An ACT candidate has withdrawn from a new Wellington electorate race at November’s election, after failing to declare her previous membership of a Chinese political group linked to the country’s ruling communist party.

After Local Democracy Reporting sent questions about Lyra Yan Zhang’s background on Monday, the party confirmed on Tuesday the Kenepuru candidate had resigned – a week after her unveiling.

“All of our candidates are asked to disclose previous political party memberships. Ms Zhang did not disclose her previous connections, and [on Monday] she decided not to continue with her candidacy,” an ACT spokesperson said in a statement.

• READ MORE: Other Local Democracy Reports

Online publications by the China Zhi Gong Party — a satellite party of the Chinese Communist Party — reveal Zhang was a member who sat on party committees in the province of Hunan.

Zhi Gong Party is one of eight “democratic” minor parties officially recognised in China’s one-party political system.

Researchers into China’s foreign influence operations say it is a “united front” organisation controlled by the CCP’s United Front Work Department to assert influence on overseas Chinese communities and mobilise them to promote Beijing’s foreign policy goals.

“Membership of the party demonstrates a close affiliation with the CCP,” said Geoff Wade, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

“Members of the party, even nominally retired ones overseas, thus offer overt challenges to democratic societies through potential influence and coercion activities within the host society.”

Porirua local elections
Zhang also ran in last year’s local body elections in Porirua, coming 11th out of 15 candidates at the Onepoto General Ward.

Zhang told The Post at the time she was a Zhi Gong Party party member from 2017 until 2020, when she resigned because of the covid-19 pandemic, and was “not a current membership for declarations”. She did not run under the ACT banner.

ACT said it conducted “extensive vetting” of candidates, including independent social media and background checks, criminal record checks, and credit checks. “This is alongside disclosure questions we ask prospective candidates, including previous party affiliations.”

Zhang, in a statement issued through ACT, said she remained supportive of the party.

The revelations are in the midst of New Zealand’s intelligence agency saying China is the “most active” country in conducting foreign interference and candidates being told to be wary of foreign interference, which could risk damage the reputation of the country, themselves or their party.

At the end of 2017, businessman Zhang Yikun, whose 2022 convictions over fraudulent political donations to the National Party were later quashed by the Court of Appeal, arranged for then Southland mayor Gary Tong to visit China in the name of the Zhi Gong Party’s central committee.

Businessman Zhang Yikun, whose 2022 convictions over fraudulent political donations to the National Party were later quashed by the Court of Appeal, welcomed Zhi Gong leaders to New Zealand in 2017 and attended the party’s 90th anniversary in Beijing in 2015.”

Zhang himself welcomed Zhi Gong leaders to New Zealand in 2017 and attended the party’s 90th anniversary in Beijing in 2015.

Export company
Lyra Yan Zhang moved from China to New Zealand in 2001 to study English and graduated from Massey University in 2006, according to a 2015 post on Chinese-language social media WeChat by her now-defunct export company that sells milk, honey and other health products to China.

In April 2017, a report by the provincial Zhi Gong Party in Hunan said Zhang was a member from its second branch in Lusong District of the city of Zhuzhou. She played an “important role” in arranging a visit to Zhuzhou’s high-tech industrial parks from about 10 New Zealanders, it said.

By the end of the year, she became one of six deputy chairs of a new association made up by Zhi Gong Party members, who are young diaspora with roots in Zhuzhou, according to the website of the United Front Work Department of Hunan’s provincial CCP.

Zhang’s campaign for local office in Porirua, centring on upgrading local infrastructure and pledged to improve transparency on council spending, made no references to her previous political involvement in China.

ACT’s press release announcing its candidates did not include Zhang’s biography.

ACT leader David Seymour campaigned in 2023 on stopping foreign investment from China to build New Zealand roads: “We can’t just close our eyes and hope the CCP don’t take the opportunity to gain a foothold in New Zealand.”

Earlier this month, Beijing banned four New Zealand MPs from entering China, Hong Kong and Macau for a year over their visit to Taiwan, including National’s Maureen Pugh, Labour’s Duncan Webb, ACT’s Laura McClure and NZ First’s David Wilson.

LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. This story was first published on

In a historic first visit to an independent Pacific state by a sitting French president, President Emmanuel Macron has denounced a “new imperialism” in the region during a stop in Vanuatu, warning of a threat to the sovereignty of smaller states.

But, earlier, during a two-day stop in France’s colonial outpost, Kanaky New Caledonia, he refused to entertain demands by indigenous Kanak leaders to hold a new referendum on independence.

“There is in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Oceania a new imperialism appearing, and a power logic that is threatening the sovereignty of several states — the smallest, often the most fragile,” he said in a speech in the Vanuatu capital Port Vila on July 27.

• READ MORE: Macron keen on Varirata forest lookout for bilateral talks with PNG
• France, Vanuatu agree to sort out ‘southern land’ border dispute
• Macron to ditch Noumea Accord for self-determination and introduce new statute for New Caledonia
• Vanuatu traditional leaders call for Macron to address islands dispute
• Other France in the Pacific reports

“Our Indo-Pacific strategy is above all to defend through partnerships the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region that are ready to work with us,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that France still has “colonies” in the Pacific (Oceania) that they refuse to let go.

Some 1.6 million French citizens live across seven overseas territories (colonies), including New Caledonia, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and the smaller Pacific atolls of Wallis and Futuna.

This gives them an exclusive economic zone spanning nine million sq km.

Macron uses this fact to claim that France is part of the region even though his country is more than 16,000 km from New Caledonia and Tahiti.

An ‘alternative’ offer
As the US and its allies seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region, France offered an “alternative”, claiming they have plans for expanded aid and development to confront natural catastrophes.

The French annexed New Caledonia in 1853, reserving the territory initially as a penal colony.

Indigenous Kanaks have lived in the islands for more than 3000 years, and the French uprooted them from the land and used them as forced labour in new French plantations and construction sites.

Tahiti’s islands were occupied by migrating Polynesians around 500 BC, and in 1832 the French took over the islands. In 1946 it became an overseas territory of the French Republic.

China is gaining influence in the region with its development aid packages designed to address climate change, empowerment of grassroots communities, and promotion of trade, especially in the fisheries sector, under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new Global Development Initiative.

After neglecting the region for decades, the West has begun to woo the Pacific countries lately, especially after they were alarmed by a defence cooperation deal signed between China and Solomon Islands in April 2022, which the West suspect is a first step towards Beijing establishing a naval base in the Pacific.

In December 2020, there was a similar alarm, especially in Australia, when China offered a $200 million deal to Papua New Guinea to establish a fisheries harbour and a processing factory to supply fisheries products to China’s seafood market, which is the world’s largest.

Hysterical reactions in Australia
It created hysterical reactions in the Australian media and political circles in Canberra, claiming China was planning to build a naval base 200 km from Australia’s shores.

A stream of Western leaders has visited the region since then while publicly claiming to help the small island nations in their development needs, but at the same time, arm-twisting local leaders to sign defence deals for their navies, in particular to gain access to Pacific harbours and military facilities.

While President Macron was on a five-day visit to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and PNG, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin were in Tonga and PNG, respectively, negotiating secret military deals.

At the same time, Macron made the comments of a new imperialism in the Pacific.

Defence Secretary Austin was at pains to explain to sceptical journalists in PNG that the US was not seeking a permanent base in the Pacific Islands nation. It has been reported in the PNG media that the US was seeking access to PNG military bases under the pretext of training PNG forces for humanitarian operations in the Pacific.

Papua New Guinea and the US signed a defence cooperation agreement in May that sets a framework for the US to refurbish PNG ports and airports for military and civilian use. The text of the agreement shows that it allows the staging of US forces and equipment in PNG and covers the Lombrum Naval Base, which Australia and US are developing.

There have been protests over this deal in PNG, and the opposition has threatened to challenge some provisions of it legally.

China’s ‘problematic behavior’
Blinken, who was making the first visit to Tonga by a US Secretary of State, was there to open a new US embassy in the capital Nuku’alofa on July 26. At the event, he spoke about China’s “problematic behavior” in the Pacific and warned about “predatory economic activities and also investments” from China, which he claimed was undermining “good governance and promote corruption”.

Tonga is believed to be heavily indebted to China, but Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni later said at a press conference that Tonga had started to pay down its debt this year and had no concerns about its relationship with China.

Pacific leaders have repeatedly emphasised that they would welcome assistance from richer countries to confront the impact of climatic change in the region, but they do not want the region to be militarised and get embroiled in a geopolitical battle between the US and China.

This was stated bluntly by Fiji’s Defence Minister at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last year. Other Pacific leaders have repeated this at various forums since then.

Though the Western media reports about these visits to the Pacific by Western leaders as attempts to protect a “rules-based order” in the region, many in the Pacific media are sceptical about this argument.

Fiji-based Island Business news magazine, in a report from the New Caledonian capital Noumea, pointed out how Macron ignored Kanaks’ demands for independence instead of promoting a new deal.

President Macron has said in Noumea that “New Caledonia is French because it has chosen to remain French” after three referendums on self-determination there. In a lengthy speech, he has spoken of building a new political status in New Caledonia through a “path of apology and a path of the future”.

Macron’s pledges ring hollow
As IB reported, Macron’s pledges of repentance and partnership rang hollow for many indigenous Kanak and other independence supporters.

In central Noumea, trade unionists and independence supporters rallied, flying the flag of Kanaky and displaying banners criticising the president’s visit, and as IB noted, the speech was “a clear determination to push through reforms that will advantage France’s colonial power in the Pacific”.

Predominantly French, conservative New Caledonian citizens have called for the electoral register to be opened to some 40,000 French citizens who are resident there, and Macron has promised to consider that at a meeting of stakeholders in Paris in September.

Kanaky leaders fiercely oppose it, and they boycotted the third referendum on independence in December 2022, where the “No” vote won on a “landslide” which Macron claims is a verdict in favour of French rule there.

Kanaks boycotted the referendum (which they were favoured to win) because the French government refused to accept a one-year mourning period for covid-19 deaths among the Kanaks.

Kanaky independence movement workers’ union USTKE’s president Andre Forest told IB: “The electorate must remain as is because it affects citizens of this country. It’s this very notion of citizenship that we want to retain.”

Independence activists and negotiator Victor Tutugoro said: “I’m one of many people who were chased from our home. The collective memory of this loss continues to affect how people react, and this profoundly underlies their rejection of changes to the electorate.”

‘Prickly contentious issues’
In an editorial on the eve of Macron’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the PNG Post-Courier newspaper sarcastically asked why “the serene beauty of our part of the globe is coming under intense scrutiny, and everyone wants a piece of Pasifica in their GPS system?”

“Macron is not coming to sip French wine on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific,” noted the Post-Courier. “France still has colonies in the Pacific which have been prickly contentious issues at the UN, especially on decolonisation of Tahiti and New Caledonia.

“France also used the Pacific for its nuclear testing until the 90s, most prominently at Moruroa, which had angered many Pacific Island nations.”

Noting that the Chinese are subtle and making the Western allies have itchy feet, the Post-Courier argued that these visits were taking the geopolitics of the Pacific to the next level.

“Sooner or later, PNG can expect Air Force One to be hovering around PNG skies,” it said.

China’s Global Times, referring to President Macron’s “new colonialism” comments, said it was “improper and ridiculous” to put China in the same seat as the “hegemonic US”.

“Macron wants to convince regional countries that France is not an outsider but part of the region, as France has overseas territories there,” Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told Global Times.

“But the validity of France’s status in the region is, in fact, thin, as its territories there were obtained through colonialism, which is difficult for Macron to rationalise.”

“This is why he avoids talking about it further and turns to another method of attacking other countries to help France build a positive image in the region.”

Meanwhile, during his visit to the 7th Melanesia Arts and Cultural Festival in Port Vila, four chiefs from the disputed islands of Matthew and Hunter, about 190 km from New Caledonia, handed over to the French President what they called a “peaceful demand” for independence. IDN-InDepthNews

Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.

Research on climate crisis as the new target for disinformation peddlers, governance and the media, China’s growing communication influence, and journalism training strategies feature strongly in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

Byron C. Clark, author of the recent controversial book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists, and Canterbury University postgraduate researcher Emanuel Stokes, have produced a case study about climate crisis as the new pandemic disinformation arena with the warning that “climate change or public health emergencies can be seized upon by alternative media and conspiracist influencers” to “elicit outrage and protest”.

The authors argue that journalists need a “high degree of journalistic ethics and professionalism to avoid amplifying hateful, dehumanising narratives”.

• READ MORE: The July 2023 PJR table of contents
• Other PJR editions

PJR editor Dr Philip Cass adds an article unpacking the role of Pacific churches, both positive and negative, in public information activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several articles deal with media freedom in the Pacific in the wake of the pandemic, including a four-country examination by some of the region’s leading journalists and facilitated by Dr Amanda Watson of Australian National University and associate professor Shailendra Singh of the University of the South Pacific.

They conclude that the pandemic “has been a stark reminder about the link between media freedom and the financial viability of media of organisations, especially in the Pacific”.

Dr Ann Auman, a specialist in crosscultural and global media ethics from the University of Hawai’i, analyses challenges facing the region through a workshop at the newly established Pacific Media Institute in Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Repeal of draconian Fiji law
The ousting of the Voreqe Bainimarama establishment that had been in power in Fiji in both military and “democratic” forms since the 2006 coup opened the door to greater media freedom and the repeal of the draconian Fiji Media Law. Two articles examine the implications of this change for the region.

An Indonesian researcher, Justito Adiprasetio of Universitas Padjadjaran, dissects the impact of Jakarta’s 2021 “terrorist” branding of the Free West Papua movement on six national online news media groups.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, media analyst Dr Gavin Ellis discusses “denying oxygen” to those who create propaganda for terrorists in the light of his recent research with Dr Denis Muller of Melbourne University and how Australia might benefit from New Zealand media initiatives, while RNZ executive editor Jeremy Rees reflects on a historical media industry view of training, drawing from Commonwealth Press Union reviews of the period 1979-2002.

Across the Tasman, Griffith University communication and journalism programme director Dr Kasun Ubayasiri presents a powerful human rights Photoessay documenting how the Meanjin (Brisbane) local community rallied around to secure the release of 120 medevaced refugee men locked up in an urban motel.

Monash University associate professor Johan Lidberg led a team partnering in International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) studies about “the world according to China”, the global media influence strategies of a superpower.

The Frontline section features founding editor Dr David Robie’s case study about the Pacific Media Centre which was originally published by Japan’s Okinawan Journal of Island Studies.

A strong Obituary section featuring two personalities involved in investigating the 1975 Balibo Five journalist assassination by Indonesian special forces in East Timor and a founder of the Pacific Media Centre plus nine Reviews round off the edition.

Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 29th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

It is published by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) Incorporated educational nonprofit.

The head of the Solomon Islands state-owned broadcaster has defended its role in the face of the government tightening control — a move that critics say is squarely aimed at controlling and censoring the news.

The government said last Friday that the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) would retain editorial control and that government officials would not censor or restrain the outlet.

Earlier in the week, the government had lashed out at the broadcaster, accusing it of a “lack of ethics and professionalism” and saying the government had a duty to “protect our people from lies and misinformation” it claimed was propagated by the SIBC.

• READ MORE: Other media freedom in the Solomon Islands reports

In an interview published by the VOA News, Johnson Honimae, the SIBC chief executive, said he was proud of the broadcaster’s award-winning journalism.

He said it was business as usual for the broadcaster and there were no government censors vetting stories before they were broadcast, contrary to what was reported by some news outlets.

The government’s move came at a politically tumultuous time in the Solomon Islands.

There were riots in the capital of Honiara last November, followed by a no-confidence vote in Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in December, which he survived.

Security pact with China
Then in April, Sogavare signed a security pact with China that has caused deep alarm in the Pacific and around the world.

The SIBC has reported those developments and has included the views of Sogavare’s opponents.

The broadcaster, which began as the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Service, has been a fixture for 70 years in the Solomon Islands.

Employing about 50 people and operating under the slogan “Voice of the nation,” the broadcaster is the main source of radio and television news for the nation’s 700,000 people and is listened to and watched from the capital to the smallest village.

In late June, the government moved to delist the SIBC as a state-owned enterprise and take more direct control, saying the broadcaster had failed to make a profit, something that had been expected of such state-owned businesses.

Opposition Leader Matthew Wale said the delisting was a scheme orchestrated by Sogavare as “a clear attempt to directly control and censor the news content of SIBC”.

“This will hijack well-entrenched principles of law on defamation and freedom-of-speech, thus depriving the public using SIBC to freely express their views, or accessing information on government activities,” Wale said.

Critical government calls
Honimae said the broadcaster took critical calls from Sogavare’s office in recent months.

“They believe we’ve been running too many stories from the opposition side, causing too much disunity,” Honimae said.

Honimae said the broadcaster and its staff won several journalism awards this year from the Media Association of Solomon Islands, including newsroom of the year and journalist of the year.

He also said the broadcaster plays the national anthem when broadcasts begin each morning at 6 am and again when they finish at 11 pm.

“We believe we are a great force for unity and peace in this country,” Honimae said.

Honimae added that the broadcaster needed to “balance our stories more” and leave no opportunity for criticism.

He said Sogavare — who is also the government’s Broadcasting Minister– had said in Parliament that the government would not tamper with the broadcaster’s editorial independence.

“There is no censorship at the moment,” Honimae said. “We operate as professional journalists.”

The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has condemned the censoring of the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) as an “assault on press freedom” and an “unacceptable development” amid mounting concern over China’s influence on the media and security.

“The censoring of the Solomon Island’s national broadcaster is an assault on press freedom and an unacceptable development for journalists, the public, and the democratic political process,” the IFJ said in a statement.

“The IFJ calls for the immediate reinstatement of independent broadcasting arrangements in the Solomon Islands.”

• READ MORE: 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 government of the Solomon Islands on August 1 ordered the national radio and television broadcaster SIBC to censor its programmes of anti-government voices.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet Office of the Solomon Islands mandated the SIBC to censor its programmes of perspectives critical of the incumbent government.

According to SIBC staff, the acting chairman of the board, William Parairato, outlined the new guidelines on July 29.

Both news and paid programmes are to be vetted in line with government regulations, as the government attempts to crack down on “disunity”.

SIBC now beholden
Special Secretary to the Prime Minister Albert Kabui indicated that the SIBC would now be beholden to a government-appointed board of directors, who would be appointed solely from the Prime Ministerial office.

The SIBC, which has moved from a state-owned enterprise to receiving all funding from the ruling government, had previously allowed paid programmes to broadcast criticism of the government.

The broadcaster also provided full live coverage of Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong’s visit to Honiara in June, with coverage funded by the Australian High Commission.

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavere has been unavailable for comment, as reported by several news organisations.

In recent months the Solomon Islands has further developed existing links to China, which the Australian Broadcaster Corporation argues is indicative of “authoritarian and anti-journalist” developments in Solomon Islands’ leadership.

The IFJ raised concerns surrounding press freedoms in the Solomon Islands during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to the Pacific in May.

Wang Yi’s press tour of the Solomon Islands featured heavily restricted press conferences, with local journalists collectively confined to one question for the nation’s Foreign Minister.

Sourced from an IFJ dispatch.

The Solomon Islands government has ordered the country’s national broadcaster to self-censor its news and other paid programmes and only allow content that portrays the nation’s government in a positive light.

Staff at Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC) confirmed to the ABC that acting chairman of the board William Parairato met with them last Friday to outline the new requirements.

They include vetting news and talkback shows to ensure they did not “create disunity”.

• READ MORE: Campaign over Solomons media freedom ‘misguided’, claims PM’s office
• China in the Pacific and media

Parairato had earlier attended a meeting with the Prime Minister’s office, the SIBC journalists said.

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has become increasingly critical of the public broadcaster, accusing SIBC of publishing stories that have not been verified or balanced with government responses.

Last month, SIBC was removed as a state-owned enterprise (SOE) and became fully funded by the government, raising concerns over the broadcaster’s independence.

The government defended the reclassification, saying it had a duty to protect its citizens from “lies and misinformation”.

It is unclear whether SIBC — which plays a vital role as a government watchdog — will be able to publish any news or statements from the opposition under the new regime.

Critics are concerned the new rules resemble media policies adopted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and could essentially make SIBC a mouthpiece for the government.

The ABC Four Corners investigative journalism report on China and the Solomon Islands this week.

Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) president Georgina Kekea said there were growing fears the government would be influenced by its “new partner”, referring to the security pact recently signed between Solomon Islands and China.

“It really doesn’t come as a surprise,” she told the ABC.

“This is one of the things which we are fearful of for the past month or so now.

“We’ve been vocal on this issue, especially when it comes to freedom of the press and media doing its expected role.”

What impact will it have?
Honiara-based Melanesian News Network editor Dorothy Wickham said it was unclear how the development would play out.

Dorothy Wickham says she is not surprised by the move, given the government’s ongoing criticism of the media.

“We haven’t seen this happen before,” she said.

“If the opposition gets on SIBC and starts criticising government policies, which every opposition does … would the government disallow SIBC to air that story or that interview? That is the question that we’re asking.”

Officials have denied taking full control of SIBC’s editorial policy, saying it just wants the broadcaster to be more responsible because it is a government entity.

But University of South Pacific journalism associate professor Shailendra Singh said the government’s intentions were clear.

“There seems to be no doubt that the government is determined to take control of the national broadcaster, editorially and financially,” he told ABC’s The World.

“I don’t think there’s any way the government can be stopped.

“This latest move by the government, what it has done with the SIBC, is bring it closer to media in a communist system than in a democracy.”

Press freedoms dwindling
Local media have been vocal about increased government secrecy, the closing of doors and controlled dissemination of information from the prime minister’s office.

Wickham said the media did not have issues with governments in the past, adding that since the security pact had been signed with China, the government had been making life harder for the press.

“I don’t think this government actually restricts us, I think it’s controlling their information more than they used to,” Wickham told ABC’s The World.

“The government has been concerned that the negativity expressed by a lot of Solomon Islanders is affecting how the government is trying to roll out its policies.”

When China’s foreign minister toured the country in May, Solomon Islands local media boycotted a press conference because they were collectively only allowed to ask one question — to their own Foreign Minister.

They also struggled to get information about the timing of the visit and agreements being signed between the two countries.

Last month, the ABC was also shunned after being promised an interview with Sogavare after his national independence day speech, in which he thanked China for being a “worthy partner” in the country’s development.

Instead, his minders escorted him to a nearby vehicle, with police blocking reporters from getting close to the Prime Minister.

Dr Singh warned that the country’s democracy would suffer as a result of less media freedom.

“Media is the last line of defence, so if the media are captured, who will sound the alarm? It’s happening right before our eyes. It’s a major, major concern,” he said.

‘A wake-up call’
Kekea said SIBC staff should be able to do their job freely without fear and intimidation.

But the best thing the media can do is uphold the principles of journalism, stressing that “we must do our jobs properly”.

“It’s a wake-up call for SIBC to really look at how they have gone over the years, how they format their programs, the quality control they have in place,” Kekea said.

“It’s really a wake up call for every one of us.”

She said the media landscape had changed over the years and standards had been dropping, but the government also needed to respect the role of journalist and be more open to requests for information.

The Prime Minister had repeatedly said he was available for questions and calls, but local media complained they were continuously left unanswered, she said.

“They do not have the courtesy to respond to our emails. Even if we want to have an exclusive it gets rejected,” Kekea said.

“So it’s time governments should also walk the talk when it comes to responding to the media when they ask questions.”

The ABC has contacted Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister’s office and SIBC for comment.

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

Annika Burgess is a reporter for ABC Pacific Beat. Republished with the permission of Pacific Beat.

Reporter Dorothy Wickham tells The World it is still unclear what the SIBC move means for the public broadcaster.

Former Kiribati President Anote Tong suspects a major agreement is “cooking” between Beijing and Tarawa after the country’s decision to quit the Pacific Islands Forum.

Kiribati President Taneti Maamau’s “surprise” announcement to abandon its membership from the region’s premier policy and political body at the 51st Forum Leaders’ meeting this week has heightened concerns the Micronesian nation is moving closer to China.

“I know they are cooking something with China,” Tong, who led the atoll island nation from 2003 to 2016, said.

• READ MORE: Fiji police evict two Chinese defence attaches amid Pacific Forum tensions
• US announces major Pacific push, embassies in Tonga, Kiribati
• Climate crisis top Pacific agenda item and it’s a security issue, says Ardern
• $10m climate funding to support Pacific seed crops
• More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out as crisis grows
• Pacific Islands Forum ‘on course’ as China issue casts shadow
• Kiribati exit from Pacific forum ‘out of order’, says founding president
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

“I think it would have started with the reopening of the Phoenix Island Protected Area.”

The Phoenix Islands Protected Area is the largest designated marine protected area in the world, spanning almost 400,000 sq km in the South Pacific Ocean, midway between Australia and Hawai’i.

Sources have told RNZ Pacific that a possible deal may include exclusive access to Chinese vessels to the Protected Area.

Tong believed the move by the Maamau government suggested that it hoped to “gain from being isolated from the region” by striking a deal directly with China.

‘Totally unexpected’
“It’s totally unexpected. I did not think it was in our nature, in our character, to do something quite so radical like that,” he said.

The Kiribati government is under financial pressure due to the economic impacts of covid-19 and the current drought.

“I know that the government is in a serious problem with the escalating budget which is not sustainable,” Tong said.

He said it should not come as a surprise if the government was talking about a deal directly with the Chinese about the Phoenix Islands.

“I have seen expressions in the past in which the president [Maamau] confirmed China was going to assist in the development of Canton Islands … a former US military base and it was in closer proximity to Hawaii. So, we are very strategically located,” he said.

“It is the reason why Kiribati may have withdrawn from the Pacific Island Forum.”

Blamed on China
Meanwhile, Kiribati’s opposition leader Tessie Lambourne is blaming Kiribati’s decision to withdraw from the Forum on pressure exerted by China.

The former diplomat told The Guardian she was “shocked and extremely disappointed” by the government’s move.

Lambourne said she believed the decision was influenced by China, and that the Maamau administration was weak, vulnerable and greatly indebted to Beijing.

She said someone seemed to be telling the Kiribati government that the country did not need regional solidarity.

“I’m embarrassed because what we are saying is that we are not in the fold … we are outside,” she told The Guardian.

“And why are we outside? I think it’s us who keep ourselves out … because we are not engaged or engaging.”

China brushes off claims
China, however, has denied allegations that it has anything to do Kiribati’s decision, saying it “does not interfere in the internal affairs of Pacific Islands countries”.

Kiribati said it did not feel its concerns over the leadership rift had been listened to following the special meeting hosted by the forum chair Fiji in June, and as a consequence it had no other alternative but to leave.

Federated States of Micronesia President David Panuelo said that while it was not known if China was exerting its influence to force Kiribati out of the forum “we hope to find out soon”.

Panuelo said there was a lot of work put into the Suva Agreement to achieve a reform package which would see that the forum was “much strengthened”.

“Our aim is to open the doors and continue to invite Kiribati because when one member is not on board, it is not quite over yet,” he said.

Tong said he “completely disagrees” with Maamau’s reasoning.

“I am not so sure that it really provides the justification for the kind of reaction to just withdraw like that,” he said.

“There should have been a lot of room to manoeuvre the discussions in Suva. There is so much at stake in losing membership of the forum. I cannot imagine how Kiribati would win by having taken that step.”

Tong also raised concerns about the recent visit by China’s foreign minister to Tarawa.

“The Chinese foreign minister went through here for a few hours last month and there was a deal signed,” he said.

“Nobody knows what that deal is. And so that is maybe part of the whole process.”

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

For the Pacific news media sector, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent eight-nation South Pacific tour may be over, but it should not be forgotten. The minister and his 20-member “high-level” delegation’s refusal to take local journalists’ questions opened a veritable can of worms that will resonate in Pacific media circles for a while.

However, Wang’s sulky silence should not be seen as an isolated incident but embedded in deeper problems in media freedom and development for the Pacific.

Besides dealing with their own often hostile national governments and manoeuvring through ever-more restrictive legislation, Pacific media is increasingly having to contend with pressure from foreign elements as well.

• READ MORE:  Fiji police evict two Chinese defence attaches amid Pacific Forum tensions
• Other reports on China in the Pacific
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

China is the most prominent in this regard, as underscored by Wang’s visit, but there have been other incidents of journalist obstruction involving countries like Indonesia as well.

What is particularly appalling is how some Pacific governments seem to have cooperated with foreign delegations to stop their national media from asking legitimate questions.

Fijian journalist Lice Mavono’s account of the extent to which local Fijian officials went to limit journalists’ ability to cover Wang’s visit is highly troubling. In scenes rarely seen before, Wang and Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s joint press conference was apparently managed by Chinese officials, even though it was on Fijian soil.

When some journalists defied instructions and yelled out their unapproved questions, a Chinese official shouted back at them to stop. One journalist was ordered to leave the room with a minder attempting to escort him out, but fellow journalists intervened.

Journalists obstructed
Similar behaviour was witnessed at the Pacific Islands Forum-hosted meeting between Wang and forum Secretary-General Henry Puna, where Chinese officials continued to obstruct journalists even after forum officials intervened on the journalists’ behalf.

The Chinese officials’ determined efforts indicated that they came well prepared to thwart the media. It also conveyed their disrespect for the premier regional organisation in the Pacific, to the point of defying forum officials’ directives.

However, what should be most concerning for the region as a whole is the way this episode exposed the apparent ability of Chinese officials to influence, dominate, and even give instructions to local officials.

This is all the more disturbing as China is ramping up its engagement with Pacific governments. Consequently, longstanding questions about China’s impact on the region’s democratic and media institutions become even more urgent.

Indeed, just weeks after Wang’s visit, Solomon Islands media reported that Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, in an extraordinary gazette, announced that the government would be taking full financial control of the state broadcaster, Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation (SIBC).

There are fears that this arrangement — which draw comparisons with the Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV — will give the government far more control over SIBC, potentially both editorially and in its day-to-day management.

This is troubling given Sogavare’s antagonism towards the SIBC, who he has accused of giving more airtime to government critics than to officials. Veteran Solomon Islands journalist Dorothy Wickham condemned the move, stating: “We now don’t have a public broadcaster!”

Additional steps
This trend indicates the need for additional steps to strengthen media rights by, among other things, boosting journalist professional capacity. This is simply because good journalists are more aware of and better able to safeguard media rights.

To this end, one area that clearly needs work is a greater focus on reporting regional events effectively. As major powers jostle for influence, and Pacific politics become ever more interconnected, what happens in one country will increasingly affect others.

Journalists need to be aware of this and more strongly frame their stories through a regional lens. However, this will not happen without focused and targeted training.

In this context, media research and development is an oft-overlooked pillar of media freedom. While all kinds of demands are made of Pacific journalists and much is expected of them, there seems to be little regard for their welfare and not much curiosity about what makes them tick.

To get an idea of how far behind the Pacific is in media research, it is worth considering that there has only been one multi-country survey of Pacific journalists’ demography, professional profiles and ethical beliefs in 30 years.

This recent, important research yielded valuable data to better understand the health of Pacific media and the capabilities of Pacific journalists.

For instance, the data indicates that Pacific journalists are more inexperienced and under-qualified than counterparts in the rest of the world. In addition, the Pacific has among the highest rate of journalist attrition due to, among other things, uncompetitive salaries, a feature of small media systems.

Conditions ignored
So, while governments make much of biased journalists, they conveniently ignore the working conditions, training, education, and work experience that are needed to increase integrity and performance.

In other words, the problems in Pacific media are not solely the work of rogue elements in the news media, they are structural in nature. These factors are not helped by draconian legislation which is supposedly intended to ensure fairness, but in fact only further squeezes already restricted journalists.

This situation underscores the need for further research, which can identify and offer informed solutions to the problems in the sector. Yet, scholarships and fellowships for Pacific media research are as rare as hen’s teeth.

Furthermore, Wang’s Pacific visit and China’s activities in the region are a wake-up call for regional media as to the urgent need for capacity-building. Any remedial actions should be informed by research and need to consider problems in a holistic manner.

As we have seen, “band-aid’ solutions at best provide only temporary relief, and at worst misdiagnose the problem.

This China fiasco is also a reminder to care about Pacific journalists, try to understand them and show concern for their welfare. We should not regard journalists as merely blunt instruments of news reporting.

Rather, a free and democratic media is the lifeblood of a free and democratic Pacific.

Dr Shailendra B Singh is the head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific and a research fellow at the Australian National University. This article was first published by ANU’s Asia and the Pacific Policy Society Policy Forum and is republished here with the author’s permission.

This week’s White House meeting between NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and US President Joe Biden reflected a world undergoing rapid change. But of all the shared challenges discussed, there was one that kept appearing in the leaders’ joint statement — China in the Pacific.

Tucked within the statement, with all its promises of increased co-operation and partnership, was this not-so-subtle declaration:

In particular, the United States and New Zealand share a concern that the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interests would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region and pose national-security concerns to both our countries.

Unsurprisingly, this upset Chinese officials, with a foreign ministry spokesperson accusing Ardern and Biden of trying to “deliberately hype up” the issue.

• READ MORE: Amplifying narratives about the ‘China threat’ in the Pacific may help China achieve its broader aims
• New Zealand has just joined an overtly anti-China alliance – are the economic risks worth it?
• Saying China ‘bought’ a military base in the Solomons is simplistic and shows how little Australia understands power in the Pacific

But hopefully the statement will also prompt New Zealand to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to increasing assistance in the Pacific region. Expressing “concern” about China’s influence means little otherwise.

Aid and influence

While New Zealand and Australia are responsible for around 55 percent of all of the aid flowing into the region, that contribution needs to be seen in perspective.

There are two obvious shortcomings. First, more needs to be done to promote democracy in the Pacific, which means supporting anti-corruption initiatives and a free press. Second, both countries simply need to give more.

Neither spends anywhere near the 0.7 percent of gross national income on development assistance recommended by the United Nations (UN).

The high-tide mark for both was long ago: 0.52 percent for New Zealand in 1975 and 0.48 percent for Australia in 1967. Today, New Zealand spends 0.26 percent and Australia 0.21 percent of their incomes on overseas aid.

It is against this backdrop of under-spending that China has come to be seen as an attractive alternative to the traditional regional powers. It has no colonial baggage in the Pacific and is a developing country itself, having made impressive leaps in development and poverty reduction.

Pacific Islanders snub China by rejecting security pact https://t.co/Mv217iuSx2

— FT China (@ftchina) May 30, 2022

Debt and distress
Many of the small developing island states in the Pacific share common challenges and vulnerabilities: negative migration patterns, risk from climate change and fragile economies.

Three states in the region (Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) are in the UN’s “least developed countries” category. Two others (Samoa and Vanuatu) are just above the threshold. Most are at high risk of debt distress, increasing the risk of poor policy decisions simply to pay bills.

The average debt-to-GDP ratio for Pacific states has risen from 32.9 percent in 2019 to 42.2 percent in 2021. Vanuatu, Palau and Fiji have debt-to-GDP ratios greater than 70 percent.

China currently accounts for only about 6 percent of all aid in the region, but supplements this with grants and loans, some commercial and some interest-free. These overlap with grand infrastructure plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative aimed at connecting many regions of the world.

While it might not have secured its desired regional multilateral trade and security agreement with Pacific nations, China is clearly in the Pacific for the long haul.

Working with China
This presence need not be seen entirely negatively. In the right circumstances, Chinese assistance can have a positive impact on economic and social outcomes in recipient countries, according to the International Monetary Fund. (The same study also found a negative but negligible effect on governance.)

Overall, Chinese influence in the Pacific is not necessarily something that must be “countered”. For the good of the region, countries should seek ways to work together, especially given that aid to the Pacific is often fragmented, volatile, unpredictable and opaque.

Co-ordinated, efficient and effective partnerships between donors, recipients and regional institutions will be vital, and co-operation with China could be part of this.

New Zealand and Australia need to expand their work on the vast infrastructure and development needs of the Pacific. Transparency should be a priority with all projects and spending, and co-operation should be tied to shared benchmarks such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.

For its part, China should give more aid rather than loans (especially to the least developed countries) to avoid the risk of poor countries becoming beholden to lenders or even bankrupted.

Chinese Ambassador’s warning to NZ: Getting into ‘exclusive circles’ could lead to ‘unmitigated disasters’ https://t.co/tjK9a2jCg4

— Newshub Politics (@NewshubPolitics) June 1, 2022

Peace and security
Above all, peace and security between and within countries should be an agreed fundamental principle. The good news is that South Pacific nations have already taken steps towards this by agreeing to the Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.

This could be complemented by an agreement banning foreign military bases in the region to maintain its independence. If needed, peacekeeping or outside security assistance should be multilateral through the UN, not bilateral through secret arrangements.

Co-operation for the good of the Pacific should be the goal, but this is only possible if the region is not militarised.

Chinese influence and power in the Pacific is a reality that cannot be wished away or easily undermined. With the US similarly determined to assert itself, the stakes are rising.

All nations should work together to ensure no small, independent Pacific country becomes a pawn in what could be a very dangerous game.

Dr Alexander Gillespie, professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

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.

As China seeks greater influence in the South Pacific, its manipulation of local news outlets is having a serious impact on media independence.

Most Pacific media organisations are struggling financially, many journalists have lost their jobs and China is offering a way for them to survive — at the cost of media freedom.

It’s not just the “no strings attached” financial aid and “look and learn” tours of China for journalists; it’s about sharing an autocratic media model.

• READ MORE: An unprecedented RSF investigation: The Great Leap Backwards of Journalism in China
• China on the RSF World Press Freedom Index
• Other Chinese media in the Pacific reports

Prominent journalists and media executives say Pacific leaders are copying Chinese media tactics and stopping them from doing their jobs.

China is one of the worst countries in the world for media freedom. It ranks 177 on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

Now it’s trying to influence media around the world, especially in countries which have signed up to its Belt and Road Initiative. That includes 10 Pacific island nations. Four remain with Taiwan.

China has spent an estimated US$6.6 billion over 13 years strengthening its global media presence. It took over Radio Australia’s shortwave transmitter frequencies in the Pacific when the ABC shut down its shortwave service in 2017.

Satellite service for Vanuatu
China’s national television service is about to start broadcasting by satellite into Vanuatu.

In a 2020 report, the International Federation of Journalists warned that foreign journalists were wooed by exchange programs, opportunities to study in China, tours and financial aid for their media outlets. Beijing also provides free content in foreign newspapers and ambassadors write opinion pieces for local media.

The federation’s report found that journalists frequently think their media is strong enough to withstand this influence, but a global survey suggests that’s not the reality and China is reshaping the media round the world.

These attempts at ‘sharp power’ go beyond simply telling China’s story, according to Sarah Cook, research director for China, Hong Kong and Taiwan at Freedom House. Their sharper edge often undermines democratic norms, erodes national sovereignty, weakens the financial sustainability of independent media, and violates local laws.

Journalists say this is an ideological and political struggle, with China determined to combat what it sees as decades of unchallenged Western media imperialism.

There’s mounting evidence from the Pacific of the impact of Beijing’s worldwide campaign, particularly in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

The situation for journalists in Solomon Islands has rapidly changed since the country swapped diplomatic allegiance from Taipei to Beijing in 2019. Media freedom has deteriorated and journalists say leaders are now taking their cues from China.

Vulnerable media outlets
Media outlets are vulnerable to offers of financial help. Many journalists have lost jobs and others haven’t been paid for months. It’s estimated there are just 16 full-time journalists left in Honiara.

There’s been little advertising since the November 2021 riots, a situation exacerbated by the covid pandemic. The only income for one privately owned media outlet is from the small street sales of its newspapers.

Earlier this month, the Solomon Islands government held its first news conference for 2022 after months of pressure to talk to journalists. The government denied there were restrictions on media freedom.

As the media struggles to survive, China’s ambassador is offering support, such as more trips to China (after the pandemic) and donations including two vehicles to the Solomon Star and maintenance of the newspaper’s printing presses. In the experience of other media, these offers are often followed with pressure to adhere to editorial positions congruent with those of the Chinese embassy.

While some journalists are resisting the pressure and holding a strong line, others are being targeted by China with rewards for “friends”.

Chinese embassies throughout the South Pacific are active on social media. In Solomon Islands, the embassy’s Facebook site includes posts about its aid assistance for covid-19, joint press releases with the Solomons government and stories from official Chinese news outlets.

There are numerous examples of the growing impact on media freedom.

Harassment over investigation
A freelance journalist has relocated to Australia after her investigations into the relationship between Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and a Chinese businessman resulted in harassment from police. She said police told her an order for her arrest came directly from the prime minister.

She was advised by Australia’s high commissioner to move to Australia for her safety.

Veteran journalist Dorothy Wickham was among a group of Solomon Islands journalists who accepted an invitation for a “look and learn” tour of China soon after the Sogavare government swapped allegiance to China in 2019.

She said the trip left her concerned about how Solomon Islands would deal with its new diplomatic partner.

“By the time our tour concluded in Shanghai, I was personally convinced that our political leaders are not ready or able to deal effectively with China. Solomon Islands’ regulatory and accountability mechanisms are too weak,” she says.

“We have already shown some spirit with our attorney-general rejecting a hasty deal to lease the island of Tulagi, the capital of one of our provinces, to a Chinese company, but I fear how fragile and weak my country is against any large developed nation let alone China,’ she wrote in an article for The Guardian.

One senior media executive that said if his own government, Australia, and New Zealand didn’t assist, he would look to China.

“There is too much talk about the role of media in democracy,” he said. He thought the Chinese ambassador understood that his organisation had its own editorial policy.

Soon after that, though, he was asked to publish a press release word for word.

No expense spared
Another media executive said he only had to ring the Chinese embassy and help arrived. He said China was rapidly moving into his country’s media space with no expense spared.

High-profile Vanuatu journalist Dan McGarry says he has no doubt that some Pacific governments are following China’s lead and adopting its contempt for critical speech and dissent.

In 2019, McGarry left Vanuatu to attend a forum in Australia, but his visa was revoked and he was banned from re-entering Vanuatu. He told the ABC’s Media Watch programme at the time that he had no doubt it was because of a story he wrote about the secret deportation of six Chinese from Vanuatu.

The six were arrested and detained without charge on the premises of a Chinese company with numerous large government contracts before being escorted out of Vanuatu by Chinese and Vanuatu police. McGarry said he was summoned by the prime minister, who told him he was disappointed with his negative reporting.

McGarry said he had no evidence that China tried to influence the Vanuatu government over his residence, but he’d seen a tendency in Pacific leaders to emulate behaviour they saw elsewhere.

Now back in Vanuatu, he said the decision to refuse his work permit was still under judicial review and he’s seeking financial compensation.

In 2018, Papua New Guinea journalist Scott Waide was suspended by EMTV under pressure from Prime Minister Peter O’Neill for a story he wrote about a diplomatic Chinese tantrum and a scandal over the purchase of Maserati cars for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Port Moresby.

Waide told the ABC that Pacific governments were taking lessons from China in dealing with their critics using media clampdowns and intimidation. That didn’t necessarily involve direct instructions from Beijing, “but people watch, people learn”.

Head of news sacked
A dispute over media freedom has escalated with the sacking of the head of news and 24 journalists at EMTV in PNG. They were initially suspended but later terminated for supporting their editor over interference from a government minister about a story involving an Australian man charged with drug trafficking.

On March 9, the EMTV news manager was sacked for insubordination. The network has since hired a new team of recent graduates with little experience — just months before the scheduled elections in June.

These examples give a sharper edge to concerns about China’s growing influence in the South Pacific and the lack of an Australian media voice there. The ABC’s presence has been described as a whisper.

There’s only one Australian journalist based in the region, the ABC’s Natalie Whiting in PNG. Meanwhile, Xinhua has a correspondent based in Fiji and China has recently been recruiting Pacific journalists for its global TV network.

The situation worries Australia’s national broadcaster. ABC managing director David Anderson told a Senate hearing in February 2022 of growing Chinese influence in the Pacific.

“The single biggest piece of information that comes back to us from the public broadcasters is concern over the pressure the Chinese government put on them to carry content,” he said.

In November 2019, the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum at Griffith University expressed concern about growing threats to media freedom. It called on Pacific governments to fund public broadcasters properly to ensure they have sufficient equipment and staff to enable their services to reach all citizens and to adequately play their watchdog role.

Australian journalist, media development consultant and trainer Jemima Garrett says media executives are at risk of being captured by China.

She has no doubt that China’s growing influence is a major story, but with so few Australian journalists based in the region, even significant developments in the China story are going unreported.

Sue Ahearn is the creator and co-editor of The Pacific Newsroom and co-convenor of the Australia Asia Pacific Media Initiative. She was a senior executive at ABC Radio Australia and is currently studying Pacific development at the Australian National University. Image: Media Association of Solomon Islands/Facebook. This article was first published by The Strategist and is republished with the author’s permission.

• Author’s note: Some of the Pacific journalists in this story have asked not to be named or identified because of the sensitivity of the issue.

New Zealand’s condemnation of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections reflects a “hardening stance” towards China, says a leading defence analyst.

Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta last week joined her Five Eyes counterparts to express “grave concern” over the erosion of democratic elements of the new electoral system.

“Actions that undermine Hong Kong’s rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy are threatening our shared wish to see Hong Kong succeed,” the joint statement reads.

• READ MORE: G7 condemns ‘erosion’ of democracy in Hong Kong election

Pro-Beijing candidates swept the seats under the new “patriots-only” rules that saw a record-low voting turnout of 30.2 percent; almost half of the previous legislative poll in 2016.

New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States are now urging the People’s Republic of China to respect protected rights and fundamental freedoms of Hong Kong.

Director of 36th Parallel Assessments Dr Paul Buchanan said this reflected New Zealand’s cooling relationship with China as it increasingly aligned itself with its traditional partners.

“It’s very clear something has shifted in the logic of the security community and foreign policy community in Wellington. I tend to believe it is Chinese behaviour rather than pressure from our allies, but it may be a combination of both,” he said.

Increasing Chinese pressure
New Zealand’s relationship with China has come under increasing pressure this year after it raised concerns about Chinese state-funded hacking and the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Mahuta has previously said New Zealand would be “uncomfortable” with the remit of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance being expanded to include diplomatic matters.

Dr Buchanan said it was not clear if last week’s joint statement on the Hong Kong elections was consistent with this stated independent foreign policy, or a sign New Zealand had abandoned this to better align itself with its traditional partners.

“That’s an open question to me, because I can see that the government can maintain independence and say, ‘simply on the issue of Hong Kong and China we side with our traditional partners, but on any range of other issues, we don’t necessarily fall in line with them’,” he said.

“On the other hand, maybe the government has made a decision that the threat from the Chinese is of such a magnitude it’s time to pick a side, get off straddling the fence and choose the side of our traditional partners because the Chinese values are inimical to the New Zealand way of life.”

Dr Buchanan said a “hardening stance” towards China was in line with the contents of a new defence report that recently identified ‘China’s rise’ and its power struggle with the United States as one of the pre-eminent security risks in the Indo-Pacific.

“This may be more reflective of the security officials’ concerns about China and that may not be shared by the entirety of the current government.

General consensus
“Although, the fact that the foreign minister signed off on this latest Five Eyes statement regarding Hong Kong would indicate that there is a general consensus within the New Zealand foreign policy and security establishment that China is a threat.”

In response to the joint Five Eyes statement on Hong Kong, the Chinese Embassy issued a statement telling the members to stop interfering with Hong Kong and China’s affairs.

Of particular concern, Dr Buchanan said, was China’s explicit assertion in this response it was led by China’s Constitution and the Basic Law, not the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in its administration of Hong Kong.

“The Chinese now have said that the joint declaration signed in 1997, no longer applies and all that applies in Hong Kong is Chinese law.

“So they’ve violated their commitment to that principle and that’s symptomatic of an increasingly-hardened approach to everything, quite frankly, of a policy matter under Xi Jinping.”

Dr Buchanan said New Zealand, whose biggest trading partner is China, was positioned as the most vulnerable of the Five Eyes partners to any potential economic retaliation from China.

“It would be pretty easy to see that if the Chinese are going to retaliate against anybody in the Anglophone world, it would more than likely be us because it’ll cost them very little, people have to change their dietary habits among the Chinese middle class, but it will have a dramatic effect on us because a third of our GDP is tied up with bilateral trade with China.

“But the government has clearly signalled that it’s seeking to diversify. It has now signalled that on the diplomatic and security front, it sees the Chinese increasingly as a malign actor, and so whatever is coming on the horizon, this government at least appears prepared to weather the storm.”

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

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has staged parallel protests outside the Chinese embassies in Paris and Berlin, holding funeral-style processions to denounce the “killing” of Apple Daily by the Hong Kong government, and to raise alarm of the threats posed by the Beijing regime to press freedom globally.

Arriving at the Chinese embassy following a hearse, RSF representatives in Paris staged a mock funeral procession, delivering a coffin and funeral flowers with a placard inscribed “Apple Daily (1995-2021).”

In Berlin, RSF representatives staged a parallel action, “burying” the daily newspaper which was one of the last major independent Chinese-language media critical of the Beijing regime.

• READ MORE: The scrappy Hong Kong tabloid that refused to bow to Beijing
• AJF, RSF and other media freedom watchdogs condemn China’s ‘suffocation’ of free press

Two days prior, Apple Daily announced that it must cease all operations from June 27, with the last print edition of its newspaper to be published on June 24, due to the government’s decision to freeze its financial assets, leaving the media outlet unable to pay their employees and suppliers, reports RSF in a statement.

RSF condemns the killing of the outlet perpetrated by Chief Executive Carrie Lam by order of Chinese President Xi Jinping, and calls for the immediate release of all detained Apple Daily employees as well as the media outlet’s founder Jimmy Lai, RSF 2020 Press Freedom Prize laureate.

“We have gathered today to raise alarm about the urgent risk of death to press freedom in Hong Kong,” RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire told reporters gathered outside the Chinese embassy in Paris.

“Democracies cannot continue to stand idly by while the Chinese regime systematically erodes what’s left of the country’s independent media, as it has already done in the rest of the country.

International community ‘must act’
“Today’s funeral is for Apple Daily, but tomorrow’s may be for press freedom in China. It’s time for the international community to act in line with their own values and obligations and defend what’s left of the free press in Hong Kong, before China’s model of information control claims another victim.”

Deloire also called out China’s Ambassador to France Lu Shaye, who last week gave an interview labelling media critical of the Chinese regime a “media machine” and journalists criticising Chinese authorities as “mad hyenas”.

Lu Shaye believes there is no need for a plurality of media: “With two or three groups and a few people, we can become the vanguard of the war of public opinion and we can coordinate this war well.”

Lu Shaye has previously been critical of French media, stating last year at the beginning of the covid-19 pandemics: “I’m not saying the French media always tell lies about China, but much of their reporting on China is not true.”

Earlier this week, RSF submitted an urgent appeal asking the UN to “take all necessary measures” to safeguard press freedom in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong, once a bastion of press freedom, has fallen from 18th place in 2002 to 80th place in the 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

The People’s Republic of China, for its part, has stagnated at 177th out of 180.

Pacific Media Watch works in association with Reporters Without Borders.

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

Reports are emerging of a serious diplomatic incident in Suva 10 days ago in which two Chinese diplomats from the Suva embassy assaulted a member of the Taiwanese delegation in Fiji.

The incident allegedly took place on the evening of Thursday, October 8, on the fringes of a reception at the Grand Pacific Hotel hosted by the Taipei Trade Office to celebrate Taiwan’s National Day.

There was no mention of the incident in the publicity about the event released by the Taiwanese, that included a speech by Taiwan’s representative in Fiji, Jessica Lee, emphasising cooperation in such fields as agriculture and medicine and praising Fiji’s climate leadership.

• READ MORE: Taiwan official in hospital after alleged ‘violent attack’ by Chinese diplomats in Fiji
• Taiwanese diplomat hospitalised after stoush with Chinese
• Fiji police drop investigation of China-Taiwan stoush
• Fiji Sun number one for corruption
• Fiji Sun’s reply to Davis
• Other Grubsheet Feejee articles

Yet the event was evidently marred by an astonishing physical altercation between mainland diplomats and a Taiwanese official.

Grubsheet understands that two members of the Chinese Embassy gatecrashed the function and began taking photographs of the proceedings and of those attending the function, which according to the Taiwanese included members of the diplomatic corps, international organisations, NGOs and Fiji’s Chinese community.

According to well placed sources, they were asked to leave by a male member of the Taiwanese delegation but refused to do so.

Later the two Chinese embassy officials allegedly assaulted the delegation member, “beating him up so badly ” – according to these accounts – that he required hospital treatment in Suva. The reports say police were called to the GPH but refused to take the matter further when the Chinese officials claimed diplomatic immunity.

Incident ‘hushed up’

The entire incident is said to have been “hushed up” but there is still a diplomatic standoff because Taiwan has lodged an official protest with the Fijian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

No other details are available for the moment. But it is clearly unacceptable for Chinese diplomats to assault other foreign representatives on Fijian soil.

The two may be claiming diplomatic immunity but it does not give them the freedom to break Fijian law in such a flagrant and outrageous manner.

It is open to Fiji to declare the two Chinese diplomats persona non grata – the diplomatic term for an unacceptable or unwelcome individual – and require their removal from the country. But this is going to be a big test for the FijiFirst government’s resolve because of its close ties with Beijing and it is not a good sign that 10 days have passed so far without public comment.

Only six days before the GPH incident, on October 2, the Chinese ambassador in Suva, Qian Bo, hosted Fiji’s “big three” – President Jioji Konrote, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and the Speaker of the Parliament, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau – at a function at the Chinese residence to celebrate the founding of the People’s Republic.

Relations between the Fijian government and Beijing are extremely close. Last year, Fiji bowed to pressure from China to force Taiwan to rename its office in Suva from the “Trade Mission of the Republic of China” to the “Taipei Trade Office”.

Taiwan protested against the decision to no avail.

Global pattern of aggression

The GPH incident is evidently part of a global pattern of aggressive behaviour by the mainland to assert its claim to Taiwan, which includes President Xi Jinping threatening to invade the island by the end of the decade.

Fiji is not the only country in which Chinese diplomats have been behaving badly.

Yet however small we are and whatever the level of Chinese aid, we cannot and must not tolerate unlawful behaviour on Fijian soil and the two offenders should be declared persona non grata as soon as possible and be and be withdrawn from Fiji.

In her speech at the October 8 function, Jessica Lee alluded to Chinese aggression not just towards Taiwan but towards pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong.

“2020 is a year of unimaginable challenges, but it is also a year showing Taiwan people’s fortitude and resilience in pursuing democracy, freedom and prosperity. We have completed the 15th presidential election and joined other members of the international community to uphold the rights and interests of the people of Hong Kong,” she said.

‘We can’t let China bully its way’
The Guardian reports that Tseng Ho-jen, Taiwan’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, told Taiwan’s Parliament, the Legislative Yuan, that Taipei’s Fiji office had reported two Chinese diplomats came to the event and looked around before leaving, and then returned, yelling and “almost breaking the door”.

Foreign office staff intervened and a physical confrontation occurred.

Condemning the allegedly “irrational behaviour” of Beijing’s overseas personnel, Tseng said it was “extremely regrettable” that the Chinese staff had disrupted their “peaceful” event.

A Taiwanese legislator and member of the ruling Democratic Progressive party, Wang Ting-yu, said he was “appalled and outraged”.

“We can’t let China bully its way into doing whatever it wants,” Wang, who is also co-chair of the foreign affairs and defence committee, said. “Our diplomats in Fiji have my full support.”

China rejects reports as ‘inconsistent with facts’
A statement today by the Chinese Embassy in Fiji said it had been “noted some social media coverage” about the October 8 event and the “allegations concerning Chinese Embassy staff are totally inconsistent with facts”.

“There is only one China in the world and the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government representing the whole of China. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory,” said the statement.

“China highly appreciates the Fijian government for upholding [the] one-China principle and expects that the Fijian side will tackle this issue properly.”

RNZ Pacific reports that Fiji police will not be conducting further investigations into a stoush involving Chinese and Taiwanese representatives in Suva.

Fiji police had earlier confirmed an inquiry but a new police statement said “the matter is now being handled at the diplomatic level as agreed to by all parties involved”.

It said the Fiji Police Force therefore will not be conducting further investigations and will not be making any further comments on the issue.

Grubsheet Feejee is the blogsite of Graham Davis, an award-winning journalist turned communications consultant who was the Fiji government’s principal communications adviser for six years from 2012 to 2018 and continued to work on Fiji’s global climate and oceans campaign up until the end of the decade. Other articles here.

• Global responses to the Taiwan Day incident in Suva

Auckland University of Technology has denied bowing to Chinese government pressure to stop one of its rooms being used for an event marking last month’s 30th anniversary of the bloody crackdown on protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

The New Zealand university has confirmed it canned a reservation for the event on Monday, June 3 – a public holiday, after a meeting with China’s Vice-Consul General Xiao Yewen on the preceding Friday.

Vice-Chancellor Derek McCormack said AUT did not know the event was about the Tiananmen Square protests and it cancelled the booking only because the staff member who made it had not followed the right process, and the building would be closed for the holiday.

READ MORE: Fault lines of fact 25 years after the events in Tiananmen Square

“If it had been an AUT event or if it had been booked through the proper channels through our hospitality services group, it would have gone ahead as the film In the Name of Confucius went ahead a little earlier, which was also something that the Chinese consulate drew to our attention and asked us to cancel which we did not,” he said.

“It needs to be done in the proper manner for all sorts of reasons, including health and safety. There are also charges that are made for rooms because of cleaning and set-up and utilities.

“These things were bypassed by the person who made the booking. In fact they did not even make the booking in their own name so it was something that was completely out of order.”

Concerns coincided
Messages obtained by Newsroom under the Official Information Act showed McCormack later wrote to the Vice-Consul General to say AUT defended its academic freedom, but in this instance their concerns and AUT’s concerns had coincided.

McCormack told RNZ News that Xiao had not threatened repercussions if AUT failed to cancel the booking.

“The Vice-Consul General pointed out that we had a good relationship with China, that we had lots of Chinese students and because of that good relationship could we help them out and cancel something they objected to.”

McCormack said the university did not know at the time what the event was about. It had been booked as a student seminar and advertised in Chinese media, not in English.

Emails show Xiao described AUT’s decision as “right and wise” and would “definitely help promote further growth of exchanges and cooperation between AUT and the General Consulate and China in general”.

‘Dubious explanation’
Tertiary Education Union national secretary Sharn Riggs said universities sometimes ran into problems with room bookings, but she was dubious about AUT’s explanation.

“Hardly seems credible, does it? That is the public position that the university is putting out, but I guess from our point of view that seems like a fairly lame reason to have cancelled the event,” she said.

Riggs said the incident highlighted universities’ reliance on tuition fees from Chinese students.

“When so many of our universities now are reliant on the fees that international students pay, and in AUT’s case it’s quite a significant chunk of their annual income, it’s inevitable that foreign governments are going to have the ability to put pressure on institutions should they want to and I think in this case that’s exactly what the Chinese government has done.”

Defending freedom of expression
Education Minister Chris Hipkins would not comment on AUT’s decision, but defended freedom of expression at universities.

He said the relationship with China was important to the government and to many tertiary institutions, but it had to be based on mutual respect.

“In New Zealand, free speech, the right to democratic process, those are very important things to New Zealanders and we have always been very clear with the Chinese government that those are things that we will always defend here in New Zealand,” Hipkins said.

The Chinese consulate in Auckland did not respond to a request for comment.

• This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

The Chinese Embassy has for a second time failed to respond to a request for comment concerning its role in the arrest, detention and planned deportation of six Chinese nationals on Vanuatu soil.

The Vanuatu Daily Post originally contacted the embassy by telephone last week, but were instructed to send a written request for comment instead. The newspaper complied.

Another request was sent yesterday shortly before lunch. No reply had been received by the time the article went to press.

READ MORE: Chinese scammers arrested in Vanuatu

The presence of Chinese law enforcement officials on Vanuatu soil, their official status, and their role in the arrest and detention of the six arrested people has raised numerous questions about due process and the rule of law.

The Office of the Prime Minister, which oversees the Citizenship Office, shared further information yesterday concerning the six Chinese nationals currently in detention, pending their expected deportation.

Four of the six individuals had applied for Vanuatu citizenship under the Development Support Programme (DSP). They had their citizenship granted in mid-May this year. Two others were not citizens.

The four citizenship applications approvals were made on the same day in mid-May, a PMO spokesman said.

Standard security check
At that time, they had been subjected to the standard security and background check, which included a query against the Interpol database. Vanuatu joined Interpol in November last year.

In late June this year, Chinese authorities informed the government of Vanuatu that six individuals were involved in what they characterised as a “pyramid” scheme, aimed at victims in China.

These activities were allegedly based in a commercial property in the Seaside neighbourhood.

The Daily Post was shown a letter, evidently from Chinese police, stamped and dated from June 2019, which alleged that a Chen Bo had forged his criminal record check form. Commonly called a police clearance, it is a required document for any residence or citizenship application.

The letter described Chen as a fugitive from the law.

The Daily Post asked if all of the six were the subject of similar correspondence. The PMO spokesman said yes, they were.

The identities of the other five detainees are not known.

Woman in hiding
A woman named Liana Chen is also reportedly wanted by Chinese authorities. The Daily Post has been told that she was currently in hiding in Vanuatu.

Sources informed the Daily Post that six Chinese law enforcement officials were later joined by five more. These individuals have been occupying the same property as the detainees, but it is not clear what their role in regarding the six people.

It is known that Vanuatu Police are providing a security detail to ensure the six remain on the premises.

Sources with direct knowledge of their circumstances told the Daily Post that the six were or are being held on a property owned by the China Civil Engineering and Construction Company (CCECC), in the Prima neighbourhood.

The Daily Post contacted CCECC to ask about their collaboration on this matter, but did not receive a reply by the time the article went to press.

The PMO also clarified that the DSP was mandated to supply up to 600 citizens via its investment opportunity. The total cash value of this offering would be VT 10.74 billion (US$93 million). That number has yet to be reached.

A Parliamentary Committee was recently informed that over 4000 applications have been approved. Therefore, PRG ImmiMart Ltd, which operates the rival Vanuatu Contribution Programme, is responsible for more than 3600 citizenship approvals so far.

Under scrutiny
PMO officials stressed that PRG had not processed the six applications currently under scrutiny.

The Daily Post was unable to discover any local legal professionals working to represent or defend the detainees.

Internal Affairs Minister Andrew Napuat earlier told the newspaper that these people would not be going to court in Vanuatu, as they were not accused of committing any crime in Vanuatu.

But the question of their right to appeal their extradition remains unanswered.

Also, Vanuatu authorities are empowered to summarily remove a person’s passport under certain circumstances, but a person’s right to appeal the loss of citizenship remains.

• NOTE: After this article appeared in the Vanuatu Daily Post, A PMO spokesman told the newspaper that in fact only four of the six Chinese nationals arrested had applied for citizenship. The newspaper originally reported that all six had applied, but that only four had been granted citizenship, with two applications still pending. This article has been updated to reflect the clarification.
  
• The Pacific Media Centre’s Asia Pacific Report has a content sharing arrangement with the Vanuatu Daily Post.
• More Vanuatu stories

As China solidifies its new status as superpower and cementing its influence in the Pacific, The Conversation is launching a series looking at what this means for the world – how China maintains its power, how it wields its power and how its power might be threatened.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping took power as head of the Chinese Communist Party – the most important position in China – in late 2012. Today, nearly seven years on, he is one of the most recognisable figures on the world stage.

Yet, while he already commands the destiny of some 1.4 billion Chinese people, and seeks to shape, in his words, “a common future for mankind”, he remains an enigmatic leader.

READ MORE: China’s ambition burns bright – with Xi Jinping firmly in charge

In a short period of time, Xi has concentrated power to himself and established a remarkably influential role, nearly unprecedented among Chinese leaders since 1949.

Yet, while he is certainly powerful, he is also vulnerable. He faces massive challenges on the grandest of scales: a simmering trade war with the US, slowing economic growth, increasing concern among China’s neighbours about his more assertive use of the country’s economic and military might.

Given these enormous internal and external challenges, the biggest question for Xi is how he will maintain his absolute grip on power and legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people.

He has promised them a better life in a stronger and more prosperous China. And he has gone a long way to deliver on those promises. But many challenges loom ahead.

From princeling to party leader
This year, the People’s Republic of China turns 70. And Xi, its paramount leader, turned 66 last month. No other Chinese leader’s life so closely parallels the life of the PRC – and that explains a lot about Xi’s mindset and his ambitions for China.

As the son of a vice premier and revolutionary hero, Xi was born into great privilege in June 1953. He was considered a “princeling”, the term for the children of the country’s most powerful elites.

In his youth, he attended the August 1st School for the children of high-ranking cadres in Beijing and spent time inside the walls of Zhongnanhai, the seat of Communist Party power. He was destined for leadership.

All of this came crashing down in 1962 when Mao Zedong purged Xi’s father from the party, accusing him of harbouring dangerous “rightist” views.

When the Cultural Revolution descended on China in the late 1960s, the younger Xi was sent to the countryside. He spent seven formative years – from age 15 to 22 – in rural Shaanxi province, working with the local peasantry.

By 1979, when Deng Xiaoping launched China on its historic reform drive, Xi embarked on his own fast track to the top. Over the next 30 years, he ascended through party and government ranks, serving in increasingly senior postings, mostly in the rapidly growing eastern provinces of China.

In early 2007, he became the party chief of Shanghai, but was only in that post for seven months before he was elevated to the Politburo Standing Committee, making him one of the nine most powerful men in China. Five years later, he was installed as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and, the following year, became China’s president.

In those 60 years, Xi experienced China’s own coming of age, from its early struggles with nation-building, to the depths of Maoist excess, to its spectacular rise to great power status.

This life experience has made him what he is today: a confident risk-taker who remains insistent on the communist party’s indispensable role in the country’s success and tenaciously focused on achieving China’s expansive national ambitions.

Surveillance, crackdowns and absolute power
Once in power, Xi moved to solidify his position. He saw weakness at the heart of the party, owing to lax ideological discipline and pervasive corruption. And so he launched attacks on both.

Much of his early popularity among the Chinese public came from his high-profile anti-corruption drive targeting the country’s elites. This campaign not only sent fear across ranks of the party and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it also helped Xi remove rivals and roadblocks to his grand plans for national revival.

Xi’s supporters also made powerful use of the party’s propaganda machinery to create an aura of wisdom and benevolence around Xi – one not seen since the days of the “Great Helmsman”, Chairman Mao.

And Xi set out visionary goals centred around the “Chinese Dream” and the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”, which tapped into a deep reservoir of national pride and further solidified his popularity.

By 2015, he was able to launch a massive reorganisation of the PLA to transform it from a bloated, corrupt, untested and inward-looking military to one far more capable of projecting China’s power abroad and far more loyal to Xi and the party.

At the same time, he has also overseen the most sweeping crackdown on dissent since the Tiananmen protests in 1989, introducing all manner of surveillance, censorship, and other intrusions into people’s lives to ensure order and obedience to the party’s authority.

He also centralised decision-making authority ever closer to himself, eclipsing the authority of Premier Li Keqiang. Xi is now in charge of nearly all the key bodies overseeing economic reform, foreign affairs, internal security, innovation and technology, and more.

And, just to be sure everyone understands who is boss, Xi orchestrated the inclusion of “Xi Jinping Thought” into the party’s constitution to guide the country into a “new era” of national rejuvenation. He also saw to the removal of term limits on his presidency, in effect allowing him to stay in power for life.

Xi has been equally bold as a leader on the international stage, setting out an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda.

His record includes launching the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, asserting Chinese claims in the South China Sea via massive land reclamation projects and an expanding military footprint, and, boldest of all, the Belt and Road Initiative, a geopolitical play connecting China through trade, investment and infrastructure across Eurasia and beyond.

Xi who must be obeyed?
It would seem Xi has had a remarkable run. But, strangely, his actions make it appear otherwise. A quick checklist of Xi’s moves in the past seven years suggests an increasingly nervous leader:

• increasingly consolidating power to himself
• imposing obedience within the party and public
• reasserting party control over the PLA
• blanketing the country with intrusive surveillance systems
• demanding an obsequious and unquestioning media
• imprisoning hundreds of thousands of Muslim Uighurs in “re-education” camps.

He surely has much to worry about. His reforms and crackdowns have created many enemies and much disgruntlement, especially among elites. Income disparity has grown as wealth has become concentrated in fewer hands. The pace of China’s economic growth is slowing. Localised unrest is common.

Analysts say much bolder economic reform is needed to avoid the stagnation of the “middle income trap.” China is also facing a perilous demographic future as the population ages and people have fewer children. And Xi’s ambitions at home and abroad are increasingly being met with push-back – not least from the United States – leading some in China to question whether he has over-reached.

But the biggest challenge is how to continue maintaining economic growth and social stability without losing the party’s absolute political control. It’s the same challenge every Chinese leader since Deng has faced.

Embarking on political and economic reforms would help ensure a more prosperous, stable and just future for the country. But doing so would surely undercut the one-party rule of the communist party.

On the other hand, foregoing these changes in favour of tighter control risks future stagnation and possibly instability.

Xi has chosen to double-down on the latter course. He clearly sees the party’s extensive system of ideology, propaganda, surveillance and control as absolutely necessary to achieving the Chinese Dream – the country’s re-emergence as a powerful, wealthy and respected great power.

From this perspective, we will likely see a continued tightening of the party’s grip on power for as long as Xi is in charge, which could well last into the late-2020s or beyond.

Whether or not the outside world ultimately respects Xi’s autocratic approach to power and leadership, he is convinced it is best for China and, by extension, benefits the world.

Dr Bates Gill is professor of Asia-Pacific security studies at Macquarie University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

• Rewriting history in the People’s Republic of Amnesia and beyond
• More China in the Pacific articles

The Solomon Islands government should exercise caution as it considers whether to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan or switch to China, an academic says.

Amid diplomatic visits from both Australia and New Zealand, the Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Jeremiah Manele said last week the government would take its time to make an informed decision.

The director of the Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Hawaii, Dr Tarcisius Kabutaulaka, said China’s aid focus on large infrastructure projects was appealing to some Solomon Islands MPs.

READ MORE: Chinese influence in the Pacific prompts high-level meetings

But leaders need to consider whether the country can manage not only the potential debt that could be incurred but also the intensity of a relationship with China, he said.

“Think about whether or not we are prepared for a relationship that is going to come with intensity both in terms of diplomacy as well as in terms of investment and how we can best benefit from it,” Dr Kabutaulaka said.

“So at the end of the day it is the interest of the Solomon Islands people that is the most important thing.”

Dr Kabutaulaka also said Australia and New Zealand’s actions in the Pacific speak louder than their attempts to play down concerns over the Solomon Islands considering cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan in favour of China.

In their official statements during last week’s visits to Solomon Islands, both Australia and New Zealand said they were not putting any pressure on the country either way.

But Dr Kabutaulaka said Australia’s Step Up and New Zealand’s Pacific Reset policies told a different story.

“We cannot get away from the fact that Australia and New Zealand have … have done in recent years attempted to strengthen their influence in the Pacific Islands region vis-a-vis the rising presence or assertive presence of the People’s Republic of China,” Dr Kabutaulaka said.

This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

It is not unusual for Fiji to intimidate and imprison journalists.

Journalists provide checks on government, parliament and business, which threatens the country’s authoritarian politics and the limited democracy its Constitution imagines.

What is unusual is Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s decisive intervention in favour of three New Zealand journalists, who were arrested last week as they investigated environmental degradation by a Chinese property developer building a new resort.

Since the journalists’ release, Fiji’s Department of Environment has revoked the project’s approval.

READ MORE: New Zealand’s Pacific reset: strategic anxieties about rising China

Media a government ‘ally’ – sometimes

The team’s earlier work had, in fact, prompted Fijian authorities to lay criminal charges against the company, Freesoul Real Estate Development.

Bainimarama insisted that there was no criminal inquiry in respect of the journalists and that they should be released. But it shouldn’t be assumed that he was declaring a new-found interest in freedom of the press.

Nor should one accept the police commissioner’s assurance that the journalists were arrested by “a small group of rogue officers”.

It is more likely that they just didn’t understand why the usual restrictions on press freedoms didn’t apply in this case. As Bainimarama told Parliament the following day:

It should be made clear: the news media has been an ally in accountability, helping to expose the [property development] company’s illegal environmental destruction.

Diplomatic sensitivities and Bainimarama’s genuine and long-held concern for environmental protection are at play in the apology that, according to New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, “seems” genuine.

Media restrictions affirmed day before arrests
Bainimarama took power by military force in 2006. Under international pressure to restore democratic government, elections were held in 2014 and 2018 under a Constitution Bainimarama approved after rejecting a proposal drafted by an expert international panel in 2013.

On Tuesday last week – the day before the New Zealanders’ arrests – the Fiji Parliamentary Reporters’ Handbook was published in Suva. The handbook, launched in the presence of New Zealand’s deputy high commissioner and prepared with the support of Australian Aid and the UN Development Programme, contextualised and affirmed the constitutional impediment to a free press.

There is scope in the Constitution to:

limit … the rights and freedoms [of the press] … in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or the orderly conduct of elections.

Japan was also present at the launch. Like New Zealand and Australia, Japan is interested in promoting democracy and fundamental human freedoms, but also determined to restrict China’s growing influence in the region. Diplomacy requires complex compromise.

As Australia’s deputy High Commissioner Anna Dorney rather hopefully observed, democracy requires a media that:

… plays a critical role in society, providing crucial information that educates, enlightens and enriches the public to help inform the civil discourse crucial to a successful society.

The New Zealand journalists were arrested the following day.

Bainimarama’s diplomatic dilemma
Bainimarama faces a diplomatic dilemma. Fiji’s economy needs Chinese investment but not Chinese developers’ environmental degradation.

Bainimarama is well regarded in international forums for his environmental policy leadership. Climate change is a centre piece in Fijian foreign policy. In 2018, six of the prime minister’s 14 foreign policy speeches dealt with the issue.

New Zealand’s “Pacific reset” foreign policy makes it an ally to Fiji in climate change policy. In other respects, the relationship is not so strong.

New Zealand, like Australia, had demanded Fiji’s suspension from the Commonwealth and the Pacific Islands’ Forum in 2009, three years after Bainimarama’s coup. Fiji has been re-admitted to both. International observers concluded that its general election in 2018 was transparent and credible. While elections are essential, Fiji shows that they are not all a functioning democracy requires.

Fiji’s regional isolation encouraged its “Look North” foreign policy. Its relationships with China and Russia developed. Russia has provided Fiji with military equipment in return for its support at the UN on its disputes with Georgia and Ukraine. From New Zealand’s perspective, these disputes posed a risk to international security.

But it is on China that the Fijian economy depends heavily and whose influence most concerns Australia and New Zealand. The Pacific reset policy addresses this concern explicitly:

The Pacific’s strategic environment is becoming increasingly contested and complicated, and New Zealand’s relative influence in the region is consequently declining.

New Zealand’s relative influence in Fiji is low in part because because it insists on “transparent, accountable, inclusive and democratic government systems” across the region. These features of democratic government enable coherent environmental policy, which is where Fiji and New Zealand recognise scope for significant cooperation. Climate change and disaster risk management are Pacific reset priorities.

We seek to assist Pacific Island countries in achieving effective global action on climate change and in adapting to and mitigating its effects … New Zealand has an influential role to play in leading debate about appropriate policy responses.

Fiji is a small state, with great strategic significance in the Pacific. The New Zealand journalists’ prompt release on prime ministerial intervention shows why.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan is associate professor of political science, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, in New South Wales, Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished here by the Pacific Media Centre under a Creative Commons licence.

Leading academics warn that the “problem” with China is not the Chinese Communist Party but that Western self-censorship is “killing” its liberal democracy.

“China is not the real threat there, we are, we are the biggest threat to liberal democracy in New Zealand,” says Dr Stephen Noakes, senior lecturer in politics and international relations and Asian studies at the University of Auckland.

“Every time we self-censor, when we choose not to speak out, when we chose to keep quiet for fear of not getting a visa, or not getting a trade deal … But since we, through our obsequiousness towards China are a potential threat, we can also be the cure,” he told a  public seminar last week.

READ MORE: Why China fears the Falun Gong

Lawyers and political scientists gathered at University of Auckland (UOA) last week to discuss the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policies about fundamental human rights and freedoms, civil liberties and the rule of law.

Organ harvesting
China has been under fire globally for its alleged unauthorised organ transplants from members of the Falun Gong community.

Though the initial position of the Chinese government was that all the organs were donated, “this was at a time when they [China] didn’t even have donation systems… and they did not have an organs distribution system,” said Professor David Matas, lawyer, author and professor of immigration and refugee law at the University of Manitoba.

While all organs were being found locally and the transplant volume was small, after the prosecution of Falun Gong began, the transplant volume “shot way up,” he said.

China became the leading producer of transplantation in the world, second only to the United States.

Research conducted in 2006 by Professor Matas and his colleagues concluded that “the organs were coming from the practitioners of Falun Gong”, he said.

As a result of his report, the Chinese government quickly shifted its stance and said that “everything that was coming from prisoners sentenced to death and then executed, before their execution they decided to donate their organ as an atonement for their crimes,” said Professor Matas.

Foreign lobbying
In New Zealand strong lobbying from the Chinese Embassy prevented an exhibition of the Chinese spiritual organisation  Falun Gong to be set up in Auckland City.

Lawyer Barry Wilson, president of Auckland Council for Civil Liberties, said he had spent an enormous amount of time at the Auckland City Council trying to persuade them to allow the Falun Gong stand and the demonstrations for the protection of Falun Gong to remain.

“We were up against very strong lobbying from a Chinese Consulate and the Chinese Embassy which did not want that exhibition there,” he said.

The Chinese constitution of 1982 contained the civil liberties that are observed in democratic countries – “freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom from arbitrary arrest,” he said.

When Xi Jinping became president, he also brought his “clearly expressed opposition for liberal values”.

“In his speeches he has spoken of the dangers of the liberal ideas like civil liberties, constitution rights, the dangers they pose for Communist Party rule,” he said.

In China, there is no separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature – “courts and judges are subject to political direction,” he said.

Ruling by law
“What China needs is lawyers as cogs in its economic development machine, but it needs lawyers to rule by law, not keep the rulers in check through the rule of law,” he said.

Wilson said: “They [Falun Gong] are always interesting… its organisation and its events well deserve support.”

China has also been using various means to infiltrate foreign countries to exercise its soft power on them – the Confucius Institute (CI) is one such organisation, says director Doris Lui in her documentary movie, In The Name of Confucius. 

The documentary claimed CI was an “infiltration organisation”.

The Chinese government founded the institute in 2004 to teach foreigners the language and culture of China.

The documentary has been a strong critic of the CCP over its alleged violations of human rights, particularly against the Falun Gong community.

In August, the free screening of the movie was set to air in University of Auckland, but the airing was withdrawn at the last minute.

The University of Auckland, University of Canterbury and University of Wellington in New Zealand have ties with CI.

The CI, which is controlled by the Office of Chinese Language Council Internationl (Hanban) prevents its teachers from teaching Cantonese or Hokkien.

• Other APJS stories

Indonesia’s influence in the Pacific Islands is growing, but is shadowed by disquiet over its region of Papua, known widely as West Papua.

The West Papuan independence movement has significant traction in the region, where it continues to push for its self-determination aspirations to be addressed by the international community.

Considering Papua’s political status as non-negotiable, Indonesia has been busy strengthening ties with a number of countries in the three Pacific Islands regions of Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia.

READ MORE: Indonesia strengthens ties with Pacific ‘good friends’

Amid a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent months, Indonesian cabinet minister Wiranto attended independence anniversary celebrations on Nauru, and the president of the Federated States of Micronesia was given red carpet treatment in Jakarta.

Jakarta says this is about working together with Pacific island countries on mutual interests. Others say it’s principally about quelling support for West Papuan independence aims.

Some regional observers even suspect the hand of Jakarta was at play behind the change in the Solomon Islands government’s policy on West Papua since Rick Hou replaced Manasseh Sogavare as prime minister last December.

April’s visit by a Solomon Islands delegation to Indonesia’s Papua and West Papua provinces caused an upset among some elements of civil society in Honiara, but showed how extensive Jakarta’s diplomatic outreach has become.

Serious threat
The secretary of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, Rex Rumakiek, said Australia’s angst about the rising influence of China in the Pacific missed a more serious regional threat.

“The Melanesian countries are not very much concerned about Chinese influence. They are concerned mostly about the Indonesians’ influence in Melanesia, because they’re very destructive, they go right down to village level.

“They bribe people and buy political parties to change the government and so on. It’s already happening. It’s much more serious than the Chinese influence,” Rumakiek said.

LISTEN: RNZ’s Dateline Pacific

A spokesperson from Indonesia’s Embassy in Canberra, Sade Bimantara, said Rumakiek’s accusation was unsubstantiated and false.

He said Indonesia had consistently engaged and worked with Pacific Island nations for many years while respecting each other’s domestic affairs and sovereignty.

“On the contrary, a handful of people claiming Papuan heritage and living overseas are the ones interfering in the domestic politics of Papua and West Papua provinces,” Bimantara said.

“They are not citizens and were never democratically elected into public offices in those provinces by the 2.7 million voters of Papua and West Papua. And yet, they claim to be the rightful heir to the provinces.”

“Demographically, geographically, we are part of the Pacific. One third of the total area of the country, to the east, is inhabited by Melanesians and Polynesians,” he said.

Joku, a West Papuan who frequently represents Indonesia at meetings of the Melanesian Spearhead Group and the Pacific Islands Forum, said the country wanted to help small island countries with their development needs.

He cited Indonesian assistance in plans to build a convention centre in Tuvalu and a sports stadium in Kiribati as examples.

Indonesia is also offering help to Pacific Island countries with efforts to protect their all-important marine environment, although it is not the only larger country doing so.

Foreign governments sometimes take up the issue of human rights abuses in West Papua in their representations to Indonesia’s government.

But few human rights defenders would have been satisfed with wan assurances by Dutch Foreign Affairs minister Stef Blok that he discussed a recent damning Amnesty International report on the issue when in Jakarta last month.

Regional efforts obstructed
Some Pacific governments, notably Vanuatu, are concerned that Indonesia has obstructed efforts in regional forums to address West Papuan grievances.

A former Vanuatu prime minister and leader of the Vanua’aku Pati, Joe Natuman, said the move by some members of the Melanesian Spearhead Group to accept Indonesia into the regional organisation was problematic.

“Whoever had that wise idea is causing us problems,” he explained.

“You know, they said Indonesia comes into join [the MSG] to discuss issues of West Papua; Indonesia comes in and it doesn’t want to discuss West Papua. So I think we have to review the Indonesian membership of MSG.”

But Franz Albert Joku said it was not the responsibility of the MSG or Pacific Islands Forum to speak for Papuans. He said Papuans should be allowed to speak for themselves “by dealing with our own leaders in Jakarta and our own government.

“It’s not for offshore organisations like the Melanesian Spearhead Group and the Pacific Islands Forum to decide what should happen in Papua. Our position and especially our future is firmly within our grip.”

However, the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), which has observer status at the MSG, argues that West Papuans are not free to express themselves and their political aspirations in their homeland.

Thousands arrested
Indonesian police arrested thousands of Papuans in 2016 when they demonstrated in Papuan cities in support of the Liberation Movement.

Jakarta also remains sensitive to regional calls for West Papua’s political status, and the controversial process by which the former Dutch New Guinea, was incorporated into Indonesia in the 1960s, to be reviewed.

Last month while in Fiji, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister Peter O’Neill was reported to have encouraged regional countries to take the issue of West Papua to the United Nations Decolonisation Committee.

Following this, PNG’s Foreign Minister Rimbink Pato made a visit to Jakarta for talks with his Indonesian counterpart Retno Marsudi, reaffirming his country’s support for the status quo in the Papuan provinces.

“They are an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia,” he said.

“There has been some misreporting on this issue. Papua New Guinea’s position has not changed and there is no intention to ever change it.”

Natuman said he understood the sensitivity of the matter for PNG as West Papua’s neighbour.

“But I think they should be honest with themselves and discuss openly with the MSG and with Indonesia, and of course eventually we have to involve the United Nations,” he said.

United Nations mess
“This is a mess created by the United Nations, and the the United Nations have to come clean on this.”

The regional calls for international action on West Papua persist from the likes of New Zealand government MP Louisa Wall, who is among a small but vocal group of local MPs pushing for the issue of West Papuan self-determination to be heard at the UN.

“I believe in self-determination, I believe in indigenous rights. This is a right of the West Papuan indigenous peoples to re-litigate something that has been highlighted, actually was done in an unjust and unfair way,” Wall said.

Wall’s voice is still only part of a minority in New Zealand’s government whose formal position remains in support of Indonesian control of Papua.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, reiterated this support to Indonesia’s president Joko Widodo during his state visit to Wellington earlier this year.

The issue of human rights abuses in Papua is a standing item on the agenda of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), whose leaders meet in Nauru next month.

Yesterday, the outgoing Forum chairman, Samoa’s Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, suggested some Pacific leaders sensationalised the alleged abuses by Indonesian military in Papua.

Speaking on national Radio 2AP, Tuilaepa, who has forged closer ties with Indonesia in the past year, conceded that various West Papuans wanted independence and sought to stop infringements of their human rights.

Tuilaepa said that where it concerned human rights issues, they should take up the matter through the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

The Pacific Media Centre has a content sharing partnership with RNZ Pacific.