A recent webinar hosted by the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) brought together minds from across the region to delve into the intricate issues of the digital economy and data value.

The webinar’s focus was clear — shed light on who was shaping the rules of the digital landscape and how these rules were taking form.

At the forefront of the discussion was the delicate matter of valuing and protecting indigenous knowledge.

• READ MORE: Other indigenous knowledge reports

PANG’s deputy coordinator, Adam Wolfenden, emphasised the need for open conversations spanning various sectors.

“It is a call to understand and safeguard the wisdom embedded in Pacific worldviews and indigenous knowledge systems as we venture into the digital world,” he said.

But amid the promise of the digital age, challenges persisted.

Wolfenden said the Pacific’s scattered islands faced the formidable obstacle of connectivity.

“Communities yearn to tap into online technologies, yet structural barriers stand tall. The connectivity challenges and structural barriers that are faced by the Pacific region are substantial and there is no easy, cheap fix,” he said.

He underscored the necessity of regional partnerships, even beyond the Pacific.

“As they sought to build advanced digital infrastructures, they realised that strength lay in unity. The journey towards progress means joining hands with fellow developing nations.

“It is a testament to the shared dream of progress that transcends geographical boundaries.”

The first step, Wolfenden believed, was awareness.

He said the Pacific region needed to be fully informed about ongoing negotiations, what rules were being carved, and how these might affect the region’s autonomy and data sovereignty.

“Often, these negotiations remain hidden from public view, shrouded in secrecy until agreements were reached. This has to change; transparency is vital,” Wolfenden said.

Beyond this, there was a call for broader discussions during the webinar. The digital economy was not just about buyers and sellers in a virtual marketplace.

It was about preserving culture, empowering communities, and ensuring that indigenous knowledge was never left vulnerable to the whims of the digital age.

Ema Ganivatu and Brittany Nawaqatabu are final year journalism students at The University of the South Pacific. They are also senior editors for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publications. Republished in a collaborative partnership with Asia Pacific Report.

Retired politics professor and historian Robert “Robbie” Robertson, 69, co-author of the book Shattered Coups about the 1987 coups led by then Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, has died in Melbourne, his family has confirmed.

Dr Robertson wrote the book with his partner Akosita Tamanisau, then a Fiji journalist. It was published in January 1988 and he also wrote other books and papers on Fiji and globalisation.

He and Dr William Sutherland co-authored the fast moving and readable Government by the Gun: The unfinished business of Fiji’s 2000 coup.

• READ MORE: The General’s Goose: Coups, globalisation and Fiji’s reset ‘democracy’ paradigm
• Fiji’s actions threaten to unwind the Pacific’s great experiment in regional education at USP – Robbie Robertson and Akosita Tamanisau

His last book on Fiji in 2017 was The General’s Goose: Fiji’s contemporary tale of misadventure.

Dr Robertson was the second person at the University of the South Pacific to have his work permit rescinded and he was deported to New Zealand by Rabuka’s government.

Attempts to have him relocated to Port Vila were sabotaged by the then Vanuatu government.

Moved to Australia
He moved to Australia and joined La Trobe University and became associate professor of history and development studies in Bendigo.

Dr Robertson returned to USP from 2004 to 2006 as professor and director of development studies.

Subsequently, he served as professor and head of school of arts and social sciences at James Cook University (2010-2014) and as professor and dean of arts, social sciences and humanities at Swinburne University of Technology from July 2014 until he retired.

Retired professor of development studies at USP Dr Vijay Naidu and New Zealand researcher Dr Jackie Leckie recalled his contribution as a progressive and inspirational academic, and his sense of humour, Dr Leckie saying “Robbie was one of the good guys. I am so sorry that he had suffered in health recently.”

Dr Robertson is survived by his wife Akosita and sons Nemani and Julian.

Rising tensions between Australia and China have raised the question of where New Zealand would stand if things escalate further.

Close trans-Tasman friend and ally Australia is taking a more aggressive stance against China – with South China Sea and Taiwan potential flashpoints.

And recent statements from its defence minister about a possible conflict with China have caused some alarm – a prospect that could put New Zealand under real pressure – to pick a side.

• READ MORE: Parliament’s human rights vote ‘gross interference’, says China

After a year of heavy trade strikes against Australian exports, diplomatic outbursts and increasing military activity in the region, new Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton told the ABC conflict with China over Taiwan “should not be discounted”.

New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta said she could not comment on “prospective thinking about what may or may not happen”, adding New Zealand “values” the important relationship with Australia.

It did “make for an uncomfortable situation” to have Australia and China at loggerheads and “where you see your neighbours being treated in such a punitive way”, she said.

Australia was in a different position to New Zealand and “obviously see things in a certain way, because they have neighbours and are in a part of the region where they feel several things more acutely and we will remain closely connected in the way that we share our view of what’s happening in our region”, Mahuta said.

‘Nimble, respectful and consistent’
If it came down to taking sides – what would New Zealand do?

“New Zealand is very aware that we are a small country in the Pacific,” Mahuta said.

“And we are also aware that the nature of our relationships, both bilateral and multilateral, require us to be nimble, respectful, consistent and predictable in the way that we treat our nearest neighbours, but also those who we have bilateral relationships with, no matter whether they are big or small relationships.”

Leading defence analyst Dr Paul Buchanan said storm clouds were gathering and armed conflict was now a “distinct possibility”.

“Maybe not directly between the Australians and the Chinese, unless there’s a miscalculation involving a Australian warship, doing freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea,” Dr Buchanan said.

“But more than likely, as part of a dispute that gets out of control and Australia, as part of a coalition of countries, probably led by the United States, that is duty bound to respond, so for example, Taiwan.”

If such a conflict erupted, that would leave New Zealand “between a rock and hard place” because it would be asked to join that coalition, Dr Buchanan said.

That would require some “hard decisions … that have been in the making for well over a decade when we decided to throw most of our trade ships into the Chinese market”.

“Now we’re in on the horns of a dilemma and a bit of a quandary should our security partners ask us to join them in the common defence of a country suffering from Chinese aggression,” he said.

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

Before the covid-19 pandemic started in late 2019, the free movement of billions of people – including tourists, business people, digital nomads, refugees and students – across nations was a common part of life.

In 2018, the number of international tourist arrivals rose 6 percent over the previous year and reached an all-time high of 1.4 billion trips.

About 272 million people are residing outside their birth country. This number is projected to reach 405 million by 2050.

READ MORE: Al Jazeera coronavirus live updates – US deaths pass 80,000

However, as the pandemic rages on, infecting more than 4.1 million people with more than 285,000 deaths worldwide, governments have imposed travel bans and closed their borders to control the spread of the virus.

More than 93 percent of the global population reside in countries where cross-border travel is restricted. Scientists have suggested some restrictions may need to continue until at least 2022.

Shutting down businesses and social gatherings has left nearly zero physical mobility and severely disrupted the global economy. In light of this, one can’t help but wonder: could COVID-19 spell the end of international mobility as we know it?

Rethinking the limits of a ‘global mobility regime’
Business activity is faltering at rates never before seen. The World Economic Outlook projects the global economy will contract by 3 percent, plummeting around 6.3 percentage points from January 2020. The International Monetary Fund has declared this the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The coronavirus requires us to re-evaluate whether we want to continue living under this “global mobility regime” – where a great deal of economic activity relies heavily on international and regional travel.

The late German modernity theorist Ulrich Beck and British sociologist Anthony Giddens argued that intertwining elements of modernity such as industrialisation, international mobility and globalisation have created a society susceptible to a variety of new risks and unforeseen consequences.

These vulnerabilities – which are “systematic and cause irreversible harms”, in Beck’s words – range from international ecological disaster and terrorism to global health pandemics. The last one is evident in the current crisis.

Extending beyond its origin in Wuhan, China, the coronavirus has spread to cause catastrophic damages across borders, nations, generations and social strata.

The same advances that have helped us travel across borders at speeds and volumes never before imagined are increasing the deadliness and global reach of the virus.

Worldwide disruptions in cross-border labour
A human aspect of this crisis can be seen in how lockdowns have stranded working migrants around the world.

In Tunisia, for instance, migrant workers who came in from mostly neighbouring sub-Saharan countries struggled to pay rent and food as jobs become scarce.

Recently, US President Donald Trump announced plans to stop issuing new work visas and green cards indefinitely.

These developments have led the World Bank to project a more than 20% decrease in global remittances – the money migrants send to their families back home – from US$554 billion in 2019 to US$445 billion in 2020.

These funds provide an economic lifeline to millions of poor households around the world.

Not only that, the coronavirus might also have fundamentally changed the prevailing model of global production.

One of its basic principles is making use of land, labor and capital as efficiently as possible. This has created a global factory network that manufactures many goods in optimum locations at great prices.

However, as the virus spreads and forces nations to impose economy-crippling lockdowns, this has severely disrupted industries that rely heavily on these global supply chains. This has even impacted essential production needed to fight the virus.

For instance, New York City’s hospitals experienced a shortage of ventilators last month. Italy’s hospitals also had problems getting enough face masks for their health workers.

Envisioning global movement beyond the pandemic
The pandemic has undoubtedly affected our model of international mobility. Only by figuring out the right responses and changes will we as a global community become more resilient once it ends.

If we keep today’s global mobility principles as they were – with nations facilitating the free movement of people and goods without a global framework to anticipate disruptive events such as pandemics – we risk repeating or even worsening the spread of deadly future viruses.

Every government, organisation and individual should be a lot more prepared to face the uncertainties of the era beyond the pandemic.

We don’t know how, though. Setting up an “International Travel Organisation” that oversees the rules and more importantly reduces the risks of cross-border mobility – as American scholar Rey Koslowski suggested in 2011 – might be a plausible idea.

The covid-19 pandemic will not end the free movement of people, goods and finance.

However, it will hopefully change the way global institutions govern cross-border flows of people and trade, driving the world to a “neo-global mobility regime” that’s more resistant to international ecological disaster and global pandemics.

Dr Vissia Ita Yulianto is a socio-cultural anthropologist of the Centre for Southeast Asian Social Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada, in Jogyakarta, Indonesia, and Dr Jian-bang Deng is professor of sociology, Tamkang University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

As regional leaders gather in New York for the week-long United Nations oceans conference, we wish to recognise the Pacific’s storied history, as stewards of the world’s largest ocean. We acknowledge the test of time that this region has withstood, and commemorate those who have endure and withstood nuclear testing, a period in history with ramifications that are still felt by our oceans, lands, and peoples.

We remember this period as being a time when our oceans and people were utilised as guinea pigs by foreign powers. We acknowledge the issues both past and present that the Pacific faces, and we firmly refute the narrative that “we are victims’”.

We stand tall as the next generation of Pacific Islanders who shall also thrive on our sea of islands. We stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before us to make a stand.

On this note we call upon our Pacific and global leaders to take a stand against genocide. We, the Pacific, will not allow a repetition of colonialism.

Our peoples have suffered greatly from the destructive programmes of militarised colonial powers during the 20th century, continuing into the 21st. The legacy of nuclear testing throughout Oceania, in particular the Marshall Islands, French Polynesia, and elsewhere, has never been effectively remedied or addressed.

The consequences of detonating hundreds of nuclear bombs of a much greater destructive power than Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs are still being felt today by indigenous islanders – manifesting in, among other impacts, debilitating health and intergenerational maladies.

Runit Dome leaking
This legacy continues to threaten not just Pacific islanders and the Pacific Ocean, but the health and wellbeing of all the planet’s oceans and the people who depend upon them. Radioactive materials currently contained in Runit Dome on Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands are leaking into the surrounding ocean and groundwater.

The Runit Dome was a haphazard attempt by the US military to contain 111,000 cubic yards of radioactive waste in an unlined crater. It was never replaced by a safe, permanent structure and instead is currently cracking and polluting the local surroundings.

Henry Kissinger in response to nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, is quoted as stating: “There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?” In response, we say: We are still here, and we are not going anywhere.

Cactus dome on Runit Island is testament to a history of experimentation, and the violation of our fundamental human rights. Leakage from the dome has resulted in the runoff of radioactive materials which poses serious concerns to the health of our oceans and the people who rely on them.

Parallels can be made with the ongoing contamination of our oceans as a result of terrestrial mining. Contaminants and runoff from existing mines remain a threat to the viability of our marine ecosystems. The oceans have still not recovered from the destructive acts of world wars, nuclear testing, and continued military maneuvers.

Intensified efforts must be made to demilitarise the oceans and to clean-up existing messes. As we the Pacific clamour for international action to halt carbon emissions, and desist from environmentally degrading activities, let us therefore be the change that we wish to see in the world.

Today, there are also parallels to be seen with the advent of extractive industries such as experimental seabed mining. Seabed mining is an issue that governments in the Pacific are still toying with.

No indigenous voices
Yet, this has not been tested anywhere else in the world. The discussion on seabed mining has proceeded narrowly for the past 30 years. There has not been inclusion of indigenous voices or much thought as to the inordinate risks in operating an untested extractive industry, in a fragile and almost completely unknown deep sea environment.

A recent joint study by 14 international universities and organisations discovered that hydrothermal vents and methane seeps on the ocean floor play a crucial role in regulating global climate – and that releasing or destroying them “would be a doomsday climatic event.”

In addition to likely and potentially irreversible environmental impacts, seabed mining is a long-term, experimental venture in which any potential profits for States must be offset by the short-term impacts, which could include destruction of local fisheries and resultant impacts on human health and livelihoods. There also remains the issue that on our ocean beds, plutonium from past nuclear tests has settled. Seabed mining can potentially act as a catalyst for the further dispersion of these contaminants.

It is, in short, a gamble, especially when compared to already profitable industries with a proven track record of sustainability such as ecotourism. Rather than shoulder inordinate risk in the hopes of a hypothetical, distant, and comparatively small cut of revenue, our Pacific governments should allow time for significantly more scientific study, and consider alternative partnerships with industries which, by their very nature, are inherently more sustainable.

We are once again faced with the same situation where foreign influences seek to utilise the Pacific for their own means. Our ocean cannot yet again be used as an experimental test bed for an activity whose full environmental ramifications are still not fully known.

We stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in New Ireland and the Duke of York Islands in Papua New Guinea, and call for a ban on experimental seabed mining in our waters. We call upon the peoples of the Pacific. We cannot allow such a repetition of experimentation that will again affect our oceans and our people.

Weathered test of time
We the Pacific have weathered the test of time. Over the millennia, our people have not simply survived, but thrived through the bounty of our oceans. With the advent of human induced climate change, the ocean that has nurtured us for millennia, has now become a threat to the existence of our islands. We call upon the leaders and peoples of the Pacific to further our efforts in making our voices heard. The United States has pulled out of the Paris accord, but we the people of “Wansolwara” (one salt water) remain committed.

Let us embrace the spirit of the Marshallese saying “Lappout Iene” which means to utilise or employ all the knowledge, skills and resources available to solve a problem. With this, we say that we the people of Wansolwara are in this together. When nuclear testing was occurring, the people of Wansolwara did not remain passive.

We call on our leaders to honour that proud legacy, and to Lappout Iene, make a stand and recognise and address the fact that our land, ocean and people have historically been used as guinea pigs to fuel the greed, defence needs, and convenience of foreign entities.

The advent of deep seabed mining is simply another evolution in this history of greed-fuelled economic exploitation, and a callous disregard for the environmental and human life. We the people of Wansolwara stand firmly opposed to militarism, environmental degradation, and the violation of our human rights. We are Oceania, we are Wansolwara, and we are the sea of islands.

We will not allow this history to repeat itself!

• Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) on behalf of Youngsolwara Pacific and MISA4thePacific,  Tavini Huiraatira – Maohi Nui; Tourism and Hospitality Community Association (TAHCA) of the Republic of the Marshall Islands; Forum Against Mining On Choiseul (FAMOC) – Solomon Islands; and Oceania Resistance – Guam.
• The UN Ocean Conference
• Māori Television News on the UN Ocean Conference

OPINION: By Barry Coates

There is a myth going around that President-elect Donald Trump killed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). It is true that he has made withdrawing the United States from negotiations his number one job when he gets into office, and without the US, the TPP is dead – it would need years of re-negotiation to resurrect it in any form.

But the reality is that the TPPA was already on its last legs by the time Trump made his announcement. The TPPA was defeated by a powerful global campaign.

Citizens across each of the 12 countries in the TPPA built a strong movement against the excesses of corporate rights represented by the TPPA, as we have done twice before in defeating these proposals in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (1998) and in the World Trade Organisation (1999 and 2003).

Citizens mobilised on the streets, in meetings and on-line against the TPPA, around issues such as jobs and inequality, access to affordable medicines, public health, climate change, internet freedom, indigenous rights, animal welfare, small business and especially against the erosion of the sovereign powers of government to act in the public interest.

The TPPA was rejected by this huge public movement. It was the voice of citizens that was decisive. They influenced public opinion so that it was strongly against the TPPA in New Zealand as well as the US.

Donald Trump recognised the strength of this public groundswell. The TPPA’s demise came long before his election.

What happens now is important. Defensive protectionism that raises tariffs against imports won’t help workers get their jobs back, and it won’t protect the environment and the other rights that are under threat from Trump’s policies.

Process of re-regulation needed
There needs to be a process of re-regulation of the global economy, supporting local economies and requiring multinationals to pay their fair share of taxes, reversing the processes of deregulation and privatisation that has taken power away from democracy and handed it to corporations.

Hopefully there may be other casualties in the wake of the TPPA. The planned ministerial meeting where they were close to concluding the dangerous Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) has been cancelled.

But the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is moving ahead, and recent analysis by citizens’ groups show that New Zealand and other countries are trying to stack it with TPPA-like provisions.

We need to remain vigilant about RCEP, TiSA and other agreements. We also need to use this opportunity to fundamentally change New Zealand’s trade and investment policy so that it is transparent and accountable, good for small business and the local economy, protects the environment, promotes worker’s rights and equality, and respects human rights.

Barry Coates is a Green Party list Member of Parliament in New Zealand. This Daily Blog commentary is republished with the permission of the author.