half of all two-way trade is with China.

In describing China’s actions toward expanding its influence, Blinken stated:

“The PRC’s coercion and aggression spans the globe, but it is most acute in the Indo-Pacific. From the economic coercion of Australia to the conflict along the Line of Actual Control with India to the growing pressure on Taiwan and bullying of neighbours in the East and South China Seas, our allies and partners in the region bear much of the cost of the PRC’s harmful behaviour.

“In the process, the PRC is also undermining human rights and international law, including freedom of navigation, as well as other principles that have brought stability and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific.”

When questioned by reporters about US intentions for “authentic engagement that speaks to the real needs of the islanders”, Blinken replied that the US sees the Pacific as the region for the future, and that their intentions were beyond mere security concerns.

“It’s much more fundamental than that. When we are looking at this region that we share, we see it as the region for the future, vital to our own prosperity, our own progress.

“Sixty per cent of global GDP is here, 50 percent of the world’s population is here. For all the challenges that we have, at the moment we’re working on together, it’s also a source of tremendous opportunity.”

Democracy and transparency
Blinken insisted that Washington’s new strategy was about using democracy and transparency to build a free and open Indo-Pacific which was committed to a “rules based order”.

Moving onto economics, the Secretary of State stated that the US intends to forge partnerships and alliances within the region, which will include more work with ASEAN, APEC and the Pacific Islands Forum.

Despite being headquartered in Fiji, the Forum was not invited to be part of Blinken’s visit.

At the Pacific Leaders meeting, Blinken announced a commitment to deeper economic integration including measures to open market access for agricultural commodities from the islands.

“It’s about connecting our countries together, deepening and stitching together different partnerships and alliances. It’s about building shared prosperity, with new approaches to economic integration, some of which we talked about today with high standards.”

Washington’s new Indo Pacific engagement strategy also includes commitments to develop new approaches to trade, which meet high labour and environmental standards as well as to create more resilient and secure supply chains which are “diverse, open, and predictable.”

Climate change strategy
Regarding climate change, Blinken announced plans to divert substantial portions of the US$150 billion announced at COP26 last year to the Pacific and also plans to make shared investments in decarbonisation and clean energy.

The Indo Pacific strategy announced commitments to “working with allies and partners to develop 2030 and 2050 targets, strategies, plans, and policies consistent with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius”.

Blinken stated that the US was committed to reducing regional vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation.

On security matters, Blinken said the Pacific could expect power derived from US alliances in other parts of the world to come to the islands.

“The United States is increasingly speaking with one voice with our NATO allies and our G7 partners, when it comes to Indo Pacific matters, you can see the strength of that commitment to the Indo Pacific throughout the past year.”

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

After a day of political showdown that at times involved shouting battles and personal clashes, the much anticipated motion of no confidence against Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare was defeated by 32 votes to 15 with two abstentions.

With the capital city Honiara virtually closed for business yesterday, attention turned to Vavaya Ridge where Parliament was debating the motion.

The motion came on the back of social unrest that saw the looting and burning of some 56 buildings across the city and the re-engagement of foreign forces in Honiara to arrest the situation two weeks ago and restore law and order.

• READ MORE: Solomon Islands PM survives no-confidence vote after unrest
• Other Solomon Islands crisis reports

In moving the motion, opposition leader Matthew Wale admitted that he had been conflicted by the need for this motion at this hour in “our history”.

“On the one hand we are dealing with it today because there is need for a political solution to the causes of the tragic events of two weeks ago,” he said.

“On the other, I am conscious that what we say in ventilating this motion may further add to what are already high levels of anger in certain quarters of our society.”

Wale said that as a result of the tragic events that caused so much loss and destruction and even cost lives he had called on the Prime Minister to resign.

‘Eruption of anger’
“I did not make that call out of malice toward him personally. I made that call in recognition of the fact that the tragic events were not isolated events, nor were they purely criminal, but were the eruption of anger based on political issues and decisions for which the PM must bear the primary responsibility,” he said.

“It is democratic for a Prime Minister to be called upon to resign, there is nothing undemocratic about the call. And if he chose to resign that too would be democratic.

“As is the case, the Prime Minister refused to resign, and therefore has necessitated this motion,” he said while moving the motion.

“Although [the people] are resource rich, yet they are cash poor. They have hopes that their children will have access to better opportunities than they did.”

— Opposition leader Matthew Wale

In arguing his case, Wale stated several issues.

On the economy, the MP for Aoke/Langalana said the vast majority of “our people live on the margins of our economy”.

“Although they are resource rich, yet they are cash poor. They have hopes that their children will have access to better opportunities than they did.

“They work hard to afford the high cost of education, though many children leave school because of lack of school fees. Our people are angry that education is so expensive, and that only those that can afford it are able to educate all their kids to a high level of education,” Wale said.

Access to healthcare challenging
“On health, Wale said the vast majority of our people lived where access to healthcare was challenging at best.

He said basic medicines and supplies are often not adequate to meet their health care needs adding that the state of the hospitals are perpetually in crisis management.

The opposition leader pointed out that at the National Referral Hospital Emergency Department patients were sleeping on the floor.

“Why is this the case? Who is responsible? Our people are angry about this,” he asked in Parliament.

Wale also highlighted logging companies disregard of tribal and community concerns, that drive conflict and disputes within tribes and communities. He said the government stood with the logging companies.

He also accused Sogavare of the use of the People’s Republic of China’s National Development Fund (NDF) money to prop up the Prime Minister as another of those issues that was undermining and compromising the sovereignty of the country.

He said the PM was dependent on that money to maintain his political strength.

Chinese funding influence
“How is he then supposed to make decisions that are wholly only in the interests of Solomon Islands untainted or undiluted by considerations for the PRC funds,” he asked.

“You see public anger has been built up over many years by all this bad governance. No serious efforts have been taken to address these serious issues. Provincial governments have increasingly over the past several years repeated their desire that they be given the constitutional mandate to manage their own affairs. Honiara has been consuming almost all the wealth that has been generated from resources exploited from the provinces,” Wale said.

He stated that the provinces had lost trust in Honiara.

“Erratic, poor, mercenary, and politically expedient decision making makes what is already a bad situation worse.

Wale said this was the situation specifically with Malaita.

“Malaita has stood on principle that a PM that lies to the country and Parliament does not have moral authority and legitimacy. Malaita would not accept it.

“Because of that principled position, this PM has not ceased to scheme and plot the consistent and persistent persecution of Malaita.

Malaita sought peaceful protest
“Malaitans have sought to petition the PM, twice, but were ignored and brushed aside in a rather juvenile manner. Malaita asked to stage peaceful protests, but these were denied.

“Malaitans sought an audience with the PM, but they were summarily dismissed. So what are they then supposed to do to get the PM’s attention? The PM consistently refused to visit Auki,” Wale said.

“We never received any formal log of issues from them so that the government sits with them and dialogue over it,” he said.

He stressed that the government runs on rules and protocols on how they deal with each other.

Regarding the motion, Sogavare said it should never be brought to the floor of Parliament.

He accused Wale and his cohorts for driving the interests of a few people.

Willing to face justice
Sogavare said the majority of peace loving Malaitans condemned with utter disgust what had happened.

On corruption allegations, that the foreign forces were helping to protect his government, Sogavare said he was willing to face justice.

“I am very willing and if the leader of opposition can prove the allegations he has against me. This is the easiest way to remove the Prime Minister—that is to send him to jail,” he said.

On the lack of government support in terms of development on Malaita, Sogavare argued that despite the current economic environment his government had performed very well.

In that regard, he said the government did not fail the people of the country, including Malaita province, in the implementation of the twin objective of his government’s policy re-direction.

He said that the government had done so much for Malaita — as a matter of fact more than what some provinces that contributed so much to the country’s economy were getting.

Eight MPs including the PM spoke on the motion.

Robert Iroga is editor of SBM Online. Republished with permission.

The Solomon Islands prime minister came in for searing criticism when he faced a confidence vote in Parliament today.

A motion of no confidence against Manasseh Sogavare was debated amid tight security in the capital Honiara, where hundreds of regional security forces have deployed following major political unrest less than two weeks ago.

About 250 defence force and police personnel from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and New Zealand were on high alert in anticipation of potential unrest around the outcome of the vote.

• READ MORE: Solomon Islands PM survives no-confidence vote after unrest
• Other Solomon Islands crisis reports

As expected, the pro-China prime minister survived the no confidence vote with the support of 32 MPs, while 15 voted against him.

Local media reported that numerous local families departed from Honiara aboard interisland ferries to return to home villages to avoid potential unrest in the capital, where many shops and schools had also closed.

The motion was tabled by opposition leader Matthew Wale, who has accused Sogavare of allowing corruption to fester, and of treating the people of Malaita province with contempt.

Malaitans played a central role in the late November protest that sparked the unrest, which left extensive destruction in Honiara, prompting Sogavare’s request for regional security help.

Suidani denies instigation claims
Malaita’s provincial Premier Daniel Suidani, whose administration has fallen out with the national government, especially over the country’s move to switch diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China, has denied claims by the coalition that he instigated the unrest.

Wale told Parliament that the actions of the rioters should not obscure the real issue behind the unrest.

“We must condemn all the criminality in the strongest terms, but it pales, Mr Speaker, in comparison to the looting happening at the top,” he said.

Speaking in favour of the motion, former prime minister Rick Hounipwela described Sogavare as the ultimate opportunist whose accession to prime minister over four stints “has always been under abnormal circumstances”.

Blaming the prime minister for negligent management of the country’s finances, Hounipwela said the country’s corruption problem had deepened under Sogavare’s rule.

“We’ve experienced huge tax exemptions worth millions of dollars given to the people who least needed it, usually the loggers and mining operators.”

In today’s debate on the motion, Sogavare said the motion had been filed against the backdrop of an illegal attempted coup.

‘Stand up to tyranny’
“When we are under attack from forces of evil, we must stand up for what is right, we must stand up to this tyranny. We cannot entertain violence being used to tear down a democratically elected government.”

Sogavare rejected the opposition’s accusation of corruption against him.

Hounipwela, the MP for Small Malaita, accused the prime minister of using the pandemic State of Emergency to give himself authoritarian powers.

He also claimed Sogavare had used police to repress public criticism of his leadership, and of directing foreign embassies and high commissions in the country to notify the government of their moves around the provinces.

“To vote against [the motion], members would be aiding and abetting his zeal for power and to rule this country with an iron fist. That’s what we see as a track record,” Hounipwela said.

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

The riots in Honiara yesterday, disturbing the city’s normally quiet atmosphere, were unexpected but not surprising.

Someone made reference to a possible protest that would coincide with the convening of Parliament, but details were sketchy and social media was tightlipped about a protest for a change.

Arguably, the riots are a culmination of a number of flashpoints that have been ignored these past few months.

• READ MORE: Solomon Islands PM calls for calm after looting and protests
• Other Solomon Islands riot reports

At a “Tok Stori” Conference jointly held by the Solomon Islands National University and University of Melbourne on Wednesday, 17 November 2021, on the environment, conflict and peace, I spoke about unmasking the faces of those who control the Solomon Islands economy.

I argued that even though 80 percent of land in Solomon Islands is owned by Solomon Islanders, they are largely bystanders, while outsiders, mainly Malaysian, Filipino, and Chinese loggers and mining companies control the resources and the political processes involving our politicians.

People might elect our members of Parliament, but it is the logging companies, mining companies and other largely Asian-owned companies that underwrite the formation of government, influence the election of the Prime Minister, and keep ministers and government supporters under control after the elections.

In return, if they want anything, or need special favours, they go directly to ministers and even the Prime Minister.

Indigenous owners shut out
Indigenous Solomon Island business owners do not have the same access to our leaders. The political governance arrangements in Solomon Islands are shaped by the cozy co-existence between foreign loggers, miners and businesses.

The influence of non-state actors in shaping political undercurrents in Solomon Islands cannot be ignored.

Yesterday’s protest is said to have been instigated by supporters from Malaita, but the frustration with the national government, the attitude of the Prime Minister and ministers to provincial governments and provincial politicians, and the sense of alienation and disenfranchisement, is arguably shared across a wide spectrum of the country.

People feel resentful when they see the national government giving a Malaysian company preferential tax status by virtue of an Act of Parliament, or $13 million as a deposit towards the construction of what are purportedly poor-quality prefabricated houses, while Solomon Islanders have to sleep on the floor in the emergency department of their hospital.

Such things are inevitably bound to fuel resentment. When people see the government bypass local, indigenous contractors for the Pacific Games, it makes them antagonistic, and feel neglected.

This sense of alienation, disempowerment and neglect has been building for some time.

Yesterday’s protest is intertwined with the complexity of the China-Taiwan, and national-provincial government political dynamics that have been well publicised.

Shoddy treatment of Premier
Malaitans in Malaita generally have been sympathetic to their Premier. The shoddy way the national government has been treating their highly respected Premier Daniel Suidani, starting with arrangements for his overseas travel, and then blocking every single attempt he made at appointing ministers while he was away, has not been lost on Malaitans.

The unprecedented welcome he received at Auki when he returned from medical leave was testament to the high regard in which he is held.

Not even the Prime Minister would have come anywhere near size of the crowd that welcomed him that day. Notably absent were the Malaitan members of the national Parliament.

The thousands of supporters who showed up in truckloads from all wards in Malaita to stop the vote of no-confidence against Daniel Suidani should have sent a signal to national parliamentarians and the Prime Minister that it was time to set aside their differences.

Perhaps they underestimated the people’s resolve, thinking that the bribes that were allegedly paid to the Malaita provincial members would have been sufficient to topple Daniel Suidani.

Where the money originated from remains a mystery. However, Daniel Suidani’s vocal opposition to the switch to China, and his courting of Taiwan, might give a clue.

Throughout the past months, there has been little dialogue between the national government and the Malaita provincial government. A great opportunity to avoid today’s protests would have been for government ministers from Malaita to attend a reconciliation ceremony that was held in Aimela, a village outside Auki, last week.

They were not seen. Diplomacy and dialogue are not confined to international relations. They are very important attributes for politicians to have when they deal with each other.

Drifting to self-destruction
Solomon Islands has been drifting to self-destruction. It is one of the most aid dependent countries in the world.

Significant donor support is given to its health and education sector. Yet, its ministers and senior government officials treat its people poorly, and allow them to be exploited by loggers and miners.

Yesterday’s protest and riots are evidence of serious underlying currents that have been neglected. There has to be reform to the political system, including making the government more inclusive.

Those that rioted today probably don’t get anything from government. This has to change, otherwise Solomon Islands could be on the pathway to implosion.

Dr Transform Aqorau is CEO, iTuna Intel and founding director, Pacific Catalyst and a legal adviser to Marshall Islands. He is the former CEO of the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office. This article was first published on DevPolicy blog at the Australian National University and is republished here under a Creative Commons licence.

A sad day indeed when a school building was also torched and burnt down. My former school, Honiara Senior High School now being burnt down this evening. The science lab is now gone and the fire moving towards the assembly hall. A sad time for the students & teachers not mine pic.twitter.com/MhIa1m8xzU

— Georgina Kekea (@ginakekea) November 24, 2021

After two hard-fought weeks of negotiations, the Glasgow climate change summit is, at last, over. All 197 participating countries adopted the so-called Glasgow Climate Pact, despite an 11th hour intervention by India in which the final agreement was watered down from “phasing out” coal to “phasing down”.

In an emotional final speech, COP26 president Alok Sharma apologised for this last-minute change.

His apology goes to the heart of the goals of COP26 in Glasgow: the hope it would deliver outcomes matching the urgent “code red” action needed to achieve the Paris Agreement target.

• READ MORE: COP26: experts react to the UN climate summit and Glasgow Pact
• COP26 leaves too many loopholes for the fossil fuel industry. Here are 5 of them
• Other COP26 reports

At the summit’s outset, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to “keep the goal of 1.5℃ alive”, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the global economy, and to phase out coal.

So, was COP26 a failure? If we evaluate this using the summits original stated goals, the answer is yes, it fell short. Two big ticket items weren’t realised: renewing targets for 2030 that align with limiting warming to 1.5℃, and an agreement on accelerating the phase-out of coal.

But among the failures, there were important decisions and notable bright spots. So let’s take a look at the summit’s defining issues.

We’ve made serious breakthroughs @COP26.

We’ve kept 1.5 alive and made huge progress on coal, cars, cash and trees.

And while there is still so much that needs to be done to save our planet, we’ll look back at COP26 as the moment humanity finally got real about climate change. pic.twitter.com/Rf91HN4fS3

— Boris Johnson (@BorisJohnson) November 13, 2021

Weak 2030 targets
The goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature rise to well below 2℃ this century, and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5℃. Catastrophic impacts will be unleashed beyond this point, such as sea level rise and more intense and frequent natural disasters.

But new projections from Climate Action Tracker show even if all COP26 pledges are met, the planet is on track to warm by 2.1℃ — or 2.4℃ if only 2030 targets are met.

Despite the Australian government’s recent climate announcements, this nation’s 2030 target remains the same as in 2015. If all countries adopted such meagre near-term targets, global temperature rise would be on track for up to 3℃.

Technically, the 1.5℃ limit is still within reach because, under the Glasgow pact, countries are asked to update their 2030 targets in a year’s time. However, as Sharma said, “the pulse of 1.5 is weak”.

And as Australia’s experience shows, domestic politics rather than international pressure is often the force driving climate policy. So there are no guarantees Australia or other nations will deliver greater ambition in 2022.

“Many of our small, low-lying islands may disappear by the end of this century. That means the country will be lost.”

Palau’s Environment Minister Steven Victor tells #Newsnight decisions made tonight at #COP26 are also about “deciding whether we keep a culture alive” pic.twitter.com/Qnr0X219om

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) November 11, 2021

Phase down, not out
India’s intervention to change the final wording to “phase down” coal rather than “phase out” dampens the urgency to shift away from coal.

India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, after China and the United States. The country relies heavily on coal, and coal-powered generation is expected to grow by 4.6 percent each year to 2024.

India was the most prominent objector to the “phase out” wording, but also had support from China.

And US climate envoy John Kerry argued that carbon capture and storage technology could be developed further, to trap emissions at the source and store them underground.

Carbon capture and storage is a controversial proposition for climate action. It is not proven at scale, and we don’t yet know if captured emissions stored underground will eventually return to the atmosphere. And around the world, relatively few large-scale underground storage locations exist.

It is hard to see this expensive technology ever being cost-competitive with cheap renewable energy.

In a crucial outcome, COP26 also finalised rules for global carbon trading, known as Article 6 under the Paris Agreement. However under the rules, the fossil fuel industry will be allowed to “offset” its carbon emissions and carry on polluting. Combined with the “phasing down” change, this will see fossil fuel emissions continue.

It wasn’t all bad
Despite the shortcomings, COP26 led to a number of important positive outcomes.

The world has taken an unambiguous turn away from fossil fuel as a source of energy. And the 1.5℃ global warming target has taken centre stage, with the recognition that reaching this target will require rapid, deep and sustained emissions reductions of 45 percent by 2030, relative to 2010 levels.

What’s more, the pact emphasises the importance to mitigation of nature and ecosystems, including protecting forests and biodiversity. This comes on top of a side deal struck by Australia and 123 other countries promising to end deforestation by 2030.

The pact also urges countries to fully deliver on an outstanding promise to deliver US$100 billion a year for five years to developing countries vulnerable to climate damage. It also emphasises the importance of transparency in implementing the pledges.

Nations are also invited to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022. In support of this, it was agreed to hold a high-level ministerial roundtable meeting each year focused on raising ambition out to 2030.

The US and China climate agreement is also cause for cautious optimism.

Despite the world not being on track for the 1.5℃ goal, momentum is headed in the right direction. And the mere fact that a reduction in coal use was directly addressed in the final text signals change may be possible.

But whether it comes in the small window we have left to stop catastrophic climate change remains to be seen.

Dr Robert Hales, director of the Centre for Sustainable Enterprise, Griffith University and Dr Brendan Mackey, director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Programme, Griffith University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

New Zealand’s largest ever crowd in support of migrant rights gathered in Auckland’s Aotea Square at the weekend in triple protests that also marked solidarity for Palestinian justice and the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, China.

More than 1500 people filled the square on Saturday proclaiming “migrant lives matter” with speakers calling on them to stand up for their rights.

New Zealand governments over the past few years were accused of cynically exploiting migrant workers and that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s “nation of 5 million people” excluded about 300,000 migrants.

The protesters then marched down Queen Street calling for changes to the “broken” immigration policies.

Among demands were:

• Visas to be extended to allow for workers who had been trapped overseas, and
• Creation of “genuine pathways” to permanent residence.

Unite union national director Michael Treen said successive governments had built the economy on the back of migrants and then consistently “lied” to them about their prospects.

President of the Migrant Workers Association Anu Kaloti said migrants were suffering at the hands of the “broken immigration system”.

Before the march, Palestinian community leader Maher Nazza declared to the crowd “No one is free until we are all free”, saying that the world community must pressure Israel into honouring the United Nations resolutions and restore justice and hope for Palestinians.

A smaller crowd of Chinese dissidents marked the 32nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, with more than 10,000 deaths, according to a BBC report.

One speaker said: “If I said the truth [about the Chinese Communist Party] as I am saying here today in China, somebody would come within minutes and take me away.”

Photographs by David Robie

Palestine, migrant rights and the Tiananmen massacre

1 of 12

Hong Kong police on June 4 deployed 7000 officers in Victoria Park and across the city to ensure that there was no organised commemoration of the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre in public spaces.

At 7.40 am, four police officers arrested democracy activist Chow Hang-tung outside her office building to prevent her from heading to Victoria Park. There have been no reports indicating that she has been released.

Hong Kong held candlelight vigils to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre for three decades.

• READ MORE: Tiananmen vigil stifled but HK activists say history ‘not erased’

In 2020, Hong Kong police banned the event for the first time, citing anti-coronavirus measures. Victoria Park is the park where the vigils were held.

Her crime? Standing up for justice. https://t.co/IF8Z1BHvey

— Maya Wang 王松莲 (@wang_maya) June 4, 2021

Chow is the vice-president of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (HK Alliance), the group that organised the annual vigil.

She told press that she would go to Victoria Park on her own and light a candle on June 4, despite the threat of jail time for “inciting illegal assembly”.

#HongKongPolice will deploy 7,000 officers at Victoria Park and across the city on #June4th to stop HKers from commemorating the 1989 #TiananmenSquareMassacre. People wearing black, chanting slogans or holding candles may be arrested. https://t.co/KNHU1imGuf#AppleDailyENG pic.twitter.com/sTpjj5sCFD

— Apple Daily HK 蘋果日報 (@appledaily_hk) June 3, 2021

Lawyer and activist Chow Hang Tung is fighting to keep the memory of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown alive in Hong Kong, despite facing possible imprisonment for publicly commemorating the event https://t.co/LhBGNiIBvV pic.twitter.com/ps447HiilX

— Bloomberg Quicktake (@Quicktake) June 2, 2021

24 activists charged
At least 24 pro-democracy activists were charged with participating in last year’s unauthorised vigil, of whom four have been sentenced to jail terms up to 10 months.

The others are awaiting trials and sentencing.

Hong Kong Secretary for Security John Lee warned that under the Public Order Ordinance, offenders could face up to five years in prison for attending the vigil, or up to one year for promoting it.

After the vigil was banned, Beijing’s political adviser on Hong Kong affairs Tian Feilong urged Hong Kong security services to investigate HK Alliance for breaching the infamous national security law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong last year.

He argued that the organisation’s mission statement, which calls for the end of one-party dictatorship, is in violation of the law, since the Chinese Communist Party’s dictatorship is written into the Chinese constitution.

On June 3, Executive Council member Ronny Tong warned that people wearing black clothing and chanting slogans such as “end one-party dictatorship” could be prosecuted for violating either that law or the law against unauthorised assembly.

It would not matter if protesters appeared in different parts of the city, as long as their actions could be viewed as coordinated, Tong said.

He did however state that individual commemorations of the anniversary were not forbidden.

Safe spaces targeted, shut down
As police mobilised across the city to prevent potential demonstrations, law enforcement units and pro-Beijing groups harassed the public in order to prevent them from attending other potential commemoration activities – even those being held in private venues.

Seven Catholic churches which planned to hold evening mass on June 4 became a focal point for attacks:

As churches offer a safe space for people to remember June 4th, banners are going up outside their premises: “Cult invasion of faith. Antichrist, fake messiahs. Chaos in the name of worship. Subversion of religion, blood on their hands. Churchgoers be aware of violating the NSL.” pic.twitter.com/3HAGOZkJoi

— K Tse (@ktse852) June 3, 2021

On June 2, HK Alliance announced that its June 4 Museum had been shut down after officials from the Food and Environmental Hygiene department accused it of operating as a place of public entertainment without required licences.

In spite of all the legal threats, individuals are finding their own ways to commemorate the anniversary in public.

Hong Kong’s June 4 Museum has closed temporarily over questions about its license. The space opened a decade ago. It is dedicated to commemorating victims of China’s 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. pic.twitter.com/LmeT2nI4tp

— Radio Free Asia (@RadioFreeAsia) June 2, 2021

On June 3, a group of artists put on a public art performance at Causeway Bay:

#hk – a group of artists carried out acts in memory of #june4 at Causeway Bay, the night before the banned vigil pic.twitter.com/TuagG7t79t

— Lok. (@sumlokkei) June 3, 2021

A number of individuals went to Victoria Park to hold “one person vigils”:

#TiananmenSquareMassacre ：A few people gather at Victoria park to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Massacre on the eve of June 4.

#June4 #HongKong pic.twitter.com/IuNBLGFeQ6

— Ryan Lai (@ryan_lai1214) June 3, 2021

A large number of June 4 posters were seen in different districts across the city today.

Many citizens wore clothes that conveyed political messages. They said on social media that they planned to light candles at 8 p.m, regardless of where they were in the city.

Oiwan Lam is Global Voices northeast Asia regional editor. She is also a media activist, researcher and educator currently based in Hong Kong. Her Chinese writings are in inmediahk.net and her twitter account is @oiwan. This article is republished from Global Voices under a Creative Commons licence.

Last week, writer Sherry Zhang was at the opening night of Auckland Theatre Company’s production of Single Asian Female. She’s waited to see it since 2019 and now, having finally seen it on New Zealand shores, she reflects on the play and what it means to her.

I’ve been waiting for a while to see this show. I first heard about Single Asian Female in 2019 from a Sydney friend who told me I had to see it. “I’ll fly over from Auckland then,” I joked, but more than half-serious.

So in 2021, when Kat Tsz Hung, who plays Chinese matriarch Pearl Wong, stared defiantly at me on a giant yellow post in Auckland Theatre Company’s Waterfront Theatre, I was beyond chuffed.

I’ve waited so long because it’s about time.

Single Asian Female premiered in Sydney years ago and only reached New Zealand shores in 2021.

To be produced at ATC is as mainstream as you can get with theatre in New Zealand. It’s validating to have an Asian-centric story, directed and written, right at the Viaduct. I’ve been to a few ATC shows now, and the audience is generally a sea of white hair on white people.

There’s been incredible mahi buzzing from Proudly Asian Theatre for the past few years, championing the community needs and interests. From producing works, supporting emerging artists, and calling out the lack of diversity in Aotearoa’s performance spaces for Asian creatives.

Working with PAT on this project is smart for ATC, it provides them with some street cred for an institution that has otherwise been slow on the diversity and inclusion front.

Just a few years ago, ATC was still pumping out predominantly all-white casts and all-white production teams. (The two actors of colour had fleeting, almost silent roles).

Sacrifice of our parents
Single Asian Female is a thank you to the sacrifice our parents endure to bring up children in an Australasian space. As the character Pearl says, “food is the great equaliser, our stomachs are the same”.

Our parents run restaurants or takeaways so we can have a chance at a better life. They cook because they can, and it pays.

A scene familiar to me: older siblings running the tables while you sit in the corner finishing maths homework. Or being pulled in to do shift work even if you have prior commitments, because who else is going to run the family business?

Playwright Michelle Law isn’t afraid to pick apart the “tiger mum”, parenting trope. Pearl has so much love for her daughters Zoe (Xana Tang) and Mei (Bridget Wong). She’s funny, supportive and would do anything to protect her children. But she’s also snappy, harsh and overbearing.

It tapped into a fair amount of mother issues I’m still carrying. My friends and I all walked out of the theatre slightly dazed, because “I’m pretty sure line for line, that’s something my Mum has said”.

I was pretty good at holding back the tears, until the final scenes when Zoe shares the songs Pearl would sing to calm her down when she has panic attacks. I sobbed a bit in the dark until the red lanterns and glitzy dance lights came on again for the karaoke finale spectacular.

I see how Asian mothers talk about their duty to their children. This martyrdom of suffering, of keeping up a strong face, often translates into coldness. Pearl’s chants of “I am strong,” is both inspiring and heart-wrenching.

Gorgeous one-liners
The transition from the play’s original setting on the Gold Coast to Mt Maunganui provides some gorgeous one-liners about Winston Peters and L&P. But there are some awkward translations, with jokes about Penny Wong, openly queer Australian MP, not sitting as smoothly.

It felt like a missed opportunity to flesh out queerness in Chinese culture.

I understood the joke was in Pearl’s unexpected openness regarding sexuality (and her complete horror of Zoe’s unexpected pregnancy). But to use queerness as the punchline felt like a slap in the face as someone who’s continuing to unpack the trauma of being queer in a conservative Chinese family.

Other moments that stung include the racist comments Mei endures from her Pākeha high school friends. The internalised racism and identity unravelling is a particular point of growing up Kiwi-Asian.

But it frustrated me when on opening night, non-Asian audience members laughed at these comments. “Oi, it’s literally just our reality,” I wanted to shout.

At first, I struggled to place how old Mei was. But through her growth, I found her characterisation to be realistically matched with the sophistication 17-year-old teenage girls deserve.

Xana Tang’s performance as Zoe was particularly charming, while Kat Tsz Hung was flamboyant and unapologetic as Pearl. To see Asian women taking up space, loud and demanding attention is a necessary breakdown of the small, quiet and obedient stereotypes enforced upon us.

Director Cassandre Tse expertly moves us from moments of immense heartache and grief to fits of laughter. A balance and lightness needed to transport us through a two and a half hour play that holds rather heavy traumatic themes.

We’ve been waiting to hear our mothers, sisters and ourselves speak for so long, and now I just want even more.

• Single Asian Female. By Michelle Law. ASB Waterfront Theatre, Auckland. 27 April– 15 May 2021. This review is republished from the Asia Media Centre under a Creative Commons licence.

Dear Prime Minister Marape

Our government has to admit the fact that there is a glaring imbalance between Papua New Guinean and foreign ownership of businesses. We own very little in our country.

The retail, wholesale and real estate in our towns and cities are controlled by Chinese interests. We own almost nothing in the logging industry. It is, as we all know, controlled by Malaysian interests.

There is an increasing push by (new) Chinese business owners who are buying up National Housing Corporation (NHC) properties and forcing out Papua New Guineans – YOUR people – onto the streets.

• READ MORE: My Land, My Country

There is no strong legislation that prevents 100 percent foreign ownership of property and land. We need those laws in place now. We need the political will to do it. Now.

The justice system can’t protect our people. They don’t have the money to fight long protracted legal battles… …and the syndicate – yes, syndicates – know this and they take advantage of it.

Recently, local people along the North Coast of Madang protested against a sand mining proposal. The people associated with the sand mining company have also evicted families from NHC properties in Madang.

It is no secret. It was reported by the media.

Tack Back PNG more than a slogan
Take Back PNG must not remain a political slogan for elections. The people must live it.

I am calling for legislation that protects the social and economic rights of our people. I want lower taxes (or no taxes at all) for struggling SMEs.

Give them tax holidays like the government did for RD Tuna and the petroleum sector. Give them REAL financing. Not a figure on paper they can’t access.

We want shop spaces in the centre of our towns and cities. Give it to us. This is our country. We want what is ours.

If the laws don’t allow it. Change the laws to suit our people’s needs.

We cannot continue to exist on the fringes of a large Pacific economy that boasts a “healthy” GDP yet cannot show it in the impact on the lives of our people.

Tax the alcohol companies. They contribute to the widespread abuse and the violence associated with it.

Society not mature enough
Our society is not mature enough to allow the widespread consumption of alcohol.

Tax the cigarette companies. Make them all pay for the ill health of our people.

We are not taking back PNG by allowing these cancers to continue untreated. We are in fact, selling off PNG’s future.

Reduce the cost of medical treatment at the private clinics and hospitals. Reduce the cost of dental care. It’s UNAFFORDABLE. How can a papa or mama in the village afford K500 for a tooth extraction.

Give your people the means to look after themselves. Give your people the means to pay for their children’s education so they don’t become enslaved by politicians who peddle election policies that don’t really serve our people.

We don’t want to be dependent on government. We want to make our own money. Wealth in the hand of its people is real wealth.

We demand preferential treatment for US.

Our resources. Our country. We deserve more.

Scott Waide is a leading Papua New Guinean journalist and a senior editor with a national television network. He writes a personal blog, My Land, My Country. Asia Pacific Report republishes his articles with permission.

The bolt out of the blue in New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s new cabinet is Nanaia Mahuta as Foreign Affairs Minister.

The job became vacant with New Zealand First and its leader Winston Peters out of Parliament and the role is as important as ever.

Mahuta’s appointment – the first indigenous Māori woman to become Foreign Minister – comes as such a surprise mainly because it is a portfolio where she has had little to no experience.

• READ MORE: Labour’s Māori caucus celebrates big promotions in cabinet

Ardern cites her previous role as associate trade and export growth minister, but it is a major step up to become Foreign Minister.

It was a “natural decision” for her to take, says Ardern who says she is struck by Mahuta’s ability to “build fantastic relationships, very, very quickly – one of the key jobs in a foreign affairs role”.

Mahuta will need to complement those backroom skills with some hard work; she will have plenty of official advice and can call on the experience of colleagues like David Parker, but not necessarily access to the former minister Winston Peters.

The portfolio will only become more challenging as the world grapples with covid and the geopolitical tussle between the United States and China.

Deft hand needed
New Zealand will need a deft hand to navigate through the coming years, and someone who can harness relationships with New Zealand’s current and potential trading partners, and with the Five Eyes alliance.

Her focus will be on the “multilateral, rules-based system” New Zealand relies on in such turbulent times, and the ‘Pacific reset’ started under Winston Peters.

When asked about his tenure, Mahuta said Peters had made a “huge contribution” and had shown that if you get the relationships right, New Zealand can benefit.

In her first media conference, she was asked about China’s more aggressive presence in the Pacific but said she would need a bit more time to get her head around many of the “substantial issues”.

“I’m still getting my feet under the table,” she told reporters.

“I’m inheriting the portfolio from a predecessor who had views and I’ll form my views once I’ve read the BIM [Briefing to Incoming Ministers] and received some advice.”

Much of the foreign affairs load will be taken by the Prime Minister herself, and giving Mahuta the portfolio, when the job will mainly be New Zealand-based, frees up other senior ministers who could have been in the running, with big workloads, and major reforms to get on with.

The key messages on foreign affairs will come from the ninth floor, and with Labour holding Foreign Affairs the potential for differing positions should be removed, compared with arrangments in the last government.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

• Restocking the cabinet – Ardern springs surprise or two

Three crew members of an unnamed foreign ship intercepted by a Papua New Guinea Navy vessel near Kavieng, New Ireland, last month have denied violating local laws and withholding information from authorities.

In the Kavieng District Court before Magistrate Patrick Baiwan on Wednesday were ship’s captain Shi Kehu from Fujian province in China, second-in-command Ying Kit Lam from Hong Kong, and crew member Mariglen Dhimogjini from Albania.

They will return to court next Tuesday and have been ordered to stay on board the vessel berthed at the Kavieng port, under a 24/7 police guard.

• READ MORE: PNG linked drug bust and ‘black ship’

The unnamed vessel which police believe is linked to a K1.47 billion (NZ$642 million) drug bust recently in Australian waters, was intercepted in waters north of Kavieng on August 23 by the crew of the HMPNGS Moresby.

Shots were fired at the crew when they refused to stop.

The captain was later treated in hospital for a gunshot wound.

National Fisheries Authority (NFA) executive manager monitoring control and surveillance Giza Komangin told The National the three had violated provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 1998.

Captain charged
Captain Shi was charged with:

• REFUSING to divulge names and contacts of persons and vessels that the vessel was conducting bunkering activities at sea;
• REFUSING to stop the vessel for boarding and inspection by fisheries and navy officials when instructed to;
• DESTROYING and deleting electronic data and tracks to avoid seizure or detection by fisheries officers;
• FAILING to comply with requirements of gear stowage when navigating inside PNG waters; and,
• VIOLATING other state laws to supply fishing vessels with fuel and other supplies an activity requiring a valid fishing licence.

Yong was charged with knowingly giving information that is false and misleading about the operation of the vessel and refusing to divulge names of contacts of person to investigation officials.

Dhimogjini was charged with refusing to divulge names and contacts of persons and vessels engaged in its operation inside Pacific Island waters.

Vessel named Min Shi Yu
NFA officials during their investigations discovered that the vessel’s name was Min Shi Yu 00368 engaged in fishing activities, and supplying fuel and food to other fishing vessels at sea.

On May 1, 2020, it left Quanzhou in China with a crew of seven and picked up Kit Lam and Mariglen Dhimogjini in Hong Kong.

The vessel had no markings to show its name, flag or country of registry, or international radio call sign to show that it was legitimately navigating through PNG waters.

Only three of the nine crew members have passports, five have identification cards, and one has no identification at all and no logbooks or records were available.

Miriam Zarriga is a reporter for The National newspaper in Papua New Guinea. The Pacific Media Centre republishes National articles with permission.

“Tonga does not interfere in other nations’ own affairs.”

That was the carefully measured response from Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa to the report that senior officials from Australia’s Foreign Affairs Department are investigating the concept of a “grand compact” with some small Pacific nations, including Tonga.

The suggestion over a compact is seen in some circles as a way of curbing the growth of Chinese power in the region.

• READ MORE: Australian foreign affairs official confirm they are studying US, NZ compact deals with Pacific nations
• LISTEN: ABC Pacific beat news item

Under the proposal, Australia would allow permanent residency or even citizenship for people from Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga and Nauru in return for Australia managing their resources.

A number of independent Pacific island states are already in compacts of free associations with larger countries.

In Micronesia, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association with the United States.

The governments of these nations consult with the US on foreign affairs issues. Washington also has “full authority and responsibility for security and defence matters” in return for US government services, the opportunity for Pacific Islanders to work in the US, and annual grants.

Self-governing states
The Cook Islands and Niue are self-governing states in free association with New Zealand, which is responsible for their foreign affairs and defence.

The proposal for an Australian compact has been floated in different forms over recent years and has met with a mixed response.

As Kaniva News reported, former Tuvaluan Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga described it as outdated “imperial thinking”.

Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa told Kaniva News yesterday: “Tonga is friends with every country in the world.

“It does not oppose any country.

“That was a traditional position of Tonga in terms of international diplomatic relations. Tonga does not interfere in other nations’ own affairs.”

Tonga only Pacific country not colonised
Tonga is the only Pacific nation not to have been colonised. As a series of historical features in Kaniva News showed earlier this year, the country’s rulers fought hard to keep from being overwhelmed by Britain’s offers of friendship.

However, not all politicians from the countries listed as possible compact partners have rejected it.

Kiribati’s former President Anote Tong said the proposal would be difficult for small island countries to turn down.

But he warned that the proposal would only work if Islanders did not see it as an attempt to recolonise their countries.

Philip Cass is a research associate of the Pacific Media Centre and an adviser on Kaniva News. The centre republishes Kaniva News items in collaboration.

Senior officials from Australia’s Foreign Affairs Department have admitted they are investigating  the concept of a “grand compact” with some small Pacific nations, including Tonga.

The idea has been pushed some Australian politicians, academics and officials for decades.

It is seen in some circles as a way of curbing the growth of Chinese power in the region.

• READ MORE: Australian foreign affairs official confirm they are studying US, NZ compact deals with Pacific nations
• LISTEN: ABC Pacific beat news item

One of the suggestions is that Australia could allow permanent residency or even citizenship for people from Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga and Nauru in return for Australia managing their vast – and valuable – exclusive economic zones.

Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd put forward a similar proposal which was attacked by Tuvalu’s then Prime Minister leader, Enele Sopoaga, as “imperial thinking.”

“The days of that type of imperial thinking are over,” Sopoaga told the ABC.

Both New Zealand and the United States have compacts with some Pacific island states.

No sign of serious consideration
However, the ABC’s Pacific Beat said there was no sign that the Australian government was currently seriously contemplating the idea or has plans to take a proposal to Pacific governments.

North Queensland Toyota Cowboys lock Jason Taumalolo is expected to miss this Saturday night’s clash with the Dragons in Townsville.

As Kaniva News reported earlier, the Tongan international was expected to be off for four weeks after tearing a calf muscle during a game against Newcastle last Sunday afternoon.

In June he missed a game with Cronulla at Queensland Country Bank Stadium due to bone bruising on his knee.

The Cowboys are due to take the field against the Dragons at 8.30pm Queensland time.

Tongan High School students will now stay at school until they are 18.

New school leaving age
The Education Act 2013 has been updated to reflect the new school age, which is now 4-18. The new law came into effect on Tuesday.

The Education Department’s Truancy & Reconciliation Division Leader Kalafitoni Latu told Radio Tonga the compulsory leaving age was meant to help all students get a better education.

He said the ministry would push children who are of legal age, to attend school in accordance to the law.

Uhatahi Tu’amoheloa, who manages the grassroots Just Play project in Tonga, has described online mentoring by the English Football association as a blessing.

Two of the FA’s leading coaches, head of Grassroots Delivery, Les Howie and coach mentor officer, Steve Smithies, are providing virtual mentoring to Pacific players in Tonga, Fiji and Samoa.

“This is like a new era for us having the FA running mentoring sessions,” Tu’amoheloa said.

Mainly volunteers
“Our participants at the first session were mainly volunteers from Just Play, but at the second session our national team coaches were also on board,” she said.

Repatriation flights from Fiji and Kiribati arrived in Tonga this week.

Health Minister ʻAmelia Afuhaʻamango Tuʻipulotu told Radio Tonga the repatriation flight from Fiji would be the last.

The flight from Kiribati was chartered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and brought back seven passengers and a body.

Flights from Auckland remain in limbo because of the re-appearance of community transmission of covid-19 in the New Zealand community.

Republished with permission from Kaniva News’ Mediawatch.

Singaporean philosopher, former diplomat and academic Professor Kishore Mahbubani has warned the world is entering a global “Asian new order” and he has called on researchers in the Asia-Pacific region to shed Western dominance of the social sciences.

Speaking as a keynote at the Symposium on Social Science 2020 in Indonesia this week, Dr Mahbubani, author of the recent book Has China Won? The Chinese challenge to American Primacy, told more than 200 participants on the webinar that Asian “mental maps” needed to change to address the new reality.

“The world has changed fundamentally – we must understand that,” he said. “But our problem is that the mental maps that we have to understand this new world, our mental maps given to us by our 19th century, 20th century [social scientists] – mostly Western – cannot guide us in the 21st century.”

READ MORE: Unpacking the ‘three myths’ about US lack of wisdom over China

This was because the current century would be far different from the two previous centuries, said Dr Mahbubani, a member of the Asia Research Institute.

“What I have tried to do in my writing is to provide a glimpse of what the 21st century will be like.

“And I have also tried to explain why this is relevant to those studying social science.”

As well as his books, Professor Mahbubani has published extensively in leading journals and newspapers overseas such as Foreign Affairs, the National Interest, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

New trends, new challenges
His wide-ranging speech explored new trends in the world, new challenges and new solutions.

“A shift of power to Asia [is taking place] and the 21st century will be the Century of Asia. We need to be very clear about that. There is absolutely no doubt,” he said.

This was not surprising, he said, because for 18 centuries of the past 2000 years, the world had been dominated by two Asia economies – China and India.

“It is only in the last 200 years that Europe and North America have taken over. So the last 200 years of Western dominance of world history has been an aberration,” he said.

“All aberrations come to a natural end. So it is only natural to see the return of Asia.”

The covid-19 coronavirus pandemic was hastening the world change, partly because the most competent countries in dealing with the global crisis had been in East Asia, he said, echoing what he told BBC Hardtalk’s Zeinab Badawi recently.

He said then that the number of deaths per million in East Asia was less than 10 compared to Europe and the US where it was in the hundreds.

‘Top three out of four in Asia’
“Even today, in terms of purchasing power as a measurement, if you look at the top four economies: number one is China, number two is the United States of America, number three is India, and number four is Japan.

“So three out of the top four economies are already Asian.”

Professor Mahbubani also told the live video symposium participants, hosted by the Centre for Southeast Asian Social Studies at the Universitas Gadjah Mada in Yogyakarta, that Indonesia would be a “big beneficiary” of this global change.

And in market terms it was much harder.

“Indonesia in 2017 was the 16th largest economy in the world. By 2030 it will become the ninth largest economy, and by 2050 it will be the fourth largest – bigger than Japan.

“That is amazing.”

These were the big changes coming, but the world was still outdated with mind maps being set in the 19th and 20th centuries.

‘Dangerous’ to rely on West
“It is dangerous for us to depend on Western social science to understand the Asian century,” he said.

Professor Mahbubani was critical of the double standards in the United States over corruption when it was illegal for American businessmen to bribe foreign legislators while it remained legal for businessmen to influence lawmakers at home, especially over the privatised health system.

He said he believed that the US had lost its moral compass and its current failure under President Donald Trump to stem the coronavirus pandemic and to deal constructively with China and other countries was a warning to the world.

The country was no longer a democracy, it was a plutocracy.

Climate change was an event greater issue than covid facing the globe.

Professor Mahbubani said the world needed a strong US to balance China.

The stimulating two-day webinar had speakers and research papers from all over Asia, but also included foreign presenters such as Australia’s Dr Daniel McCarthy of the University of Melbourne on “another face of power” and New Zealand’s Professor David Robie of Auckland University Technology on climate change and covid-19 – “redefining the relations between humankind and the environment”.

Selected papers will be published in a book to follow the publication from the first Social Science Symposium in 2018.

The Pacific Media Centre was a partner of Indonesia’s Centre for Southeast Asian Social Studies for this symposium.

• (New) Ecological Problems: Post-pandemic climate change an Oceania existential threat
• The sociology of a pandemic: Countering a covid ‘disinfodemic’ with a campus media initiative

The Papua New Guinea government will not allow the use in the country of any vaccine to treat the covid-19 coronavirus which has not been approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO), an official says.

National Pandemic Response Controller David Manning issued a new order this week requiring that no covid-19 vaccination or unapproved pharmaceutical intervention should be provided to anybody in the country.

“The new measure also states that no vaccine testing or trials for the covid-19 shall occur in PNG,” he said.

• READ MORE: Al Jazeera coronavirus live updates – Covid in Brazil stabilising, says WHO

The order came into effect Thursday.

It was in response to news reports that 48 Chinese employees of a PNG-based company had been vaccinated with the SARS-COV-2 vaccine on August 10.

[Asia Pacific Reports that Asia Times named the company as the China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) – which controls a major nickel mine in the country, Ramu NiCo. RNZ Pacific also reports on the “vaccine diplomacy” stir caused by the Chinese company’s action.]

Manning said they would investigate the report and whether the 48 people mentioned had been vaccinated in China before arriving.

WHO does not recognise vaccine
He said WHO did not recognise the vaccine and anyone using the vaccine would be penalised under the legislation.

He also said the Covid-19 National Control Centre would investigate the mining company in PNG.

Manning said a flight from China carrying employees of a Chinese mining company in PNG had to be cancelled because of the vaccination allegations.

He said because of the lack of information on the issue, flights from China would be stopped “in the best interest of the people as authorities investigate the allegations of vaccinations”.

Meanwhile, National Control Centre Incident Manager Dr Esorom Doani said they were working on a standard operating procedure for children who tested positive.
There are three cases.

A 10-year-old boy was confirmed with covid-19 on April 16 and a two-year-old was confirmed on August 7 both in Western.

The third was a two-year-old case tested at the Port Moresby General Hospital after the child was brought in with respiratory problems on Aug 12.

Test results positive
“The test results came back positive. But the mother did not leave any address details. So a doctor from the Port Moresby General Hospital took it upon himself to find them.

“He managed to find them at Korobosea. The mother and child will be brought in tomorrow [Friday]. The mother will also be swabbed before they are taken to the Rita Flynn Isolation Centre.

“We will also start contact tracing for the two-year-old’s family tomorrow [Friday],” he said.

The country’s covid-19 cases now stand at 361 – 198 of them are recovered cases and 163 are active.

The cases are from 11 provinces out of the 21 provinces, including the Autonomous Region of Bougainville.

Reports from The National newspaper are republished by the Pacific Media Centre with permission.

The Papua New Guinea government has clarified that 175 workers from China who have arrived in Port Moresby from the Philippines had complied with all covid-19 entry requirements and hygiene protocols.

National Pandemic Response Controller David Manning said the Chinese workers had been working on government projects in PNG and had gone home for a break before the pandemic struck.

But they were unable to return until yesterday because of international flight restrictions.

READ MORE: Papua New Guineans face spot fines of up to K10,000 for failing to wear face masks

Two more confirmed covid-19 cases were reported – one in Port Moresby and one in Morobe – with the national total now 271.

The Port Moresby man is a 28-year-old man from East Boroko.

The returning Chinese workers arrived on a Philippines Airlines flight around noon on Thursday and were whisked away in buses to their hotels for the 14-day quarantine.

“Their arrival is not part of any repatriation exercise,” Manning said.

‘All protocols followed’
“All protocols were followed. It included testing prior to their arrival and isolation.

“And when they arrived, they automatically go into a 14-day quarantine in authorised hotels (as required) in the new normal measures.”

He said the workers had returned to complete government projects.

“They are not here as trade store owners (or) other smaller investments. They will all be here for the next six to 12 months. No crew-change for them,” Manning said.

“We have taken all precautions to ensure we do not put [PNG] people at risk, hence the stringent restrictions and testing regime prior to arrival and during quarantine.”

He said the 175 were construction managers and workers of major Chinese state-owned enterprises engaged in major government infrastructure including a hydro-power station, provincial airport redevelopments, highway constructions and construction of the National Court and Supreme Court building.

International funding
The projects are funded by international funding institutions such as the Asian Development Bank.

“The funding will be cancelled should we fail to complete these projects on time for whatever reason. We do not want this to happen as these are important projects that will have a positive impact on our people and country,” Manning said.

He said the country must return to normalcy with as little disruption as possible.

Manning added that other expatriate workers involved in important government projects around the country would be returning too.

“However, these will be done under stringent control measures,” he said.

Manning said new measures were in place for international travel.

“No person is permitted to board an aircraft bound for Papua New Guinea unless they have been tested for the Covid-19 within a seven-day period prior to boarding an aircraft, have been tested for the Covid-19 using real time reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests (and) their tests have returned negative for the Covid-19.”

Miriam Zarriga is a reporter for The National newspaper of Port Moresby. This article is republished with permission.

When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open.

At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite.

I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then I walked down to the river where the survivors still lived in shanties.

READ MORE: French nuclear tests: ‘I bury people nearly every day, what was our sin?’

I met a man called Yukio, whose chest was etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.

He described a huge flash over the city, “a bluish light, something like an electrical short”, after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. “I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead.”

Nine years later, I returned to look for him and he was dead from leukaemia.

“No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin” said The New York Times front page on 13 September, 1945, a classic of planted disinformation. “General Farrell,” reported William H Lawrence, “denied categorically that [the atomic bomb] produced a dangerous, lingering radioactivity.”

Braved the perilous journey
Only one reporter, Wilfred Burchett, an Australian, had braved the perilous journey to Hiroshima in the immediate aftermath of the atomic bombing, in defiance of the Allied occupation authorities, which controlled the “press pack”.

“I write this as a warning to the world,” reported Burchett in the London Daily Express of September 5, 1945. Sitting in the rubble with his Baby Hermes typewriter, he described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries who were dying from what he called “an atomic plague”.

For this, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared. His witness to the truth was never forgiven.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. It was justified by lies that form the bedrock of America’s war propaganda in the 21st century, casting a new enemy, and target — China.

During the 75 years since Hiroshima, the most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and to save lives.

“Even without the atomic bombing attacks,” concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that … Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war [against Japan] and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Japanese peace overtures
The National Archives in Washington contains documented Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US made clear the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including “capitulation even if the terms were hard”. Nothing was done.

The US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US Air Force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. Stimson later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the [atomic] bomb”.

Stimson’s foreign policy colleagues — looking ahead to the post-war era they were then shaping “in our image”, as Cold War planner George Kennan famously put it — made clear they were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the [atomic] bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the atomic bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.”

The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Harry Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

The “experiment” continued long after the war was over. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States exploded 67 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands in the Pacific: the equivalent of more than one Hiroshima every day for 12 years.

The human and environmental consequences were catastrophic. During the filming of my documentary, The Coming War on China, I chartered a small aircraft and flew to Bikini Atoll in the Marshalls. It was here that the United States exploded the world’s first Hydrogen Bomb. It remains poisoned earth. My shoes registered “unsafe” on my Geiger counter. Palm trees stood in unworldly formations. There were no birds.

The Coming War on China – the trailer for John Pilger’s 2016 documentary.

I trekked through the jungle to the concrete bunker where, at 6.45 on the morning of March 1, 1954, the button was pushed. The sun, which had risen, rose again and vaporised an entire island in the lagoon, leaving a vast black hole, which from the air is a menacing spectacle: a deathly void in a place of beauty.

‘The wind changed suddenly’
The radioactive fall-out spread quickly and “unexpectedly”. The official history claims “the wind changed suddenly”. It was the first of many lies, as declassified documents and the victims’ testimony reveal.

Gene Curbow, a meteorologist assigned to monitor the test site, said, “They knew where the radioactive fall-out was going to go. Even on the day of the shot, they still had an opportunity to evacuate people, but [people] were not evacuated; I was not evacuated… The United States needed some guinea pigs to study what the effects of radiation would do.”

Like Hiroshima, the secret of the Marshall Islands was a calculated experiment on the lives of large numbers of people. This was Project 4.1, which began as a scientific study of mice and became an experiment on “human beings exposed to the radiation of a nuclear weapon”.

The Marshall Islanders I met in 2015 — like the survivors of Hiroshima I interviewed in the 1960s and 70s — suffered from a range of cancers, commonly thyroid cancer; thousands had already died. Miscarriages and stillbirths were common; those babies who lived were often deformed horribly.

Unlike Bikini, nearby Rongelap atoll had not been evacuated during the H-Bomb test. Directly downwind of Bikini, Rongelap’s skies darkened and it rained what first appeared to be snowflakes. Food and water were contaminated; and the population fell victim to cancers. That is still true today.

I met Nerje Joseph, who showed me a photograph of herself as a child on Rongelap. She had terrible facial burns and much of her was hair missing. “We were bathing at the well on the day the bomb exploded,” she said. “White dust started falling from the sky. I reached to catch the powder. We used it as soap to wash our hair. A few days later, my hair started falling out.”

Lemoyo Abon said, “Some of us were in agony. Others had diarrhoea. We were terrified. We thought it must be the end of the world.”

‘Most contaminated place on earth’
US official archive film I included in my film refers to the islanders as “amenable savages”. In the wake of the explosion, a US Atomic Energy Agency official is seen boasting that Rongelap “is by far the most contaminated place on earth”, adding, “it will be interesting to get a measure of human uptake when people live in a contaminated environment.”

American scientists, including medical doctors, built distinguished careers studying the “human uptake”. There they are in flickering film, in their white coats, attentive with their clipboards. When an islander died in his teens, his family received a sympathy card from the scientist who studied him.

I have reported from five nuclear “ground zeros” throughout the world — in Japan, the Marshall Islands, Nevada, Polynesia and Maralinga in Australia. Even more than my experience as a war correspondent, this has taught me about the ruthlessness and immorality of great power: that is, imperial power, whose cynicism is the true enemy of humanity.

This struck me forcibly when I filmed at Taranaki Ground Zero at Maralinga in the Australian desert. In a dish-like crater was an obelisk on which was inscribed: “A British atomic weapon was test exploded here on 9 October 1957”. On the rim of the crater was this sign:

WARNING: RADIATION HAZARD

Radiation levels for a few hundred metres

around this point may be above those considered

safe for permanent occupation.

For as far as the eye could see, and beyond, the ground was irradiated. Raw plutonium lay about, scattered like talcum powder: plutonium is so dangerous to humans that a third of a milligram gives a 50 percent chance of cancer.

The only people who might have seen the sign were Indigenous Australians, for whom there was no warning. According to an official account, if they were lucky “they were shooed off like rabbits”.

Unprecedented campaign of propaganda
Today, an unprecedented campaign of propaganda is shooing us all off like rabbits. We are not meant to question the daily torrent of anti-Chinese rhetoric, which is rapidly overtaking the torrent of anti-Russia rhetoric. Anything Chinese is bad, anathema, a threat: Wuhan … Huawei. How confusing it is when “our” most reviled leader says so.

The current phase of this campaign began not with Trump but with Barack Obama, who in 2011 flew to Australia to declare the greatest build-up of US naval forces in the Asia-Pacific region since World War Two. Suddenly, China was a “threat”. This was nonsense, of course. What was threatened was America’s unchallenged psychopathic view of itself as the richest, the most successful, the most “indispensable” nation.

What was never in dispute was its prowess as a bully — with more than 30 members of the United Nations suffering American sanctions of some kind and a trail of the blood running through defenceless countries bombed, their governments overthrown, their elections interfered with, their resources plundered.

Obama’s declaration became known as the “pivot to Asia”. One of its principal advocates was his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who, as WikiLeaks revealed, wanted to rename the Pacific Ocean “the American Sea”.

Whereas Clinton never concealed her warmongering, Obama was a maestro of marketing. “I state clearly and with conviction,” said the new president in 2009, “that America’s commitment is to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”

Obama increased spending on nuclear warheads faster than any president since the end of the Cold War. A “usable” nuclear weapon was developed. Known as the B61 Model 12, it means, according to General James Cartwright, former vice-chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that “going smaller [makes its use] more thinkable”.

The target is China. Today, more than 400 American military bases almost encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and nuclear weapons. From Australia north through the Pacific to South-East Asia, Japan and Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India, the bases form, as one US strategist told me, “the perfect noose”.

‘Thinking through the unthinkable’
A study by the RAND Corporation — which, since Vietnam, has planned America’s wars – is entitled War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable. Commissioned by the US Army, the authors evoke the infamous catch cry of its chief Cold War strategist, Herman Kahn — “thinking the unthinkable”. Kahn’s book, On Thermonuclear War, elaborated a plan for a “winnable” nuclear war.

Kahn’s apocalyptic view is shared by Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an evangelical fanatic who believes in the “rapture of the End”. He is perhaps the most dangerous man alive. “I was CIA director,” he boasted, “We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses.” Pompeo’s obsession is China.

The endgame of Pompeo’s extremism is rarely if ever discussed in the Anglo-American media, where the myths and fabrications about China are standard fare, as were the lies about Iraq. A virulent racism is the sub-text of this propaganda. Classified “yellow” even though they were white, the Chinese are the only ethnic group to have been banned by an “exclusion act” from entering the United States, because they were Chinese. Popular culture declared them sinister, untrustworthy, “sneaky”, depraved, diseased, immoral.

An Australian magazine, The Bulletin, was devoted to promoting fear of the “yellow peril” as if all of Asia was about to fall down on the whites-only colony by the force of gravity.

As the historian Martin Powers writes, acknowledging China’s modernism, its secular morality and “contributions to liberal thought threatened European face, so it became necessary to suppress China’s role in the Enlightenment debate… For centuries, China’s threat to the myth of Western superiority has made it an easy target for race-baiting.”

In the Sydney Morning Herald, tireless China-basher Peter Hartcher described those who spread Chinese influence in Australia as “rats, flies, mosquitoes and sparrows”. Hartcher, who favourably quotes the American demagogue Steve Bannon, likes to interpret the “dreams” of the current Chinese elite, to which he is apparently privy. These are inspired by yearnings for the “Mandate of Heaven” of 2000 years ago. Ad nausea.

To combat this “mandate”, the Australian government of Scott Morrison has committed one of the most secure countries on earth, whose major trading partner is China, to hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American missiles that can be fired at China.

Trickledown already evident
The trickledown is already evident. In a country historically scarred by violent racism towards Asians, Australians of Chinese descent have formed a vigilante group to protect delivery riders. Phone videos show a delivery rider punched in the face and a Chinese couple racially abused in a supermarket. Between April and June, there were almost 400 racist attacks on Asian-Australians.

“We are not your enemy,” a high-ranking strategist in China told me, “but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.” China’s arsenal is small compared with America’s, but it is growing fast, especially the development of maritime missiles designed to destroy fleets of ships.

“For the first time,” wrote Gregory Kulacki of the Union of Concerned Scientists, “China is discussing putting its nuclear missiles on high alert so that they can be launched quickly on warning of an attack… This would be a significant and dangerous change in Chinese policy…”

In Washington, I met Amitai Etzioni, distinguished professor of international affairs at George Washington University, who wrote that a “blinding attack on China” was planned, “with strikes that could be mistakenly perceived [by the Chinese] as pre-emptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma [that would] lead to nuclear war.”

In 2019, the US staged its biggest single military exercise since the Cold War, much of it in high secrecy. An armada of ships and long-range bombers rehearsed an “Air-Sea Battle Concept for China” — ASB — blocking sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca and cutting off China’s access to oil, gas and other raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

It is fear of such a blockade that has seen China develop its Belt and Road Initiative along the old Silk Road to Europe and urgently build strategic airstrips on disputed reefs and islets in the Spratly Islands.

Outspoken mavericks
In Shanghai, I met Lijia Zhang, a Beijing journalist and novelist, typical of a new class of outspoken mavericks. Her best-selling book has the ironic title Socialism Is Great! Having grown up in the chaotic, brutal Cultural Revolution, she has travelled and lived in the US and Europe.

Many Americans imagine,” she said, “that Chinese people live a miserable, repressed life with no freedom whatsoever. The [idea of] the yellow peril has never left them… They have no idea there are some 500 million people being lifted out of poverty, and some would say it’s 600 million.”

Modern China’s epic achievements, its defeat of mass poverty, and the pride and contentment of its people (measured forensically by American pollsters such as Pew) are wilfully unknown or misunderstood in the West. This alone is a commentary on the lamentable state of Western journalism and the abandonment of honest reporting.

China’s repressive dark side and what we like to call its “authoritarianism” are the facade we are allowed to see almost exclusively. It is as if we are fed unending tales of the evil super-villain Dr Fu Manchu. And it is time we asked why: before it is too late to stop the next Hiroshima.

Republished from johnpilger.com and Green-Left.

• A peaceful day remembering the horrendous fate of Nagasaki – Gallery by Del Abcede

Filipinos and the people of Hong Kong are both in need of prayers over recently-passed security laws that threaten to undermine their basic freedoms and human rights, says the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

The bishops’ call came after they recently received a letter from Yangon Archbishop Charles Cardinal Maung Bo, president of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences, making an “ardent request for prayers” for the Hong Kong people following the passage of the new National Security Act.

In a pastoral letter signed on July 16 by its acting president, Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David, the CBCP said that after assuring the Yangon Archbishop they would join him in prayers for Hong Kong, they also asked him to pray for the Philippines “and explained why we are as seriously in need of prayers as the people of Hong Kong”.

READ MORE: Stars and supporters protest against ABS-CBD shutdown in democracy rally

“Like them, we are also alarmed about the recent signing into law of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020,” the CBCP said.

Bishop David, a vocal critic of the Duterte administration, is temporarily heading the CBCP while its president, Davao Archbishop Romulo Valles, is recovering from a stroke.

Bishop David’s statement is among the most stinging from the CBCP since Valles’ predecessor, Archbishop Socrates Villegas, stepped down in November 2017.

Fast-tracked anti-terror law
In its statement, the CBCP said it remains in “disbelief” over the manner of how the anti-terror law was passed under the Duterte administration – especially by how it was fast-tracked in Congress while Filipinos were grappling with the coronavirus pandemic and how lawmakers ignored the people’s protests against it.

“The dissenting voices were strong but they remained unheeded,” the CBCP said, adding that “the political pressure from above seemed to weigh more heavily on our legislators than the voices from below”.

The Filipino bishops noted how the people in government and their supporters have “dismissed” all the fears raised over the new law as “unfounded”.

“The assurance that they give sounds strangely parallel to that which the Chinese government gave to the people of Hong Kong: ‘Activism is not terrorism. You have no reason to be afraid if you are not terrorists.’

“We know full well that it is one thing to be actually involved in a crime and another thing to be merely suspected or accused of committing a crime,” the CBCP said.

At the very least, the CBCP said, several petitions have been filed with the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Anti-Terrorism Law.

“Will the highest level of our judiciary assert its independence, or will they, too, succumb to political pressure?” they said.

Semblance of democracy
In their pastoral letter, the CBCP warned that the return of “warrantless detentions” through the anti-terror law was reminiscent of how the country gradually lost its democracy in 1972.

“While a semblance of democracy is still in place and our democratic institutions somehow continue to function, we are already like the proverbial frog swimming in a pot of slowly boiling water,” the CBCP said.

Fortunately, the bishops noted, there remain in the present government “people of  goodwill whose hearts are in the right places, and who remain objective and independent-minded.”

The CBCP hoped these government officials will not allow themselves to be intimidated or succumb to political pressure.

“They are an important element to the strengthening of our government institutions, and are an essential key to a stable and functional democratic system,” the bishops said.

The CBCP ended the pastoral letter with a prayer, part of which said:

“May the crisis brought about by the pandemic bring about conversion and a change of heart in all of us. May it teach us to rise above personal and political loyalties and make us redirect all our efforts towards the common good.”

Stars and supporters protest over ABS-CBN shutdown
Meanwhile, enraged supporters and employees of shuttered media network ABS-CBN – including its biggest stars – took to the streets on Saturday, just over a week after the House of Representatives rejected its franchise renewal application, and days after the company announced a major retrenchment affecting more than 11,000 workers.

They held a noise barrage and a motorcade that passed through several cities before ending up at the ABS-CBN compound in Quezon City.

Actress and activist Angel Locsin was among the protesters. She was joined by her fiance, Neil Arce.

Actress Angel Locsin calls on fellow celebrities to speak up, not to be afraid. Here’s an excerpt of her speech today. | via @beacupin pic.twitter.com/TjZaK1pjVc

— Rappler (@rapplerdotcom) July 18, 2020

Opposition National list MP Dr Jian Yang has announced his retirement from New Zealand politics and says he will not stand in the 2020 general election after three terms in the party caucus.

He said politics was “demanding” and he wanted to spend more time with his family.

“Accordingly, I have informed the party president that I should not be considered by the regional list ranking committee of the Northern Region in its meeting tomorrow, hence my announcement today.

READ MORE: Who is National MP Juan Yang – Checkpoint

“I truly believe that New Zealand is a great country.”

Of the 21 years he has been in New Zealand, he has spent 12 years in academia and nine in politics.

“I have been proud to be a part of what I think is a caucus that is truly representative of the ethnic diversity that is modern New Zealand, and to have played my part as a Chinese New Zealander in the governance of our amazing country.”

He said he was honoured to represent the Chinese community in Parliament.

Support for Chinese community
“I am proud that I have been able to assist numerous Chinese constituents and enabled the Chinese community to better understand and participate in New Zealand’s open and democratic politics. And I will continue to support New Zealand’s hard-working Chinese community outside of caucus.

In 2017, Yang confirmed he had taught ‘spies’ in China, but denied that he was a spy himself. A story on the Newsroom website raised questions about his involvement with Chinese military and intelligence.

He was a member of the Communist Party while he was in China but had not been since he left the country, he had said.

He said he enjoyed being part of governments led by Sir John Key and Sir Bill English and to have chaired two select committees.

“My trips to China with Prime Minister John Key, ministers and colleagues are some highlights of my political career. I have witnessed the rapid growth of New Zealand’s trade with China and I am pleased to have played a role in it.

“I wish Todd and the team all the best to win the election. New Zealand needs a National government.”

Last month National MP and ousted deputy leader Paula Bennett had also announced she would not be standing at the upcoming election.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

The Papua New Guinea government is adamant no immigration laws, airport and covid-19 protocols – including national security – were breached when a Chinese businessman and his entourage were allowed in the country, reports the PNG Post-Courier.

Deputy Pandemic Controller Dr Paison Dakulala said yesterday that, as stated by Prime Minister James Marape and Pandemic Controller David Manning, there was nothing sinister or wrong with the flight and the business trip.

The US$368,992 chartered flight to PNG was to bring a K1 million worth of PPE presented by a business tycoon Chen Mailin, he said.

READ MORE: Chinese businessmen ‘complied with quarantine measures’

Meanwhile, RNZ News reports that PNG has reported its 11th positive covid-19 case – linked to the Murray military barracks in the capital of Port Moresby.

Restrictions could be introduced after tests revealed the case, a close contact of case number 10, a member of the PNG Defence Force who works at the the Murray Barracks.

Chen Mailin was now in Vancouver, Canada, after the tycoon’s team had been in PNG at the invitation of the PNG government and top business contacts, reports Gorethy Kenneth of the Post-Courier.

The team – comprising Cao Yu, Chen Mailin, Hui Ngok Lun and Wong Da Hao Andy and its flight crew Amell, Susan Amaryllis, Brownie, Oliver Francis, Spencer, George Matthew – arrived in Port Moresby allegedly without proper instruments, visas, customs clearance, landing permit and quarantine protocols.

Short-term business trip
But Dr Dakulala said yesterday the short-term business trip was all cleared and given exemptions by the government and the Pandemic’s National Control Centre as they were in Port Moresby to present health equipment – PPE.

They were also in town to look at business opportunities and have meetings with counterparts in the country, he said.

Controller Manning also said yesterday that the Chinese business tycoon and his associates’ arrival instruments into PNG were done under very controlled protocols and that nothing was wrong with their travel.

He also said that all measures were observed and that there was nothing wrong with the arrival of this team.

The team left Port Moresby for Vancouver yesterday via Honolulu.

Papua New Guinean Prime Minister James Marape says an aircraft with four Chinese businessmen on board had complied with requirements before they were allowed to fly into Port Moresby.

The government has also confirmed that another case of covid-19 has been detected in Papua New Guinea – a second soldier, taking the country’s total to 10.

Responding to questions from EMTV News, Marape said that no quarantine measure was broken as the Chinese businessmen came in under the request of Minister Wera Mori and measure no. 2 paragraph 12 was used to allow them not to quarantine – but instead self-quarantine in a hotel while conducting business.

READ MORE: PNG military in lockdown over covid spread fears

The four Chinese nationals were tested 14 days prior to their arrival, with the results negative, allowing them to arrive under strict self-quarantine measures.

The Prime Minister’s comments come after the opposition Peoples’ National Congress Party (PNC) leader and former prime minister Peter O’Neill called on Marape to state clearly their business of travel and why the 14-day quarantine period did not apply to the four foreigners.

Marape also said that at some point the country needed to open its border to allow for business to operate normally. This would be the first step.

Murray Barracks soldier positive
RNZ News reports that Police Commissioner David Manning had said the new covid-19 case was a 27-year old member of the PNG Defence Force, who worked at the Murray Barracks in Port Moresby.

The case was picked up during mass testing of staff at the barracks where PNG’s 9th case was recorded last week in a visiting Australian soldier.

“The identification of this case provides evidence of local transmission in Port Moresby and the risk is very high that more cases may be identified in the coming days. Papua New Guineans need to take responsibility and remain vigilant to stop the chain of transmission,” Manning said.

“The country needs to work together to apply the ‘Niupela Pasin’ or the ‘new normal’. This will involve changing our old ways of doing things and replacing them with behaviours and actions to reduce risk of getting infection.”

The commissioner has urged people in the PNG capital to maintain social distancing and avoid mass gatherings.

Meanwhile, Manning said that PNG’s 9th covid-19 case had safely returned to Australia.

Adelaide Sirox Kari is an EMTV News reporter.

Palau’s President says the World Health Organisation’s neglect of Taiwan has endangered, not only Taiwanese, but people everywhere.

In his state of the republic address this week, President Tommy Remengesau Jr thanked the Taiwan government for its support in preparation for addressing the threat of the covid-19 coronavirus pandemic

One of Taiwan’s few diplomatic allies in the Pacific, Remengesau said Palau would continue to support Taiwan’s efforts in international fora.

READ MORE: Al Jazeera coronavirus live updates – US death toll tops 65,000

• Kaniva News editorial calls for amnesty for NZ overstayers in response to covid-19
• Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat talks to PMC’s Professor David Robie about the state of media freedom in the covid-19 era

Taiwan is excluded from the WHO, because of objections from China, which regards Taiwan as a breakaway province.

“The covid-19 pandemic has underscored the danger of Taiwan’s unfair isolation from the international system. Neglect by the World Health Organisation, among others, has wrongfully endangered not only the people of Taiwan but those of all countries in this interconnected world,” Remengesau said.

“We will continue to fight against this unfair exclusion.”

Taiwan’s effective response to Covid-19 had been seen as one of the world’s success stories in combatting the coronavirus.

Under Chinese pressure
But despite the success, their involvement in international public health care efforts was still under pressure by China.

The Taiwan government poured medical supplies and grants to countries like Palau to help fight the coronavirus. Onsite testing is now possible in Palau due to the assistance of Taiwan through test kits, PCR machine and medical training.

Remengesau said his nation was grateful for its relationship with Taiwan.

“Taiwan is a strong and generous neighbor that has confirmed its position in the Pacific and therefore has gained the right to contribute as a member of the global community.

“Palau will continue to support Taiwan’s efforts in the international fora and will work to nurture our friendship and improve our cooperation,” he said.

There have been no confirmed cases of covid-19 in Palau and according to the Ministry of Health as of May 1, 313 testings had been conducted since mid-April and all had returned negative.

The ministry also announced while it continued to test essential services’ workers in the community for covid-19, testing was also open to anyone in the community who had symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, or any other influenza-like symptoms.

Testing is open until May 11.

Ramping up testing capability
Palau was also ramping up its testing capabilities as more testing kits were expected to arrive in Palau, including rapid testing kits.

With a population of almost 18,000, Health Minister Emais Roberts said Palau’s capabilities to test were building.

“Somewhere along the line, we can test everybody,” he said.

Palau’s border contines to be closed to tourism until the end of May, it is, however, arranging a flight this month to allow stranded citizens and residents to return home.

The United Airlines flight, tentatively scheduled for May 21, will fly from Guam and will also facilitate the outbound travel of stranded tourists and foreign workers from Palau.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has arrived in Solomon Islands on a two-day state visit.

His trip to Honiara marks his first overseas trip since being elected in the May 18 federal election.

For Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, Morrison is his first overseas counterpart to officially visit him.

READ MORE: Morrison receives warm welcome in Solomons as he pushes Pacific ‘step-up’

The last Australian Prime Minister to visit Honiara was Kevin Rudd in 2008.

Morrison touched down at the Honiara International Airport at 5.20pm yesterday to a colourful welcome.

His party was greeted on arrival by Prime Minister Sogavare, his wife Madam Emmy Sogavare, Foreign Affairs Minister Jeremiah Manele and other top government officials.

After being welcomed and garlanded, Morrison then inspected a guard of honour on the tarmac.

Bilateral talks
Both prime ministers will hold bilateral talks later today.

A highlight is expected to be discuss about China’s presence in the region.

Other issues at the top of agenda will be climate change, labour mobility and ongoing Australian support to Solomon Islands.

Morrison has also announced a financial package to support Solomon Islands workers getting employment in Australia over three years.

Prime Minister Morrison will also meet with the Solomon Islands Football Federation (SIFF) president William Lai today to look at ways that Australia can assist the country in football.

It is understood Morrison will also meet with former Prime Minister Rick Hou today.

One of the major projects being supported by the Australian government is the the undersea cable which is set to be completed and is due to be launched September.

• Ian Kaukui  is a reporter with the Solomon Star newspaper.
  
• RNZ Pacific on the visit
• More Solomons stories

Pacific Island Times Yap-based correspondent Joyce McClure won’t be kicked off the island as “persona non grata” as demanded by a body of traditional chiefs there.

And questions are being raised about the legitimacy of the letter conveying the chiefly demands to the Yap State Legislature and then on to the Federated States of Micronesia Congress.

On March 29, a letter was hand delivered to Vincent Figir, former governor and current Speaker of the Yap State Legislature, by the Council of Pilung, one of two councils in Yap whose members are traditional chiefs.

READ MORE: Pacific Media Watch’s earlier report on the Yap saga

The council has 10 members, one for each municipality in the four contiguous islands that make up the mainland and is charged in the state constitution with performing “functions which concern tradition and custom”.

Signed by nine of the 10 members, the letter called for the Speaker’s support in “requesting to the FSM Congress the granting of a persona non grata against this particular American citizen”. The citizen, a resident of Yap for nearly three years, is Joyce McClure, a marketing consultant and freelance writer who provides news and travel articles about Yap to the Pacific Island Times and other regional and international media.

A list of reasons was headed “Unethical Journalistic Behaviour.”

Similar letters were delivered to Yap Governor Henry Falan and Yap State Congressman Joseph Urusemal.

Facebook triggered media reports
The letter was posted on Facebook the following week and picked up by media from Guam, Australia and New Zealand, all of which called for freedom of the press and supported McClure.

Comments to the Facebook post also supported McClure and some called for the elimination of the COP or, at a minimum, that their attention be concentrated on “culture and traditions” as the law states.

Speaker Figir sent the letter to Senator Theodore Rutun who chairs the Committee for Government Health and Welfare and it, in turn, decided to submit it to the Council of the Whole which is comprised of the state’s ten senators meeting under relaxed rules.

On April 30, the COW met to discuss the letter and determine what, if anything should be done with it.

The COW found that the request from the council asking for the Legislature’s support was out of line and that they have no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The accusations, they determined, had no basis in the first place. It was also noted that different font sizes and typefaces were used in the letter, indicating a high probability of plagiarism.

Journalist saddened
A member of the COW was appointed to respectively convey the message of its rejection back to the chiefs.

“It is with great humbleness and gratitude that I thank the committee for their decision,” said McClure upon hearing the news. “But I am saddened that the council was embarrassed by the letter.

“It is reported by several people who hold positions of high authority within the legislative and administrative branches of the Yap state government that the council was used by others who, remaining in the shadows, wrote the letter and got the council members to sign it.

“I hope the council brings them to task for their unconscionable actions that publicly embarrassed the many wonderful people of Yap whom I consider my friends, neighbors and family.”

This article was originally published by the Pacific Island Times on 1 May 2019 and is republished here with permission.

Some of Joyce McClure’s articles:

• China lavishes ‘sports diplomacy’ money on Yap
• Yap is having serious second thoughts about Chinese tourism
• Chinese target Yap fish with local help

Three New Zealand journalists were detained by Fijian police in Suva last night after trying to interview a controversial Chinese resort developer.

Newsroom co-editor Mark Jennings, investigations editor Melanie Reid and cameraman Hayden Aull were held overnight at the main Suva police station after developer Freesoul Real Estate accused them of criminal trespass.

The journalists had visited Freesoul’s Suva offices seeking an interview but been told to leave.

READ MORE: Fiji government to pursue Chinese resort developer

Fiji PM apologises to released journalists

LISTEN TO MORNING REPORT

Hours later, while they interviewed a lawyer acting for villagers of the damaged Malolo Island, Fijian police located their rental car and arrived and escorted them to the police station for questioning.

Newsroom co-editor Tim Murphy told RNZ’s Morning Report the journalists were looking at the environmental damage perpetrated by Freesoul at the island of Malolo.

“They went across to Suva to get feedback – or comment at least – from the developer and were told to leave. Several hours later, police pursued them to a lawyer’s office and took them to the jail cells.”

Murphy said Freesoul is claiming there was a criminal trespass and were making a statement with the arrest, but he was not sure why.

‘Wider power’
“It’s all tied up in the wider power of Freesoul in Fiji,” he said.

“Our guys would have talked to them openly and would’ve gone back there this morning to talk to them but instead were put in the cells and made to stew overnight.”

The group have a criminal lawyer representing them in Fiji and have engaged the New Zealand High Commission to take an interest in what’s happening.

Under Fijian law, they can be held for up to 48 hours without charge.

FBC News reports from Suva that on February 8, Environment Minister Dr Mahendra Reddy confirmed that the resort under construction on Malolo Island in Fiji’s Mamanuca Group had violated the terms of its development as clearly outlined by the Department of Environment.

The ministry is pursuing prosecution of Freesoul Real Estate Development (Fiji) Ptd Ltd.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.