The Philippines and the United States will hold their largest Balikatan exercise this year, with 17,600 troops expected to participate in the annual combined joint exercise next month, says Armed Forces of the Philippines.

This follows recent an announcement by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr that the Philippines was rolling back history to open four new bases “scattered” around the country to US forces after Subic Bay naval base was closed in 1992.

Balikatan spokesperson Colonel Michael Logico told reporters that about 12,000 US troops and 111 more from the Australian Defence Force would participate in this year’s exercises, along with 5000 Philippine soldiers.

• READ MORE: America’s repossession of the Philippines – Walden Bello
• Marcos says new military bases with US to be ‘scattered’ around Philippines
• LOOK BACK: When the Senate said ‘no’ to US bases renewal

The exercises, scheduled to take place from April 11 to 28, will be held in areas in Northern Luzon, Palawan, and Antique.

“This is officially the largest Balikatan exercise,” Logico said.

The number of troops participating in this year’s exercises is nearly double the 8900 contingent seen in 2022. At the time, Balikatan 2022 had been the “largest-ever” iteration of the exercise.

A team from Japan was also expected to observe this year’s joint exercises.

Colonel Logico said Japan would stay as an observer this year because Manila and Tokyo did not have a status of forces agreement.

New exercises
Logico said new exercises to be featured in Balikatan 2023 include cyber defence exercises and live fire exercises at sea. Previous joint exercises, usually held in land-based sites, mostly involved the army and Air Force.

“We are now going to be exercising outside the traditional areas where we’re used to operating on…. We’re exercising in key locations where we are able to utilise all our service components,” Colonel Logico said.

While the AFP has held live fire exercises at sea on its own, it will be a first for Philippine and US troops jointly.

The defence assets to be featured include the Philippine Navy’s frigates, the Air Force’s FA-50 jets, and other newly acquired artillery, said Logico. Similar to last year’s exercises, the US is again expected to bring in its High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and Patriot missile system.

Exercises this year are aimed at increasing interoperability among the allies’ forces, and will also focus on “maritime defense, coast defense, and maritime domain awareness.”

Joint exercises between the Philippines and US, along with Australia, come on the heels of the Marcos government’s efforts to bolster security ties with its treaty ally, as well as regional partners, following concerns over China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea.

In February, President Marcos approved the expansion of a key military deal that allows the US military greater access to local bases in the country.

Days later, the Philippine leader also expressed willingness to strengthen defence ties with Japan, adding he was open to a reciprocal access agreement with the neighboring nation if it would help protect Filipino fishermen and the Philippines’ maritime territory.

On Tuesday, Colonel Logico said upcoming exercises between the Philippines and its partners were not aimed against any country, including China.

Colonel Logico said, “We are here to practise, we are here to show that we are combat ready.

“Every country has the absolute and inalienable right to exercise within our territory, we have the absolute, inalienable right to defend our territory,” he added.

Republished from Rappler with permission.

The United States would “respond” if China takes steps to establish a permanent military presence in the Solomon Islands, says a US official, noting the “potential regional security implications” of a newly signed pact between the two countries.

“We outlined clear areas of concern with respect to the purpose and scope of the agreement,” Daniel Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said at a press briefing yesterday following his trip to Honiara, where he led a US delegation last week.

US officials met with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and his cabinet following separate announcements by China and the Solomon Islands that the controversial Security Cooperation Agreement has been signed.

• READ MORE: Other Solomon Islands security reports

However, the State Department official did not provide a clear answer when asked to explain how exactly the US would respond.

“I’m not going to speculate on what that may or may not involve, but I think our goal was to be very clear in that regard,” Kritenbrink said.

“I’m not in a position to talk about what the United States may or may not do in such a situation.”

US still worried
Despite Sogavare’s repeated assurance that the pact was intended only for domestic implementation, Kritenbrink said the US is worried about the “potential regional security implications of the agreement, not just for ourselves, but for allies and partners across the region.”

Kritenbrink said what troubled the US was “the complete lack of transparency” behind the pact.

“What precisely are the motivations behind the agreement? What exactly are China’s objectives and the like?

“I think they’re completely unclear because this agreement has not been scrutinised or reviewed or subject to any kind of consultation or approval process by anyone else,” Kritenbrink said.

He linked the Solomons-China agreement to Beijing’s relentless bid to expand the People’s Liberation Army’s footprint in the region.

“I think it’s important in this context to keep in mind that we do know that [China] is seeking to establish a more robust overseas logistics and basing infrastructure that would allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at greater distances,” Kritenbrink said.

He added that the US “would follow developments closely in consultation with regional partners.”

Opening US embassy plans
Kritenbrink was accompanied by Kurt Campbell, Indo-Pacific coordinator for the National Security Council; Lieutenant-General Steve Sklenka,deputy commander of the Indo-Pacific Command; and Craig Hart, USAID’s acting senior deputy assistant administrator for Asia.

During the visit, the US delegation announced Washington’s intention to expedite the process of opening a US embassy in Honiara, strengthen the ties between the US and the Solomon Islands.

“Our purpose in going to the Solomons was to explain to our friends there our approach to the region and the steps we’re taking to step up our engagement across the Pacific Islands, the specific programmes and activities that are ongoing in the Solomons and that we expect to expand and accelerate in the months ahead,” Kritenbrink said.

“We reiterated our commitment to enhancing our partnership with the Solomon Islands, including expediting the opening of the US embassy there, advancing cooperation on addressing unexploded ordnance, and increasing maritime domain awareness, as well as expanding cooperation on climate change, health, people-to-people ties, and other issues as well,” he added.

Mar-Vic Cagurangan is chief editor and publisher of the Pacific Island Times. Republished with permission.

A spectre is haunting the Pacific. It is focused on Solomon Islands today, but has eyes everywhere and might pounce anywhere next.

No, I’m not talking about China. I am talking about us.

More specifically, I’m talking about a particular type of Western security pundit, who hypes danger and itches for confrontation. And I am talking about the way our politicians behave when they strive to win votes by stoking fear of the world outside our borders.

• READ MORE: Rethinking Solomon Islands security
• Three questions about Australia’s infrastructure promise to Solomon Islands
• On a journey from trauma to peace in the PNG highlands
• The cruel ironies of the 2021 Honiara riots
• Solomon Islands’ slippery slide to self-implosion
• Other Solomon islands security reports on Asia Pacific Report

The saga of China’s “military base” in Solomon Islands demonstrates how unhelpful such behaviour is, both to our own interests, and to the people of the Pacific.

If you had the good fortune of missing the last few weeks, here’s what happened.

In late March, journalists revealed that China and Solomon Islands had signed a policing agreement. Someone from within the Solomon Islands government also leaked a broader draft security agreement with China.

In April, this agreement was finalised and signed. (Its text hasn’t been released but appears likely to be very similar to the draft.) You can see the draft here. It’s short and clear.

Ship visits and stopover
Solomons can ask China to provide police and military assistance. If, and only if, the Solomon Islands government of the day consents, China can “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands, and relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands.”

Permanent bases are not mentioned.

This, however, didn’t stop antipodean pundits from racing to hype the threat of a Chinese base. To be fair, few went as far as David Llewellyn-Smith, who demanded that Australia preemptively invade Solomons.

He was an outlier (although it didn’t stop him from being uncritically quoted in the Courier-Mail). But all spoke of a base as a near certainty.

Then politicians piled on. Penny Wong, who normally displays an impressive understanding of aid and the Pacific, decried the agreement as the “worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since the end of World War II”.

Peter Dutton warned that Australia could now expect “the Chinese to do all they can”. (Although he added optimistically they were unlikely to do so before the election.)

Barnaby Joyce fretted about Solomons becoming a, “little Cuba off our coast”. (Solomons is more than 1500km from Australia; Cuba is about 200km from the US.)

Australian agreement similar
Amidst the racket, much was lost. Australia has its own security agreement with Solomon Islands. It’s more carefully worded, but it affords Australia similar powers to China.

And China already has a security agreement with Fiji. Indeed, there was real talk of a base when that agreement was signed, but no base materialised, and the agreement has had no effect on regional security.

And as Scott Morrison pointed out, Manasseh Sogavare, the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, has explicitly ruled out a Chinese base.

True, Sogavare is a political maneuverer who can’t be taken at his word. But a Chinese base in Solomons serves neither his interest, nor that of the Chinese.

It doesn’t serve Sogavare’s interests because it won’t give him what he wants — a stronger hold on power. Seen as the embodiment of a corrupt elite, he’s unpopular in Honiara. His election brought riots.

As did his standoff with Malaitan Premier Daniel Suidani. So he wants Chinese police training and maybe military assistance in times of instability. But a base won’t help.

Solomons is a Sinophobic country and the obvious presence of a base will increase Sogavare’s unpopularity. It would also jeopardise the security support he gets from Australia, as well as Australian aid. (By my best estimate, based on Chinese promises, which are likely to be overstatements, Australia gave more than 2.5 times as much aid to Solomons in 2019, the most recent year with data.)

Base isn’t in China’s interest
I’m not defending Sogavare. I’d rather Chinese police weren’t helping him. But a base isn’t in his interest. And he’s no fool.

A base isn’t in China’s interests either. I don’t like China’s repressive political leaders. But their military ambitions are limited to places they view as part of China. What they’ve done, or want to do, in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan is odious.

But Australia isn’t next on their list. Outside of their immediate sphere of influence they want trade. They need trade, and the wealth it brings, to sustain the political settlement that keeps them prosperous and in power. Any war that saw China menace Australia from Solomon Islands would bring ruinous sanctions in its wake. (US bases in Guam and Okinawa would be a headache too, I’d imagine.)

The broader security agreement is helpful to China: it gives them the ability to protect Chinese nationals and Chinese business interests if riots break out.

But they don’t need a base for that. A base would be costly, hard to establish in a country with little available land, and quite possibly useless next time the Solomons government changes.

I’m not a supporter of the security agreement. But it’s not a base. And it’s not a catastrophe.

Our behaving like it’s a catastrophe is harmful though.

Harmful to Australia and NZ
It’s harmful to countries like Australia and New Zealand, because the main advantage we have over China in the Pacific is soft power. Thanks to anti-Chinese racism and a healthy wariness of China’s authoritarian government, most people in Pacific countries, including political elites, are more hesitant in dealing with China than with us.

Sure, money talks, and China can procure influence, but we are a little better liked. And that helps. Yet we lose this advantage every time we talk of invading Pacific countries, or call the region our “backyard”, or roughly twist the arms of Pacific politicians.

The Pacific is not some rogue part of Tasmania. It’s an ocean of independent countries. That means diplomacy is needed, and temper tantrums are unhelpful.

Worse still, our propensity to view the Pacific as a geostrategic chessboard has consequences for the region’s people. Geopolitical aid is too-often transactional and poorly focused on what people need. It is less likely to promote development.

There’s an alternative: to choose realism over hype in our collective commentary. And to earn soft power by being a respectful and reliable partner. It’s not always easy. But it’s not impossible. Yet it has completely escaped us in the shambles of the last few weeks.

Dr Terence Wood is a research fellow at the Development Policy Centre, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. His research focuses on political governance in Western Melanesia, and Australian and New Zealand aid. Republished with permission.

The Solomon Islands prime minister is adamant a security co-operation agreement his government has signed with China will not undermine regional security.

In Parliament yesterday, Manasseh Sogavare confirmed the controversial security agreement with China had been signed despite strong opposition to the deal from the other side of the house.

The pact, a draft of which was first leaked online last month, raised domestic and regional anxieties about Beijing’s increasing influence in the South Pacific.

• READ MORE: China-Solomon Islands security pact: A Pacific stuff up?
• Other China-Solomon islands security pact reports

It is feared that it could open the door to China’s military presence in Honiara — a claim rejected both by China and Solomon Islands.

Sogavare has defended the intention behind the move, saying its aim is for the nation to diversify its security ties “to improve the quality of lives” of its people and to “address soft and hard security threats facing the country”.

“I ask all our neighbours, friends and partners to respect the sovereign interests of Solomon Islands on the assurance that the decision will not adversely impact or undermine the peace and harmony of our region,” Sogavare said.

In response, opposition leader Matthew Wale called on Sogavare to make the signed document public “to allay any regional fears of any hidden parts of it”.

‘Disclosure of the agreement’
“And now that the agreement has been signed whether the Prime Minister will allow a disclosure of the agreement so that members may have a perusal of it,” Wale said.

Wale’s sentiments were echoed by another opposition MP, the chairman of the foreign relations committee, Peter Kenilorea Jr.

Kenilorea Jr said Sogavare’s decision to strike a military cooperation deal with China lacked transparency and he believed whatever efforts partners were putting in from the region were not going to make a difference.

But he also expressed concern, now that the two countries have made the agreement official, that it could become the source for domestic tensions.

“It will just further inflame emotions and tensions and again underscores the mistrust that people have on the government,” Peter Kenilorea Jr said.

“It is cause for concern for many Solomon Islanders, but definitely a certain segment of the society will now feel even more concerned and might want to start to take certain action which is not in the best interest of Solomon Islands in our own unity as a country.”

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had raised “serious concerns” about the security pact when the news initially broke two weeks ago.

‘No need’, says Ardern
And following the announcement on Wednesday that the deal was done, Ardern reiterated her concerns.

“We see no need for this agreement,” Ardern said.

“We’re concerned about the militarisation of the Pacific and we continue to call on the Solomons to work with the Pacific with any concerns around their security they may have.”

The Solomon Islands prime minister is adamant a security cooperation agreement his government has signed with China will not undermine regional security. https://t.co/SxP21e1lKu

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) April 20, 2022

RNZ Pacific’s Honiara-based correspondent Georgina Kekea said the issue had divided public opinion in the country.

Kekea said people were already anticipating the signing of the pact.

“From what we’ve seen there are some who are with the signing, there some who are not. Some who are a bit sceptical about what the future will be like in the Solomon Islands with such an agreement being signed with China,” she said.

“So, there’s mixed feelings I would say on the ground, especially with the signing.”

US officials confer with Honiara
Meanwhile, senior US officials are meeting with Solomon Islands government this week with the security deal expected to be a major point of discussions.

Writing on his Village Explainer website in an article entitled “Pacific stuff up?”, Vanuatu columnist Dan McGarry writes that “if the coming election goes to Australia’s Labor party, Penny Wong is very likely to become Foreign Minister. So when she speaks, people across the region prick up their ears.

“Without the least disrespect to her recent forebears, she could be one of the most acute, incisive and insightful FMs in recent history.

“Whether she’ll be any more effective than them is another matter.”

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

Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare has denied allowing the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) to establish a military base in the Solomon Islands in a security treaty that he confirmed today as having already been finalised.

“We denied it totally. We don’t know where it came from,” Sogavare said when responding to a question in Parliament today.

Sogavare took about 30 minutes to defend the security treaty with China which was leaked on social media and has caused waves of concern, especially in Australia and New Zealand.

• READ MORE: NZ PM says Honiara’s growing China relationship is ‘gravely concerning’
• Other China security pact reports

Among the concern is a claim that the treaty allows China to establish a military base in Solomon Islands.

Sogavare said the Australian media had focused on Solomon Islands being pressured by China to build a military base in Solomon Islands, which was only 2000km away from the northern coast of Australia.

“Where does the nonsense come from?” he asked.

Sogavare said the security treaty was pursued at the request of Solomon Islands and “we are not pressured. We are not pressured in any way by our new friends”.

Sogavare said: “There is no intention whatsoever to ask China to build a military base in Solomon Islands.

“We are insulted by such an unfounded stories and comments.”

Meanwhile, he said the treaty has already been finalised and approved by cabinet.

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

The average Australian’s conception of Pacific island nations is so limited it makes some of us wonder if they even want to understand. Our voices—and our reality—have been pointedly and repeatedly ignored in the media, and in the corridors of power.

An Australian news service breathlessly proclaims Chinese plans to build a military base only a short flight away from Brisbane, and the Canberra commentariat has kittens.

Vanuatu insiders say “it was never on the cards”.

“Yes, but it was discussed!” insist defence analysts.

“A base was never discussed and it would never happen,” says Vanuatu’s Foreign Minister.

“Yes, but a Chinese military presence is in the works!” insist the same analysts.

“Vanuatu would never agree to this and anyone who says otherwise is indulging in malicious speculation,” says Vanuatu’s Prime Minister.

“Cold warriors”
“Here’s the wharf where it’s going to happen!” announce Australian media, and a chorus of “cold warriors” claim that Australia is forsaking its God-given leadership role in the Pacific.

“We, uh, have our own leaders,” say Pacific islanders.

“Yes, but they’re drowning your countries in debt!” cry the politicos.

“Well, we’re not perfect, but there’s no crisis,” say our analysts. “Our debt to GDP ratio is less than half of Australia’s.”

“China is slyly using debt/equity swaps to take over your infrastructure!” Canberra cries.

“No, actually. Our loans don’t contain language that would allow that,” reply the islanders, who by this time are wondering why they even bother saying anything.

The Chinese Bases folderol is just the latest chorus in a litany of Australian indifference to Pacific voices. Every time some tendentious prat opens their mouth and starts telling the Pacific that what’s good for Australia is obviously good for us, the entire region sighs.

Collective eye roll
That jolt you just felt was a collective eye roll that nearly tipped the island.

Can we get something clear? If you want us to listen to you, you’ve got to listen to us.

It may have escaped your attention, but there was an earthquake in Papua New Guinea recently.

It affected over half a million people, killing 150 outright and leaving 270,000 in need of humanitarian assistance. The situation remains desperate, and the breakdown of law and order in some areas has made it impossible for aid organisations to work.

You can be forgiven for not knowing this. There were no Chinese warships involved.

As you read this, massive ash falls from an active volcano are forcing 11,000 Ni-Vanuatu to relocate for the second time in six months. Thousands may never return home. No Chinese warships were involved, so again, you might not have heard.

Make no mistake: When the Pacific is in need, Australia helps. It helps more than any other nation. But the overwhelming majority of Australians don’t seem to know or care that it does.

They don’t know
If they knew, they’d probably care. But they don’t know, so they have no reason to care.

This is the fault of the media. Specifically, it’s an editorial failure. Reporters are champing at the bit to share our stories, but producers and editors constantly baulk at the time and expense of reporting from and about the Pacific islands.

On the morning Vanuatu announced the evacuation of 11,000 people from the volcanic island of Ambae, the journos who broke the Chinese base story were still in Vanuatu. When told the news, they doubted that Fairfax would pay for them to go to Ambae to report on the exodus.

This is the same company that gladly paid a team to spend a week reporting on a defence analyst’s fever dreams, someone whom the team members themselves admitted might be paranoid.

The main difference between Beijing and Canberra is that Beijing listens. For better or for worse, Chinese diplomats listen to what Pacific leaders want. Often enough, they give it to them.

And more often than not, Australian pollies wait patiently for Pacific Islanders to finish speaking, then tell them what they need. There is a pervasive and deeply pernicious perception in the foreign policy establishment that Pacific voices don’t count.

Political cartoon
A recent political cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald distils the attitude prettily.

An island with nothing but a grass shack and a few benighted dark people is deserted by its erstwhile benefactors, and left to the tender mercies of a shipload of Asian hucksters.

Without Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull and the gang, we’re left helplessly clutching our cowrie shells.

The image is so absurdly parochial it borders on outright racism.

Who benefits from these Chinese wharves? We do! The people of Vanuatu. You might have heard of us. We live here.

Beginning this week, that wharf will be the landing point for thousands of people displaced by natural disaster. Australian relief ships will no doubt be welcomed, too.

Let’s see how many headlines our devastated lives derive.

My guess is zero—unless we invite the Chinese navy to help.

Dan McGarry is media director of the Vanuatu Daily Post group. This article is republished with permission.

• Baseless rumours: why talk of Chinese military base in Vanuatu misses point
• More Vanuatu stories

Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie blasted some of the global coverage of the alleged Chinese military base plans for Vanuatu, describing it as speculative and “scaremongering”.

He praised the Vanuatu Daily Post for giving the other side of the story and media director Dan McGarry for his in-depth “baseless rumours” article published in both The Guardian Australia and the Post.

Radio 95bFM’s Reuben McLaren talked to Dr Robie on the PMC’s weekly Southern Cross show.

Dr Robie also talked about Nauru abolishing its Appeal Court in Australia, a huge diabetes health bill blowout in Fiji, and the “mourning” in Suva over Fiji’s shock 14-0 loss to New Zealand in the Commonwealth Games sevens gold medal final.

The diabetes story was revealed by a final-year Wansolwara student journalist, Adi Ana Civavonovono, of the University of the South Pacific.

PMC’s Southern Cross on 95bFM

Southern Cross on PMC’s Soundcloud

Listen to Southern Cross:

The “news” this week that Vanuatu was to be the site of a Chinese military base caught most people by surprise. Government officials with detailed knowledge of relevant matters swore hand on heart they’d never even heard hints of such talk.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ralph Regenvanu questioned the sourcing of the report, telling the Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat radio programme, “I’m not very happy about the standard of reporting in the Australia media”.

Chinese embassy officials in Vanuatu declined an interview request, stating, “The report is groundless and not worth any comment at all.”

READ MORE: Vanuatu rejects ‘speculative’ base claim

The topic has quickly become the loudest non-conversation in town.

Tacitly at least, officials from all nations recognise Vanuatu’s strategic importance.

Luganville, on the island of Espiritu Santo, was the site of one of the largest military bases in the entire Pacific Theatre during WWII.

Home to about 100,000 personnel at its peak, it saw nearly one million service people pass through before it was decommissioned in 1946.

Controlling air, sea
What was true in the 1940s remains true today: Whoever controls Vanuatu controls air and sea traffic between the United States and Australia. Right now, that’s the government of Vanuatu.

For more than a decade, this tiny island nation has leveraged regional rivalries to drive infrastructure development. Its dalliances with China, for example, resulted in a US$20 million investment by telecoms giant Huawei in an island-hopping communications network.

That move is said by some to have motivated a multimillion-dollar commitment from Australia to fund telecoms regulation and management.

For years, western nations were simply not interested in big-ticket, high-risk projects. Infrastructure projects worldwide are fraught with budget overruns, scope creep and delays. Risk-averse donors therefore shied away.

But not China.

Largely on the back of questionably “concessional” loans from the China EXIM Bank, contractors secured a mixed bag of infrastructure projects, ranging from roads to wharves to buildings. They include sport facilities, a convention centre and a school.

But the most noticeable project was a US$90 million wharf project in Luganville. Almost from the outset, people raised the spectre of the old American base there.

Revived interest
Many Pacific watchers think there’s no coincidence to a recently revived interest from the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and other funding bodies in Pacific islands infrastructure.

At the same time as the Luganville wharf was being constructed, Japan was also demonstrating its friendship to Vanuatu by building a major wharf facility in Port Vila, the capital. The US$70 million project came at much more favourable terms.

Australia meanwhile signed on to a US$30 million urban infrastructure development project in the capital. The World Bank has already committed $60 million to the nation’s airports, and is reportedly considering upping the ante to $150 million.

Despite the fact that Australia remains the largest donor in Vanuatu and the Pacific, analysts suggest that China has stolen a march on them by ingratiating themselves with politicians who see infrastructure projects as vote-getters.

Lacking coherence
It is widely felt that Chinese engagement lacks coherence, and that the quality of its work is variable, to be generous. But nobody doubts its popularity with the political elite here, and that is something that should cause concern in Canberra.

Locally, engagement between Australian development workers and their government counterparts is excellent. But communication between Pacific capitals and Canberra is sadly lacking.

Ill-considered stories such as the recent Fairfax article, or Senator Fierravanti-Wells’ January diatribe about Chinese “roads going nowhere” play poorly in the Pacific. They only offer China an opportunity to commiserate with local officials, and to go on quietly building roads and wharves.

Dan McGarry is media director of the Vanuatu Daily Post group. This article is republished with permission.

• China eyes Vanuatu military base in plan with global ramifications
• Chinese military bases in Vanuatu ‘impossible’
• Military base claim ‘speculative’
• More Vanuatu news

The customary landowners of Papua New Guinea’s proposed military base relocation are calling on Prime Minister Peter O’Neill to include their terms of reference in the planned Commission of Inquiry.

The landowners from Manumanu and Gabadi said the petition was presented to the Prime Minister’s office yesterday in the presence of Central Governor Kila Haoda.

They want the findings of the Commission of Inquiry to come out before the Issue of Writs for the national elections due in June and July.

• Duma, Pok step aside in Manumanu land defence land probe