It was a tumultuous week in Papua New Guinea after a 30 member delegation returned from the Coronation of King Charles III in the United Kingdom.

Papua New Guinea had, by far, one the largest delegations to the event.

While the real cost of travel, accommodation and chauffeured transport in London is still being debated, it is estimated taxpayers forked out close to US$900,000 for the London trip and a similar amount for an unnecessary public event in Port Moresby around the live telecast of the coronation.

• READ MORE:  PNG’s Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko steps aside over video row
• ‘We’re not primitives’ says UPNG student protest over foreign minister’s ‘disrespect’
• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: PNG’s Foreign Minister called on to resign
• Resign call to PNG’s foreign minister over his ‘primitive animals’ slur
• ‘My daughter didn’t misuse public funds’ says PNG’s under fire minister
• PNG foreign minister defends daughter over ‘flaunting’ coronation trip video
• Other coronation reports

Public anger further exploded on social media when, Savannah, the daughter of Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko, posted a TikTok video showing how she had travelled first class to London with her dad and shopped at Hermes and Louis Vuitton at Singapore airport.

In a country plagued by a high cost of living, frequent power outages and high infant and maternal death rates, the video was viewed as an elitist, insensitive and a blatant abuse of taxpayer money.

Over the next 36 hours, Savanah became the subject of public anger.

She deactivated her TikTok account, but the video had already gone viral on multiple social media platforms. It did not end there.

Added more fuel
Tkatchenko, while responding in defence of his daughter, added more fuel to the controversy calling critics “primitive animals”.

This prompted a new barrage of attacks with many more people highlighting what they viewed as pre-independence, colonialist undertones expressed in the Foreign Minister’s words.

What would have otherwise been an innocent TikTok travel video by a young woman triggered a series of events that ultimately forced her father to “step aside” just days ahead of important visits by the US President, the Indian Prime Minister and other Pacific heads of state.

An attempt by Prime Minister James Marape to bring about some sense of calm was not well received when he asked Papua New Guineans to “forgive” Tkatchenko for the “primitive animals” comment.

“We are a unique blend of ethnic diversities and, as Christians, we can forgive each other,” Marape said.

“I am also offended, like some of you, but our national character is put to the test . . . and we must show the world that we can forgive those who offend us,” he added.

University students, stopped by police after marching halfway to Parliament, called for an explanation of the spending and for Justin Tkatchenko to resign.

‘Up to the people’
Across town, at the PNG Trade Union Congress office, the president of the Police Union Lowa Tambua went live on Facebook at a news conference demanding Tkatchenko’s resignation and the stripping of his citizenship.

“It is not up to the Prime Minister to ask us to forgive. It is a matter for the 10 million people of Papua New Guinea to decide,” Tambua said.

Part of the response people were demanding came in the form of a press conference late on Friday when Tktchenko announced he was stepping aside ahead of foreign state visits.

“I do not want to disturb this event. We have done all the hard work already,” he said.

“Now, it is the finalisation of the leaders arriving in the next coming days. For me to step aside is the right thing to do.

“So that we can clear the air and make sure that all these issues that have arose from misinformation, finally sorted out once and for all.”

No stranger to controversy
Justin Tktchenko, a naturalised citizen from Melbourne, Australia, and a former television host and former curator of the Port Moresby Botanical Gardens, is not a stranger to controversy.

In 2015, the opposition demanded an explanation over his involvement in a company owned by his family which had been awarded a US$7.6 million gardening contract for Port Moresby.

As Minister for APEC, in 2018, he came under fire for the purchase of 40 Maseratis costing taxpayers US$5.6 million.

The luxury cars, according to the PNG government, were meant for use by foreign dignitaries. None of them were ever used.

When publicly queried about whether the cars would be sold to recover the money, Tkatchenko famously said they would “sell like hot cakes”.

Prime Minister Marape will be standing in as foreign minister when President Biden, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pacific leaders arrive next week.

With Justin Tkatchenko temporarily on the sidelines, a dwindling number of critics are asking if the same energy expanded on a TikTok video and offensive comments will be sustained and refocused on the exorbitant spending by the London delegation.

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

Papua New Guinea’s airspace will be closed for four hours with tight security for when US President Joe Biden touches down in Port Moresby on May 22.

And there will be a “little bit of discomfort” or reorganisation of life in the nation’s capital and travel arrangements in and out of Port Moresby around the key dates from May 21 to 22.

Five hundred security men will be deployed to provide protection for the world’s most powerful leader, President Biden, and also visiting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Pacific leaders.

• READ MORE: Other US diplomacy reports

Papua New Guinea is prepared and ready to welcome the two leaders –– President Biden and Prime Minister Modi –– and the Pacific leaders when they jet in two weeks from now.

Prime Minister James Marape will be flanked by government’s top ranking security bosses and a high-level ministerial team — Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso, Internal Security Minister Peter Tsiamalili Jr, Defence Minister Win Daki, Treasurer Ian Ling-Stuckey and National Capital District (NCD) Governor Powes Parkop.

The PNG Joint Security Task Force operation will mount its operations leading up to the key dates.

Security forces, snipers, secret service and special forces from the US, India, Australia and New Zealand will also arrive in Port Moresby in the coming days –– specifically to protect their leaders.

Many US intelligence visits
“There have been many visits by US intelligence, US security forces in the last six months leading up to today and for the next two weeks,” Marape said.

“It is not as if James Marape and the President are talking and hiding, there are much more detailed work that has taken place at the policy level, the official level and security level — today is just a front and face,” Marape said.

“We will have more of these conversations with you media for the public to know [what is] going up for the next 11 or 12 days before the actual meeting to take place.

“In 4 or 5 days into the actual meeting, there will be a security operation and so we will engage and the public will be informed and Air Niugini travel slots, because when [the] US President comes in, for three or four hours the air space will be shut down.

“Just informing each and every one of you.

Informing over finer details
“We will be informing all of you on the finer details on what takes place, in Port Moresby, in our airspace, for our travel comfort, it’s no ordinary time so there will be a little bit of discomfort or reorganisation of life in the city and the travel in and out of Port Moresby and around those key dates.

“I know the nation will tolerate because I don’t know when we will have a visit of that magnitude –– two powerful world leaders coming here, back to back. So I ask our country, one of the core purpose of this meeting is to inform us that yes it is happening and we will be announcing how we will be adjusting life in the city, especially days leading up to the meeting and the hours in the actual days these meetings are taking place and the time we say farewell to them at the airport.

“A lot of preparation is required with and in the entire country and our residents of Port Moresby city.

“We are safe and secure, we have a precedent of hosting APEC; they came and went with no major security issues — and generally speaking Pacific people and PNG people are peaceful and tolerant, and they welcome visitors.

Marape said he have his assurance that for the entire country “we are safe, we will work to our best to ensure that leaders that are coming here are looked after safely”.

Gorethy Kenneth is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

A new study suggests that the news media’s tanking levels of public trust may be made worse merely by association with social media.

The study, released this month by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University, has exposed gaps between trust in news via conventional delivery and the same thing consumed via social media.

It doesn’t matter whether people use social media or not: Levels of trust is lower if they simply associate news with the platforms.

• READ MORE: The trust gap: how and why news on digital platforms is viewed more sceptically versus news in general

The gap varies between platforms and between countries but the overall finding is that levels of trust in news on social media, search engines, and messaging apps is consistently lower than audience trust in information in the news media more generally.

And our media is becoming more and more associated with social media.

Many of the country’s main news outlets have done deals with Google to appear on its Google News platform. Click on the app and you’ll see stories from Stuff, Newshub, New Zealand Herald and NewstalkZB, Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand, Newsroom, and the Otago Daily Times.

NZME has brokered a deal with Facebook for the use of content, and other publishers are using the Commerce Commission in the hope of leveling the negotiating playing field.

Split between north and south
The Reuters study (part of the institute’s on-going research into trust in the media) was a split between north and south. The four countries surveyed were the United Kingdom, the United States, India, and Brazil. Two thousand people were surveyed in each country and covered seven platforms: Facebook, Google, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, WhatsApp, and YouTube.

New Zealand use of social media more closely follows that of the United States and the United Kingdom than India and Brazil so the data relating to those two nations are quoted here. The full results can be found here.

Google showed the smallest gap between platform and general trust in news. It was only one percentage point behind in Britain where 53 percent express general trust in news. In the US, where the general trust level sits at 49 percent, Google was actually four percentage points ahead.

The same could not be said for other platforms.

To ease the calculation, we’ll say roughly 50 percent of respondents in both countries express trust in news in general. Contrast that with news on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, which score in the mid to high twenties.

TikTok news is trusted by only 20 percent on those surveyed, the same number as WhatsApp rates in the United States (the UK is higher on 29 percent).

Only YouTube emerged from the twenties, with its news content being rated by 33 percent in Britain and 40 percent in the United States.

Complex reasons
The reasons for these gaps in perception of news on social media are complex. This is due in part to the fact that social media serves many different purposes for many different users.

News is only a small part of the interchange that occurs. The study shows that no more than a third use Google or Facebook for daily access to news, with other platforms below 20 percent, and on TikTok only 11 percent.

Large portions of the public, in fact, do not use social media platforms at all (although this does not stop them having opinions about them in the survey). Usage varies between Britain and America but a quarter to a third never use Facebook, Google or YouTube and half to three quarters do not use the remaining platforms.

Previous Reuters research has shown levels of trust in news are higher in those who access it on a regular basis. Distrust is highest among those who have least contact with news and with social platforms. This is confirmed by the latest survey.

News organisations may take some comfort from the findings that young people are more trusting of news on social platforms than older people. The gap is huge in some cases.

An average 14 percent of Americans and Britons over 55 trust news on Facebook. That rises to 40 percent among those under 35. The gap for Google is similar and even greater on other platforms.

News aside, however, people have generally positive views of platforms. More than two-thirds give Google a tick and almost as many give the thumbs-up to YouTube. Both are seen as the best platforms on which learn new things.

Facebook doesn’t fare so well
Facebook does not fare quite so well but at 40-45 percent positive rating, while fewer than a third feel positively about Twitter and TikTok.

In spite of these warm fuzzies, however, the surveys reveal “big problems”, particularly with Facebook.

Almost two-thirds of respondents blame Facebook for propagating false or misleading information and it is also seen as the worst culprit in on-platform harassment, irresponsible use of personal data, prioritising political views, and censoring content.

Although opinions expressed by non-users has complicated the Reuters study, both users and no-users express similar views when it comes to these problems. For example, the proportion of Facebook users that say false or misleading information is a problem on the platform (63 percent) is virtually the same as those who say it is in the overall sample.

The study, which includes an even wider range of variables than are included here, attempts to correlate platform usage and ideas about journalism. After all, it is on such platforms — and from the mouths of some politicians — that users encounter discussions about journalism and criticism of journalists.

The survey asked specific questions about journalists. Half the respondents thought journalists try to manipulate the public to serve the agendas of powerful politicians and care more about getting attention than reporting the facts.

Forty percent thought journalists were careless in what they reported, and a slightly higher proportion thought they were only in it for the money.

Criticism of journalism
The researchers then attempted to identify where and how criticism of journalism is encountered. Twitter users are most likely to encounter it. In the United States almost half said they often see criticism of media there and the UK is not far behind.

More than 40 percent of Facebook and Google users in America encounter it and a third of British users of those two platforms say they see it there. Other (newer) platforms have even higher incidences.

So that is where the criticism of journalists is propagated, but who is doing the criticising? Almost half those surveyed in the United States pointed the finger at politicians and political parties, although a similar number also say the hear it from “ordinary people”.

The figures are slightly lower in the UK but around a third identify political or government sources.

The survey also asked whether other public figures were responsible for criticism of journalists. Celebrities and activists figure in around a third of responses but so, too, do journalists themselves.

The surveys also give some pointers about the relative importance of “clicks” or how much attention our newsrooms should give to real-time analytics. The answer is  . . . some.

Respondents were asked to pick the factors that were important in deciding whether they could trust information on online platforms. In both countries fewer than 40 percent said the number of likes or shares were important or very important.

Media source familiarity
Around half paid attention to comments on items but far more important was whether they had heard of the media source. Two thirds were influenced by the tone or language used in headlines and almost 60 percent were influenced by accompanying images.

That finding correlates with another in which respondents were asked who should be responsible for helping to differentiate between trustworthy and untrustworthy content on the internet.

More than two-thirds put that responsibility on media organisations, higher than on tech companies, and significantly higher than on government (although Britons were more inclined toward regulation than their American cousins).

However, if the research proved one thing, it was that the media/social media environment is deeply nuanced and manifests the complexities of human behaviour. The conclusions drawn by the researchers say as much. They leave a couple of important take-aways.

“As a trade-off for expanding reach and scale, newsrooms have often ceded considerable control to these outside companies in terms of how their content is distributed and how often and in what form their work appears on these services.

“Such relationships have been further strained as publishers become increasingly dependent on platforms to reach segments of the public least interested in consuming news through legacy modes, even as platforms themselves have pivoted to serving up other kinds of experiences farther removed from news, recognising that many of their most active users have less interest in such content, especially where politically contentious issues are involved.”

They say the gap they have identified is likely a reflection of this mismatch in audience perceptions about what platforms are for, the kinds of information they get when using the services, and how people think more generally about news media.

“It is possible that the main challenge for news organisations when it comes to building and sustaining audience trust is less about the specific problem of how their journalism is perceived when audiences encounter it online, and more about the broader problem of being seen at all.”

My conclusion
Years ago, we heard the term “News You Can Use” as a response to the challenge of declining newspaper circulation. That was a catchy way of saying “We must be relevant”. The Reuters study is further proof that journalism’s real challenge lies in producing content that ordinary people need to live their daily lives. If that means collating and publishing daily lists of what every supermarket chain is charging for milk, bread, cabbages and potatoes then so be it.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Zealand government’s immigration decisions amount to a “white immigration policy”, creating a two-tier system that will entrench inequities, claims the Green Party.

National and ACT are also critical of the moves announced by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and top ministers at a Business NZ lunch in Auckland today.

The new policy sees New Zealand’s border fully reopening at the end of July, with sector-specific agreements to support a shift away from lower-skilled migrant labour.

• READ MORE: Other NZ immigration reports

Green Party immigration spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March said it would entrench a two-tier system.

“The workers that we called essential throughout the pandemic, many will be missing out on genuine pathways to residency and we are narrowing down pathways to residency for those that we consider high-salary migrants. This will entrench inequities,” he said.

“There are really clear wage gaps along ethnic lines — we’re effectively encouraging specific countries to come and become residents whereas people from the Global South who will be coming here, working in low wage industries, with no certain path to residency.”

He was also concerned about the prospect of international students losing working rights after their studies, and the roughly 16,000 overstayers in New Zealand.

‘Feels like a white-immigration policy’
“When we contextualise that many of the students and workers on low wages are from India and the Philippines, it kinda feels like we are creating a white-immigration policy – whether intentionally or otherwise.

“We’re also missing stuff around an amnesty for overstayers as well as addressing issues around migrant exploitation … we’ve been told by the Productivity Commission and many groups that migrant workers need to have their wages decoupled from single employers.

“These are people who have been living here for quite some time, many who are doing really important work but unfortunately are being exploited. If we’re really serious about enhancing workers’ rights, an amnesty should have been part of the rebalance.”

The new immigration settings streamline the residency pathway for migrants either in “Green List” occupations or paid twice the median wage.

National’s immigration spokesperson Erica Stanford said the broad brush approach was lazy.

“They could be far more nuanced and actually have fair wage rates per industry, per region, but instead they’re taking the easy route and a broad brush approach.

“I think it’s based on an unfair assumption that migrant workers drive down wages which, by the way the Productivity Commission said actually doesn’t happen.”

Families ‘separated for too long’
ACT Party leader David Seymour said the border should be open right now and families have been separated for far too long.

“It’s not opening the border in July, it’s opening up applications in July,” he said.

“Immigration New Zealand says that it will be five months on average to process a visa. The reality is if you’re one of 14 percent of New Zealanders born in a non-visa waiver country then your non-resident family can’t visit this year.”

Businesses are relieved the border will fully open and many will attempt to attract migrant workers here.

Business New Zealand’s director of advocacy Catherine Beard said skills shortages were across the board.

“One of the top headaches that we hear everywhere from every sector is a shortage of talent so we really need to throw the welcome mat open to immigrants. We’re competing with other countries for this talent and it’s really hurting.”

NZ Wine Growers chief executive Phil Gregan said re-opening the border to holidaymakers and tourists was important.

“First, it’s a positive signal that we’re open for business. I think it’s also going to have very positive impacts on tourism, on hospitality and our business on wine reseller doors hopefully.”

The wine sector is reliant on seasonal workers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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