For 30 years, Filipino journalist Manny “Bok” Mogato covered the police and defence rounds, and everything from politics to foreign relations, sports, and entertainment, eventually bagging one of journalism’s top prizes — the Pulitzer in 2018, for his reporting on Duterte’s drug war along with two other Reuters correspondents, Andrew Marshall and Clare Baldwin.

For Mogato it was time for him to “write it all down,” and so he did, launching the autobiography It’s Me, Bok! Journeys in Journalism in October 2024.

Mogato told Rappler, he wanted to “write it all down before I forget and impart my knowledge to the youth, young journalists, so they won’t make the same mistakes that I did”.

• READ MORE: Killing as policy: Duterte’s bloody drug war that Marcos will inherit
• PHOTOESSAY: Buried in debt only to have their loved ones get a burial — Pacific Journalism Review
• Other Duterte war on drugs reports

His career has spanned many organisations, including the Journal group, The Manila Chronicle, The Manila Times, Japan’s Asahi Shimbun, and Rappler. Outside of journalism, he also serves as a consultant for Cignal TV.

Recently, we sat down with Mogato to talk about his career — a preview of what you might be able to read in his book — and pick out a few lessons for today’s journalists, as well as his views on the country today.

You’ve covered so many beats. Which beat did you enjoy covering most? 

Manny Mogato: The military. Technically, I was assigned to the military defence beat for only a few years, from 1987 to 1992. In early 1990, FVR (Fidel V. Ramos) was running for president, and I was made to cover his campaign.

When he won, I was assigned to cover the military, and I went back to the defence beat because I had so many friends there.

‘We faced several coups’
I really enjoyed it and still enjoy it because you go to places, to military camps. And then I also covered the defence beat at the most crucial and turbulent period in our history — when we faced several coups.

Rappler: You have mellowed through the years as a reporter. You chronicled in your book that when you were younger, you were learning the first two years about the police beat and then transferred to another publication.

How did your reporting style mellow, or did it grow? Did you become more curious or did you become less curious? Over the years as a reporter, did you become more or less interested in what was happening around you?

How would you describe your process then?

MM: Curiosity is the word I would use. So, from the start until now, I am still curious about things happening around me. Exciting things, interesting things.

But if you read the book, you’ll see I’ve mellowed a lot because I was very reckless during my younger days.

I would go on assignments without asking permission from my office. For instance, there was this hostage-taking incident in Zamboanga, where a policeman held hostages of several officers, including a general and a colonel.

So when I learned that, I volunteered to go without asking permission from my office. I only had 100 pesos (NZ$3) in my pocket. And so what I did, I saw the soldiers loading bullets into the boxes and I picked up one box and carried it.

Hostage crisis with one tee
So when the aircraft was already airborne, they found out I was there, and so I just sat somewhere, and I covered the hostage crisis for three to four days with only one T-shirt.

Reporters in Zamboanga were kind enough to lend me T-shirts. They also bought me underpants. I slept in the headquarters crisis. And then later, restaurants. Alavar is a very popular seafood restaurant in Zamboanga. I slept there. So when the crisis was over, I came back. At that time, the Chronicle and ABS-CBN were sister companies.

When I returned to Manila, my editor gave me a commendation — but looking back . . . I just had to get a story.

Rappler: So that is what drives you?

MM: Yes, I have to get the story. I will do this on my own. I have to be ahead of the others. In 1987, when a PAL flight to Baguio City crashed, killing all 50 people on board, including the crew and the passengers, I was sent by my office to Baguio to cover the incident.

But the crash site was in Benguet, in the mountains. So I went there to the mountains. And then the Igorots were in that area, living in that area.

I was with other reporters and mountaineering clubs. We decided to go back because we were surrounded by the Igorots [who made it difficult for us to do our jobs]. Luckily, the Lopezes had a helicopter and [we] were the first to take photos.

‘I saw the bad side of police’
Rappler: Why are military and defense your favourite beats to cover?

MM: I started my career in 1983/1984, as a police reporter. So I know my way around the police. And I have many good friends in the police. I saw the bad side of the police, the dark side, corruption, and everything.

I also saw the military in the most turbulent period of our history when I was assigned to the military. So I saw good guys, I saw terrible guys. I saw everything in the military, and I made friends with them. It’s exciting to cover the military, the insurgency, the NPAs (New People’s Army rebels), and the secessionist movement.

You have to gain the trust of the soldiers of your sources. And if you don’t have trust, writing a story is impossible; it becomes a motherhood statement. But if you go deeper, dig deeper, you make friends, they trust you, you get more stories, you get the inside story, you get the background story, you get the top secret stories.

Because I made good friends with senior officers during my time, they can show me confidential memorandums and confidential reports, and I write about them.

I have made friends with so many of these police and military men. It started when they were lieutenants, then majors, and then generals. We’d go out together, have dinner or some drinks somewhere, and discuss everything, and they will tell you some secrets.

Before, you’d get paid 50 pesos (NZ$1.50) as a journalist every week by the police. Eventually, I had to say no and avoid groups of people engaging in this corruption. Reuters wouldn’t have hired me if I’d continued.

Rappler: With everything that you have seen in your career, what do you think is the actual state of humanity? Because you’ve seen hideous things, I’m sure. And very corrupt things. What do you think of people? 

‘The Filipinos are selfish’
MM: Well, I can speak of the Filipino people. The Filipinos are selfish. They are only after their own welfare. There is no humanity in the Filipino mentality. They’re pulling each other down all the time.

I went on a trip with my family to Japan in 2018. My son left his sling bag on the Shinkansen. So we returned to the train station and said my son had left his bag there. The people at the train station told us that we could get the bag in Tokyo.

So we went to Tokyo and recovered the bag. Everything was intact, including my money, the password, everything.

So, there are crises, disasters, and ayuda (aid) in other places. And the people only get what they need, no? In the Philippines, that isn’t the case. So that’s humanity [here]. It isn’t very pleasant for us Filipinos.

Rappler: Is there anything good?

MM: Everyone was sharing during the EDSA Revolution, sharing stories, and sharing everything. They forgot themselves. And they acted as a community known against Marcos in 1986. That is very telling and redeeming. But after that… [I can’t think of anything else that is good.]

Rappler: What is the one story you are particularly fond of that you did or something you like or are proud of? 

War on drugs, and typhoon Yolanda
MM: On drugs, my contribution to the Reuters series, and my police stories. Also, typhoon Yolanda in 2013. We left Manila on November 9, a day after the typhoon. We brought much equipment — generator sets, big cameras, food supply, everything.

But the thing is, you have to travel light. There are relief goods for the victims and other needs. When we arrived at the airport, we were shocked. Everything was destroyed. So we had to stay in the airport for the night and sleep.

We slept under the rain the entire time for the next three days. Upon arrival at the airport, we interviewed the police regional commander. Our report, I think, moved the international community to respond to the extended damage and casualties. My report that 10,000 people had died was nominated for the Society Publishers in Asia in Hong Kong.

Every day, we had to walk from the airport eight to 10 kilometers away, and along the way, we saw the people who were living outside their homes. And there was looting all over.

Rappler: There is a part in your book where you mentioned the corruption of journalists, right? And reporters. What do you mean by corruption? 

MM: Simple tokens are okay to accept. When I was with Reuters, its gift policy was that you could only accept gifts as much as $50. Anything more than $50 is already a bribe. There are things that you can buy on your own, things you can afford. Other publications, like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Associated Press [nes agency], have a $0 gift policy. We have this gift-giving culture in our culture. It’s Oriental.

If you can pay your own way, you should do it.

Rappler: Tell us more about winning the Pulitzer Prize.

Most winners are American, American issues
MM: I did not expect to win this American-centric award. Most of the winners are Americans and American stories, American issues. But it so happened this was international reporting. There were so many other stories that were worth the win.

The story is about the Philippines and the drug war. And we didn’t expect a lot of interest in that kind of story. So perhaps we were just lucky that we were awarded the Pulitzer Prize. In the Society of Publishers in Asia, in Hong Kong, the same stories were also nominated for investigative journalism. So we were not expecting that Pulitzer would pay attention.

The idea of the drug war was not the work of only three people: Andrew Marshal, Clare Baldwin and me. No, it was a team effort.

Rappler: What was your specific contribution?

MM: Andrew and Clare were immersed in different communities in Manila, Tondo, and Navotas City, interviewing victims and families and everybody, everyone else. On the other hand, my role was on the police.

I got the police comments and official police comments and also talked to police sources who would give us the inside story — the inside story of the drug war. So I have a good friend, a retired police general who was from the intelligence service, and he knew all about this drug war — mechanics, plan, reward system, and everything that they were doing. So, he reported about the drug war.

The actual drug war was what the late General Rodolfo Mendoza said was a ruse because Duterte was protecting his own drug cartel.

Bishops wanted to find out
He had a report made for Catholic bishops. There was a plenary in January 2017, and the bishops wanted to find out. So he made the report. His report was based on 17 active police officers who are still in active service. So when he gave me this report, I showed it to my editors.

My editor said: “Oh, this is good. This is a good guide for our story.” He got this information from the police sources — subordinates, those who were formerly working for him, gave him the information.

So it was hearsay, you know. So my editor said: “Why can’t you convince him to introduce us to the real people involved in the drug war?”

So, the general and I had several interviews. Usually, our interviews lasted until early morning. Father [Romeo] Intengan facilitated the interview. He was there to help us. At the same time, he was the one serving us coffee and biscuits all throughout the night.

So finally, after, I think, two or three meetings, he agreed that he would introduce us to police officers. So we interviewed the police captain who was really involved in the killings, and in the operation, and in the drug war.

So we got a lot of information from him. The info went not only to one story but several other stories.

He was saying it was also the police who were doing it.

Rappler: Wrapping up — what do you think of the Philippines?

‘Duterte was the worst’
MM: The Philippines under former President Duterte was the worst I’ve seen. Worse than under former President Ferdinand Marcos. People were saying Marcos was the worst president because of martial law. He closed down the media, abolished Congress, and ruled by decree.

I think more than 3000 people died, and 10,000 were tortured and jailed.

But in three to six years under Duterte, more than 30,000 people died. No, he didn’t impose martial law, but there was a de facto martial law. The anti-terrorism law was very harsh, and he closed down ABS-CBN television.

It had a chilling effect on all media organisations. So, the effect was the same as what Marcos did in 1972.

We thought that Marcos Jr would become another Duterte because they were allies. And we felt that he would follow the policies of President Duterte, but it turned out he’s much better.

Well, everything after Duterte is good. Because he set the bar so low.

Everything is rosy — even if Marcos is not doing enough because the economy is terrible. Inflation is high, unemployment is high, foreign direct investments are down, and the peso is almost 60 to a dollar.

Praised over West Philippine Sea
However, the people still praise Marcos for his actions in the West Philippine Sea. I think the people love him for that. And the number of killings in the drug war has gone down.

There are still killings, but the number has really gone so low, I would say about 300 in the first two years.

Rappler: Why did you write your book, It’s Me, Bok! Journeys in Journalism?

MM:  I have been writing snippets of my experiences on Facebook. Many friends were saying, ‘Why don’t you write a book?’ including Secretary [of National Defense] Gilberto Teodoro, who was fond of reading my snippets.

In my early days, I was reckless as a reporter. I don’t want the younger reporters to do that. And no story is worth writing if you are risking your life.

I want to leave behind a legacy, and I know that my memory will fail me sooner rather than later. It took me only three months to write the book.

It’s very raw. There will be a second printing. I want to polish the book and expand some of the events.

Republished with permission from Rappler.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! As we continue our discussion of President Jimmy Carter’s legacy, we look at his policies in the Middle East and North Africa, in particular, Israel and Palestine.

On Thursday during the state funeral in Washington, President Carter’s former adviser Stuart Eizenstat praised Carter’s work on facilitating the Camp David Peace Accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978.

STUART EIZENSTAT: Jimmy Carter’s most lasting achievement, and the one I think he was most proud of, was to bring the first peace to the Middle East through the greatest act of personal diplomacy in American history, the Camp David Accords.

For 13 days and nights, he negotiated with Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, personally drafting more than 20 peace proposals and shuttling them between the Israeli and Egyptian delegations.

And he saved the agreement at the 11th hour — and it was the 11th hour — by appealing to Begin’s love of his grandchildren.

For the past 45 years, the Egypt-Israel peace treaty has never been violated and laid the foundation for the Abraham Accords.

AMY GOODMAN: The Abraham Accords are the bilateral normalisation agreements between Israel and, as well, the United Arab Emirates, and Israel and Bahrain, signed in 2020.

In 2006, years after he left office, Jimmy Carter wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which he compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s former racist regime.

It was striking for a former US president to use the words “Palestine,” let alone “apartheid,” in referring to the Occupied Territories. I went down to The Carter Center to speak with President Jimmy Carter about the controversy around his book and what he wanted the world to understand.

JIMMY CARTER: The word “apartheid” is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that’s occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated.

The Palestinians can’t even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory.

The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers.

So, within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of “apartheid” is, one side dominates the other.

And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.

AMY GOODMAN: Why don’t Americans know what you have seen?

JIMMY CARTER: Americans don’t want to know and many Israelis don’t want to know what is going on inside Palestine.

It’s a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land.

I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries, or to publicise the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good-faith peace talks.

There hasn’t been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out as I’ve just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.

AMY GOODMAN: President Jimmy Carter. To see that whole interview we did at The Carter Center, you can go to democracynow.org.

For more on his legacy in the Middle East during his presidency and beyond, we’re joined in London by historian Seth Anziska, professor of Jewish-Muslim relations at University College London, author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo.

What should we understand about the legacy of President Carter, Professor Anziska?

Late former US President Jimmy Carter’s opposition to Israeli apartheid. Video: Democracy Now!

SETH ANZISKA: Well, thank you, Amy.

I think, primarily, the biggest lesson is that when he came into office, he was the first US president to talk about the idea of a Palestinian homeland, alongside his commitment to Israeli security. And that was an enormous change from what had come before and what’s come since.

And I think that the way we understand Carter’s legacy should very much be oriented around the very deep commitment he had to justice and a resolution of the Palestinian question, alongside his commitment to Israel, which derived very much from his Southern Baptist faith.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about the whole trajectory. Talk about the Camp David Accords, for which he was hailed throughout the various funeral services this week and has been hailed in many places around the world.

SETH ANZISKA: Well, I think one of the biggest misunderstandings about the legacy of Camp David is that this is not at all what Carter had intended or had hoped for when he came into office. He actually had a much more comprehensive vision of peace in the Middle East, that included a resolution of the Palestinian component, but also peace with Syria, with Jordan.

And he came up with some of these ideas, developed them with Cyrus Vance, the secretary of state, and Zbigniew Brzeziński, his national security adviser. And in developing those ideas, which came out in 1977 in a very closely held memo that was not widely shared inside the administration, he actually talked about return of refugees, he talked about the status of Jerusalem, and he desired very much to think about the different components of the regional settlement as part of an overall vision.

This was in contrast to Henry Kissinger’s attitude of piecemeal diplomacy that had preceded him in the aftermath of the 1973 war. So we can understand Carter in this way very much as a departure and somebody who understood the value and the necessity of contending with these much broader regional dynamics.

Now, the reasons why this ended up with a far more limited, but very significant, bilateral peace treaty between Egypt and Israel had a lot to do both with the election of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977, as well as the position of Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and also the role of the Palestinians and the PLO.

But what people don’t quite recall or understand is that Camp David and the agreement towards the peace treaty was in many ways a compromise or, in Brzeziński’s view, was a real departure from what had been the intention.

And that gap between what people had hoped for within the administration and what ended up emerging in 1979 with the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty also was tethered very much to the perpetuation of Palestinian statelessness. So, if we want to understand why and how Palestinians have been deprived of sovereignty or remain stateless to this day, we have to go back to think about the impact of Camp David itself.

AMY GOODMAN: Interesting that Sadat would be assassinated years later in Egypt when Carter was on the plane with Nixon and Ford. That’s when they say that cemented his relationship with Ford, while they hardly talked to Nixon at all.

But if you could also comment on President Carter and post-President Carter? I mean, the fact that he wrote this book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, using the word “Palestine,” using the word “apartheid,” to refer to the Occupied Territories — I remember chasing him down the hall at the Democratic convention when he was supposed to speak. This was the Obama Democratic convention. And it ended up he didn’t speak. And I chased him and Rosalynn, because . . .

SETH ANZISKA: Remember that in 1977, there was a very famous speech that he gave in Clinton, Massachusetts, talking about a Palestinian homeland. And that raised huge hackles, both in the American Jewish community among American Jewish leaders who were very uncomfortable and were already distrustful of a Southern Democrat and his views on Israel, but also Cold War conservatives, who were quite hawkish and felt that he was far too close to engaging with the Soviet Union.

And so, both of those constituencies were very, very opposed to his attitude and his approach on the Palestinian issue. And I think we can see echoes of that in how he then was treated after his presidency, when much of his activism and much of his engagement on the question of Palestine, to my view, derived from a sense of frustration and regret about what he was not able to achieve in the Camp David Accords.

And his commitment stemmed from the same values that he had been shaped by early on, a sense of viewing the Palestinian issue through the same lens as civil rights, in the same lens as what he experienced in the South, which is often, what his biographers have explained, where his views and approach towards the Palestinians came from, but also a particularly close relationship to biblical views around Israel and Zionism, that he was very much committed to Israeli security as a result.

And that was never something that he let go of, even if you look closely at his work in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Some of his views on Israel are actually quite closely aligned with positions that many in the Jewish community would feel comfortable with.

The fact that people criticised and attacked him for that, I think, speaks to the taboo of talking about what’s happening or what has happened, in the context of Israel and Palestine, in the same kind of language as disenfranchisement around race in apartheid South Africa.

And, of course, as Carter said in the interview you just ran that you had done with him when the book came out, the situation is far worse in actuality with what is happening vis-à-vis Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Seth Anziska, I want to thank you so much for being with us, professor of Jewish-Muslim relations at University College London, author of Preventing Palestine: A Political History from Camp David to Oslo, speaking to us from London.

This transcript article was originally published by Democracy Now! and is republished here  under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

We turn to Israel’s war on Gaza. A special UN committee has reported Israel’s actions in Gaza are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide”. Another report by Human Rights Watch finds Israel has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity through its mass forced displacement of Gaza’s civilians.

This comes as the Biden administration has decided to continue arming Israel, even though aid groups say Israel has failed to meet a US-imposed 30-day deadline to increase the flow of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza.

We go now to Deir al-Balah in Gaza, where we’re joined by Arwa Damon, founder of INARA, a nonprofit currently providing medical and mental healthcare to children in Gaza. She previously spent 18 years at CNN, including time as a senior international correspondent.

Thanks so much for being with us, Arwa. This is your fourth trip back to Gaza since October 7, 2023. Tell us what you see there:

ARWA DAMON: You know, Amy, you think you can’t get worse, and then it does. You think people, quite simply, could never cope with these deteriorating conditions, and yet somehow they do. It’s a situation that they have been forced into.

Arguably, the conditions when it comes to access of humanitarian organisations and our ability to distribute aid, aid actually getting into the strip, we’re talking about the lowest levels yet. And this is exactly during the timeframe that the US had given to Israel to actually improve the situation. We’ve seen it getting significantly worse.

We’re not just talking about a shortage in things like flour, food, water, fresh vegetables, you know, hygiene kits. We’re also talking about shortages in what’s available on the commercial market. So, even if you somehow had money to be able to go buy what you need, it quite simply isn’t here.

These hospitals that we keep talking about as being partially functioning, what does that actually mean? It means that if you show up bleeding, someone inside is going to try to stop the bleed, but do they actually have what they need to save your life? No. I was inside visiting some kids here at Al-Aqsa earlier today and over the weekend.

There’s a little 2-year-old boy here whose brain you can see pulsing through his skin. His skull bone was removed. This little boy was not stabilising properly because the ICU was missing a pediatric-sized tracheostomy tube. Now, luckily, we were able to, you know, source some of them, and he has now stabilised, and he is off the ventilator.

Palestinians feel they are being ‘slowly exterminated’. Video: Democracy Now!

But this really gives you an idea of just how serious the situation here is.

People are gathering to demonstrate for things like flour, for bread, for whatever it is that you can imagine. Winter is coming. The rains are coming. This means flooding is coming.

And on top of just, you know, water flooding, we’re also anticipating that the sewage sites are going to be flooding, as well. Aid organizations need to be able to have the capacity and the ability to, you know, shift those sites to areas where they’re not going to pose even more of a health hazard to the community.

So, I mean, it’s a complete and total nightmare. It’s beyond being a nightmare.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk about this latest report? The special UN committee says Israel’s actions in Gaza are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide,” coming at the same time as a Human Rights Watch report, and UNRWA talks about famine being imminent in northern Gaza.

ARWA DAMON: So, if we’re talking specifically about the north, the northern province of Gaza, this is an area where Israel launched its military operation there nearly four weeks ago. We have seen people repeatedly being forcibly displaced from their homes. There is very little access to medical assistance there.

There has been absolutely no humanitarian assistance delivered there for about the last month. People are starving. They are dying. And it’s not just bombs that are killing people, it’s also disease.

‘Bombs kill quickly, but disease and starvation, they are slow killers. And that is what a lot of people are facing here.’

— Arwa Damon, founder of INARA,

So, when we look at the nature of what is happening in Gaza, you can’t spend a day here, Amy, and not come away with the notion that you are witnessing a population that is being slowly exterminated. And I say “slowly” because, yes, bombs kill quickly, but disease and starvation, they are slow killers. And that is what a lot of people are facing here.

And talk to anybody in Gaza, and there’s absolutely no doubt in their mind that, one, they are living through their own annihilation, and, two, what Israel is doing in the northern part is going to be repeated elsewhere.

And this is also part of why you see a reluctance among the population to want to evacuate, because Gazans know, Palestinians know that when they leave, they’re not going to be able to go back home. This is what history has taught them.

And there is this very real, ingrained fear among the population here right now that what they’re going through at this moment is not the end. There is actually a real sense that the worst is yet to come.

And they feel completely and totally abandoned by the international community, by global leaders, not to mention the United States. And everyone is convinced that right now Israel is going to have even more free rein to do whatever it is that it wants here.

When you talk to people about what it is that they’re going through, they do feel as if every single aspect of trying to survive here has been carefully orchestrated by Israel so that it is able to sort of meet America’s bare minimum of standards, to allow America sufficient cover to say, “Oh, no, there’s improvement that’s happening.”

And yet, actually, at the core of it is just another way to continue to kill the population.

AMY GOODMAN: And as you talk about the United States, which has given tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, they did recently set a 30-day deadline to increase the flow of food and humanitarian aid into Gaza, but the US has decided to keep arming Israel despite this and despite the number of officials in the State Department and other parts of the US government who have quit over this.

ARWA DAMON: Yeah, and let’s just look at the numbers. Let’s just look at what happened when the US started the clock for that 30-day deadline to improve humanitarian assistance. We saw, very shortly afterwards, the number of trucks accessing Gaza dip significantly, down to 30 a day, keeping in mind that one of the key demands that the US had was that aid be increased to at least 350 trucks.

So we saw this, you know, decrease consistent of roughly 30 trucks a day for most of the month of October. Now, in November, that number did go up to around 60-70, but we’re still talking about, you know, falling extraordinarily short, providing barely 20% of what it is that the population here needs.

We saw less access to these besieged areas in the north, where people are effectively trapped or having to basically risk their lives. We’ve had numerous instances where aid has been delivered to the Kamal Adwan Hospital in the north, for example, where, shortly after medical evacuation teams have arrived there, there have been strikes.

You have this very ingrained fear that exists among people right now, especially in the north, where some of them are saying, “Don’t deliver anything, because right after you’re delivering, strikes are happening.”

And just to illustrate how it is that we try to move, so if we’re moving from south to north, for example, or even if we’re moving within the northern areas, those movement requests have to be approved by Israel. And aid organisations are increasingly wary of moving around with what we call soft-skin cars, which is basically your normal vehicle that we use to move around in, because of the increasing frequency of instances at Israeli checkpoints where aid convoys have been shot at by IDF troops after receiving the green light.

The OK to cross through, which means that for a lot of aid organizations, movement is limited to those who have access to armoured vehicles, vehicles that are more secure. And those don’t really exist in Gaza in high numbers at all. And we’re not allowed to bring in more to sort of beef up our capacity to be able to move around safely.

I mean, no matter which way you look at it, Amy, you’re constantly faced by numerous obstacles that don’t need to be there. It feels very deliberate, not to mention the complete and total breakdown of security. Now we have numerous looting instances of aid trucks.

We’ve repeatedly asked the Israeli side to be able to use alternative routes, to be able to use secured routes. Those requests are not being met.

I mean, it’s just — it’s such an impossible situation to operate in. I feel like I keep saying the same thing over and over and over again each time I come in. And the words to demonstrate how much worse it’s getting, quite simply, lack in our vocabulary.

AMY GOODMAN: You also wrote a piece recently, “The Devastation of Lebanon,” for New Lines. And we had this headline, The Washington Post reporting a close aide to Netanyahu told Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner that Israel is rushing to advance a ceasefire deal in Lebanon as a gift to Trump ahead of his January inauguration. Your response to the significance of Trump’s election and what it means to the people of Lebanon and Gaza?

ARWA DAMON: You know, first of all, anyone who lives in the Middle East and anyone who’s kind of been focusing on the Middle East knows very well that it really doesn’t matter who’s in the White House. Whether it’s Republican or Democrat, that really is not going to change significantly US policy towards this region.

But the thing that we’ve been hearing, specifically when it comes to the re-election of Donald Trump, is at least he’s not lying to us. At least whatever America is going to let Israel do, it’s going to be done faster. So, if our end is coming, at least it’s going to come faster.

Whereas when it comes to, you know, specifically the Biden administration, the sense is that the Democrats are far more willing to allow this slower, more painful death. But the end result, no matter who it is, people are fully convinced, is exactly the same.

And all people really want right now is for this to end. People are suffocated. They’re crushed. They cannot keep going like this. And they very much feel as if, you know, no matter what it is, no matter who it is, Arabs are viewed by the United States and by the Western world as somehow being less than . . . their lives are not that valuable.

You constantly hear people in Gaza — and we were hearing the same thing in Lebanon — making comments like, “Well, you know, America, it doesn’t care if we live or die. It doesn’t care how much we suffer. Our lives don’t matter to them.” And that is not really a perspective that changes all that much, no matter who is sitting in Washington.

AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, Arwa. Why did you give up journalism for humanitarian work? What do you think you can accomplish at INARA that you couldn’t do as a journalist?

ARWA DAMON: There’s a certain sort of privilege of being able to spend extensive periods of time with people and really get to know who they are. And I feel as if, you know, moving around in the humanitarian sphere, I’m getting a different understanding of sort of people’s emotional journeys, what it actually takes to be able to provide them with assistance.

And it’s provided me a different way of being able to continue to sort of share people’s stories and experiences, but also be able to immediately at least try to provide assistance. You know, the challenge that we have when we’re out in the field as journalists is that you don’t always see the impact.

But when you’re in the humanitarian space, there’s a certain kind of magic when you’re able to just bring a smile to a child’s face. And I needed that.

AMY GOODMAN: Arwa Damon, we thank you so much for being with us. Stay safe. An award-winning journalist, she was with CNN for 18 years but now has founded INARA, a nonprofit currently providing medical and mental healthcare to children in Gaza, speaking to us from Deir al-Balah in Gaza outside Al-Aqsa Hospital.

This article is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

A group of 32 civil society organisations is writing to the French President Emmanuel Macron calling on him to change his stance toward the indigenous people of New Caledonia.

The group said it strongly supported the call by the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) and other pro-independence groups that only a non-violent response to the crisis will lead to a viable solution.

And it said President Macron must heed the call for an Eminent Persons Group to ensure the current crisis is resolved peacefully and impartiality is restored to the decolonisation process.

• READ MORE:  France’s snap election: what happened, why, and what’s next?
• Far right surges in EU vote, topping polls in Germany, France, Austria
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

Don Wiseman spoke with Joey Tau, of the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), one of the civil society bodies involved.

Joey Tau: Don, I just want to thank you for this opportunity, but also it is to really highlight France’s and, in this case, the Macron administration’s inability of fulfilling the Nouméa Accord in our statements, in our numerous statements, and you would have seen statements from around the region — there have been numerous events or incidents that have led to where Kanaky New Caledonia is at in its present state, with the Kanaks themselves not happy with where they’re headed to, in terms of negotiating a pathway with Paris.

You understand the referendums — three votes went ahead, or rather, the third vote went ahead, during a time when the world was going through a global pandemic. And the Kanaks had clearly, prior to the third referendum, called on Paris to halt, but yet France went ahead and imposed a third referendum.

Thus, the Kanaks boycotted the third referendum. All of these have just led up to where the current tension is right now.

The recent electoral proposal by France is a slap for Kanaks, who have been negotiating, trying to find a path. So in general, the concern that Pacific regional NGOs and civil societies not only in the Pacific, but at the national level in the Pacific, are concerned about France’s ongoing attempt to administer Kanaky New Caledonia [and] its inability to fulfill the Nouméa Accord.

Don Wiseman: In terms of stopping the violence and opening the dialogue, the problem I suppose a lot of people in New Caledonia and the French government itself might argue is that Kanaks have been heavily involved in quite a lot of violence that’s gone down in the last few weeks. So how do you square that?

JT: It has been growing, it has been a growing tension, Don, that this is not to ignore the growing military presence and the security personnel build up. You had roughly about 3000 military personnel or security personnel deployed in Nouméa on in Kanaky within two weeks, I think . . .

DW: Yes, but businesses were being burned down, houses were being burned down.

JT: Well as regional civil societies we condemn all forms of violence, and thus we have been calling for peaceful means of restoring peace talks, but this is not to ignore the fact that there is a growing military buildup. The ongoing military buildup needs to be also carefully looked at as it continues to instigate tension on the ground, limiting people, limiting the indigenous peoples movements.

And it just brings you back to, you know, the similar riots that had [in the 1980s] before New Caledonia came to an accord, as per the Nouméa Accord. It’s history replaying itself. So like I said earlier on, it generally highlights France’s inability to hold peace talks for the pathway forward for Kanaky/New Caledonia.

In this PR statement we’ve been calling on that we need neutral parties — we need a high eminence group of neutral people to facilitate the peace talks between Kanaks and France.

DW: So this eminent persons to be drawn from who and where?

JT: Well the UNC 24 committee meets [this] week. We are calling on the UN to initiate a high eminence persons but this is to facilitate these together with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. Have independent Pacific leaders intervene and facilitate peace talks between both the Kanak pro=independence leaders and of course Macron and his administration.

DW: So you will be looking for the Eminent Persons group perhaps to be centrally involved in drawing up a new accord to replace the Nouméa Accord?

JT: Well, I think as per the Nouméa Accord the Kanaks have been trying to negotiate the next phase, post the referendum. And I think this has sparked the current situation. So the civil societies’ call very much supports concerns on the ground who are willing, who are asking for experts or neutral persons from the region and internationally to intervene.

And this could help facilitate a path forward between both parties. Should it be an accord or should it be the next phase? But we also have to remember New Caledonia Kanaky is on the list of the Committee of 24 which is the UN committee that is listed for decolonisation.

So how do we progress a territory? I guess the question for France is how do they progress the territory that is listed to be decolonised, post these recent events, post the referendum and it has to be now.

DW: Joey, you are currently at the Pacific Arts Festival in Hawai’i. There’s a lot of the Pacific there. Have issues like New Caledonia come up?

JT: The opening ceremony, which launches [the] two-week long festival saw a different turn to it, where we had flags representing Kanaky New Caledonia, West Papua, flying so high at this opening ceremony. You had the delegation of Guam, who, in their grand entrance brought the Kanaky flag with them — a sense of solidarity.

And when Fiji took the podium, it acknowledged countries and Pacific peoples that are not there to celebrate, rightfully.

Fiji had acknowledged West Papua, New Caledonia, among others, and you can see a sense of regional solidarity and this growing consciousness as to the wider Pacific family when it comes to arts, culture and our way of being.

So yeah, the opening ceremony was interesting, but it will be interesting to see how the festival pans out and how issues of the territories that are still under colonial administration get featured or get acknowledged within the festival — be it fashion, arts, dance, music, it’s going to be a really interesting feeling.

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

After 21 years, Radio New Zealand’s Kim Hill has hosted Saturday Morning for the final time.

In the final hour of the show on Saturday, the beloved broadcaster chatted to long-time colleague Bryan Crump about some of her favourite songs.

Like many former Saturday Morning guests, Kim found it difficult to select just a handful of songs for the regular segment “Playing Favourites”.

“Because I love so much music,” she told Bryan.

• WATCH: Kim Hill’s final Saturday Morning show

Born Fiona Anderson Hill in Shropshire, UK, the broadcaster who was to become known as Kim Hill moved with her family to Ōtorohanga at 15.

“I was a posh white kid and I didnt know one end of a basketball from the other.”

As a teenager in the North Island town, she enjoyed sunbathing in a mixture of olive oil and vinegar, eating feijoas and sneaking out with her new friend Colleen Mcleod who happened to live downstairs.

“I would go out my door, having said goodnight to my parents, and I would go down to Colleen’s house and we would go out on the town. We’d go round with boys in V8s, around the Tron.”

‘Mad Men’ parenting
In those days, the parenting on offer was “very sort of Mad Men“, Kim says.

“My father had a shotgun that he once greeted me at the door with when a boy dropped me off. That was his idea of humour. Honestly, I’ve never seen anybody go so white.”

While picking raspberries with Colleen in Tapawera one summer, Fiona decided to change her name to ‘Kim’ and Colleen changed hers to ‘Lee’.

Yet after Kim’s family moved to another town, she lost touch with the “staunch” friend she describes as “my protector and my coming-of-age facilitator”.

“If she’s out there and anybody knows Colleen Mcleod, born Ōtorohanga, brother called ‘Sniggs’, she needs to be told how important she was to me, she was massive.”

After high school, Kim worked at various jobs including a Christchurch massage lounge, which she knows sounds “very dodgy” but wasn’t.

“They had little curtained cubicles and I would have known if something untoward was going on. Nothing untoward ever went on, strange as that sounds.”

Key programmes
After completing a post-grad journalism course at Canterbury University, Kim first joined RNZ in 1985, later presenting key programmes, including Nine to Noon and Morning Report.

Her punchy and penetrating interviewing style has not been without critics, she says.

The British writer Tony Parsons, who hung up on Kim during an interview before saying “You’ve got your head up your arse”, and New Zealand journalist Karl du Fresne, who once called her “dominatrix”, come to mind.

“[du Fresne] hated me because I hadn’t given a very nice interview with [former Australian prime minister] John Howard and also I say ‘filum’ [an Irish pronunciation of the ‘film’] … Because he criticised me saying ‘filum’, I’ve never been able to stop in case he thinks he’s won.

“So I do it all the time now.”

Her favourite interviewees include the late New Zealand scientist Paul Callaghan who she describes as a “genius”. (Kim spoke to Paul Callaghan in 2009 and 2014.)

“He knew so much but he was still awestruck by it . . . He was not fazed by not understanding. It fascinated him that things were so complex and he was able to make them so simple.”

North Carolina musician and author John Darnielle of the indie rock band Mountain Goats is another of her favourites: “He’s so clever and a very good writer … I love him.”

Kim Hill: The Jim Mora interview
“There is nobody who fails to be interesting”https://t.co/HhIBsSYZWO

— RNZ Sunday Morning with Jim Mora (@RNZSunday) November 25, 2023

More RNZ work
In 2024, Kim Hill will continue to do some work for RNZ, chief executive Paul Thompson recently told Checkpoint.

She concluded her final Saturday Morning show with the following message:

“I am very very grateful to Radio New Zealand and to the producers and to the listeners. I have been privileged and enriched by doing this programme. It’s been absolutely wonderful.

“This is my happy place — Saturday mornings in the studio, hearing from people who are enjoying it. And I’m not dying. I’ll be around doing something in the future. Thank you all so much. Thank you.”

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

Auckland mayor Wayne Brown is under fire for calling New Zealand journalists “drongos”, blaming them for having to cancel a round of tennis with friends on Sunday as the city dealt with the aftermath of record rainfall and flooding that left four dead.

It comes after widespread criticism of his handling of the disaster, including being slow to declare a state of emergency on Friday night and a combative, testy media conference on Saturday.

A producer for MediaWorks news station Today FM on Saturday said Brown turned down an interview on Friday morning because he wanted to play tennis instead.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘I’m talking to you now, I’ll talk to you at any time’ – Auckland deputy mayor Desley Simpson
• Other Asia Pacific Reports on the North Island floods

WhatsApp messages leaked to The New Zealand Herald showed rain got in the way, with Brown telling friends on Saturday morning it was “pissing down so no tennis”. Despite being freed up, the interview did not go ahead.

And on Saturday night, Brown told the WhatsApp group — known as ‘The Grumpy Old Men’ — he couldn’t play on Sunday either because “I’ve got to deal with media drongos over the flooding”.

Brown asked the Herald not to write a story about the messages, calling them a “private conversation aimed at giving a reason to miss tennis”.

“There is no need to exacerbate a situation which is not about me but about getting things right for the public and especially those in need and in danger.”

He also turned down Morning Report‘s request to appear on the show on Tuesday morning. His deputy, Desley Simpson, did call in — saying she was “happy to talk to you at any time”.

“My understanding is the mayor is on the ground, and has been over the weekend,” she said, not directly addressing criticism he wasn’t communicating effectively.

“I think as his deputy I am more than happy to do that role. I’m talking to you now, I’ll talk to you at any time. That’s my commitment to you and to Auckland.”

Asked if it was acceptable to call journalists “drongos”, Simpson again avoided the question.

“Media play an important part, in my opinion, in helping get our message out. I really appreciate talking to you this morning so that we can inform Aucklanders what they need to do to be prepared for the storm . . .

“My focus, and I think all local boards and other councillors — and the mayor — our focus is making sure that Auckland is prepared for this afternoon and this evening. It’s going to be a rough 24 hours, and I really appreciate you helping us get this message out.”

She then said she had not seen Brown’s texts, she had been busy “getting myself ready this morning with emergency services and stuff for this afternoon”.

The region north of Auckland’s Orewa is under an unprecedented “red” rain warning, while the rest of the city to the south is at orange.

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

Appreciated the chance to speak with @abcnews about the resilience and generosity of so many in the community supporting whanau during these distressing times. The local leadership on show has been magnificent. pic.twitter.com/PJ4hItwjxx

— Efeso Collins (@efesocollins) January 30, 2023

The Media Association of Solomon Islands (Masi) has called on the police to respect journalists and media workers when carrying out their work in a public space after officers harassed two media people trying to film the prime minister, reports the Solomon Star.

Masi said in a statement that the incident happened at the National Parliament precinct this week when police confronted two members of the press, asking them not to film Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare on his arrival.

Masi president Georgina Kekea said Solomon Islands was a democratic country and freedom of the press was guaranteed under article 12 of the Constitution.

• READ MORE: Other reports on press freedom in Solomon Islands

She said Sogavare was a public figure and the incident happened when he was carrying out his duty as a parliamentarian and prime minister of his country.

Masi was surprised to hear of the incident and Kekea said it was hoped that it was just a mistake by the police.

“If the press are not allowed to carry out their duties without fear or intimidation, then we are doomed as a democratic country,” Kekea said.

“There are different roles that each of us play in society and the police must respect this.

“Had the incident occurred at the prime minister’s private residence, then it should be a concern for his Close Personal Protection team.

‘A national duty’
“However, this incident occurred just in the Parliament precinct where he was on his way to carry out a national duty. This should not be an issue at all,” the Masi president said.

Kekea said members of the press were “not the enemy” and should not be treated as such either. She said journalists were doing their jobs just like any other profession.

“Our job is to gather information through interviews, filming and of course we write news pieces and present them to the public. I know there are instances where a few articles published by the press are deemed irresponsible.

“This however should not be the reason to restrict journalists or members of the press from doing their job.

“If the police or the government is concerned about such articles being a threat to national security, they should work on improving or developing effective communication strategies.”

Kekea said the action by the police showed a lack of understanding of the work of journalists and the role of the media.

My name is Muzhgan Samarqandi and I am from Baghlan, Afghanistan, but living in New Zealand with my Kiwi husband and our son. Like Charlotte Bellis, I too was a broadcaster in Afghanistan, back when this was possible for a woman without being a foreigner.

As a mother, my heart goes out to Charlotte, and I sincerely hope she and her partner get to New Zealand so she can give birth at home surrounded by her family.

As someone who has travelled for study and work and love, and who does not share the same passport as their significant other, my heart goes out to everyone stranded overseas, and I sincerely hope they can all get home and be reunited with their loved ones.

• LISTEN TO RNZ SUNDAY MORNING: ‘I mean, how do you schedule your birth?’ – New Zealand journalist Charlotte Bellis
• READ MORE:  Covid-19: NZ’s MIQ working but has tough trade-offs, says epidemiologist
• Charlotte Bellis: ‘I’m one of your people and I need help’
• Charlotte Bellis’ open letter on MIQ to New Zealand – New Zealand Herald
• Pregnant New Zealand journalist stranded by quarantine rules says she turned to Taliban
• Taliban takeover: Charlotte Bellis faces perils outside ‘enemy territory’ – Pacific Journalism Review

But as an Afghanistani woman, who has only recently emigrated from Afghanistan to New Zealand, I have to speak up.

I almost did so when Charlotte interviewed Abdul Qahar Balkhi, the Taliban spokesperson with the Kiwi accent. She went easy on him. For example, at the end of the interview, she asked what he had to say to those who called the Taliban “terrorists”.

He said people didn’t really believe they were terrorists, but this was just a word the US used for anyone who didn’t fall in line with their agenda. There were no further questions.

This was a man who claimed responsibility on behalf of the Taliban for attacks on innocent civilians. A man who has admitted to crimes against humanity. It made me so upset to see him get away with answers like that. But then my energy was taken up just coping with the reality of what was happening to my friends and family in Afghanistan.

Social media responses
But now, when I read Charlotte’s letter in the New Zealand Herald and see the media and social media responses, I see the situation in my country being trivialised, and it makes me angry.

Charlotte refers to herself asking the Taliban in a press conference what they would do for women and girls, and says she is now asking the same question of the New Zealand government.

I understand there are problems with MIQ. And I understand the value in provoking change with controversy. But what I don’t understand is how someone who has lived and worked in Afghanistan, and seen the impact of the Taliban’s regime on women and girls, can seriously compare that situation to New Zealand.

Afghanistani women who resist or protest the regime are being arrested, tortured, raped and killed. Young girls are being married off to Talibs (a member of the Taliban). Education and employment are no longer available to them.

A 19-year-old girl I know from my village, who was in her first year of law last year is now, instead, a housewife to a Talib.

There are so many stories like this.

The Taliban distort Islam
Charlotte says the Taliban have given her a safe haven when she is not welcome in her own country. This is obviously a good headline and good way to make a point. But it is an inaccurate and unhelpful representation of the situation.

One commentary on Instagram, re-posted by Charlotte, suggested her story represents the truly Muslim acts of the Taliban, which the Western media have not shown. This makes me angry.

If a person in power extends privileges to someone who doesn’t threaten their power, it doesn’t mean they are not oppressive or extremist or dangerous.

The Taliban distort Islam and manipulate Muslims for their political gain. They violate the rights of women and girls, and it is offensive to compare them to the New Zealand government in this regard.

New Zealand is no paradise, I have experienced my fair share of racism here, and I am sure the MIQ situation can be improved.

But relying on the protection of a regime that is violently oppressive, and then using that to try to shame the New Zealand government into action, is not the way to achieve that improvement.

It exploits and trivialises the situation in Afghanistan, at a time when the rights of Afghanistani women and girls desperately need to be taken seriously.

Muzhgan Samarqandi works for an international aid agency in New Zealand. Her article was first published on the TV One News website and is republished here with the author’s permission.