Pacific nations are at the world’s biggest climate talks making the familiar plea to keep global warming under 1.5C to stay alive, as scientists say the world will now certainly surpass the limit — at least temporarily.

At the opening of the COP30 climate summit in Belém Brazil, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres made the same call that Pacific nations have for years.

“Let us be clear, the 1.5-degree limit is a red line for humanity. It must be kept within reach and scientists also tell us that this is still possible,” Guterres said.

• READ MORE: ‘We are moving in the right direction, but at the wrong speed,’ warns Lula at the opening of COP30
• Other COP30 reports

“If we act now at speed and scale, we can make the overshoot as small, as short and as safe as possible.”

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed in its State of the Climate update that greenhouse gas emissions, which are heating the planet, have risen to a record high, with 2025 being on track to be the second or third warmest year on record.

“It will be virtually impossible to limit global warming to 1.5C in the next few years without temporarily overshooting this target,” WMO secretary-general Celeste Saulo said.

“But the science is equally clear that it’s still entirely possible and essential to bring temperatures back down to 1.5C by the end of the century.”

Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) climate justice campaigner India Logan-Riley said the world was now in “deeply unstable territory” with the “very existence” of some Pacific communities now at risk.

COP31 – a Pacific COP?
As this COP starts, there is still uncertainty over where COP31 in 2026 will be hosted.

Both Australia — in conjunction with the Pacific — and Türkiye have bid to host the event.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has written twice to his counterpart looking for a compromise to break the deadlock.

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr, who is in Belém, said it was important for Australia to be successful in its bid.

“We’re here in Brazil and the Amazon, and the focus next year needs to be a ‘Blue COP’, we need to focus on the oceans,” President Whipps said.

“One of the things I always tell people is, in some countries they only face droughts, or they may face a storm but in the Pacific we suffer from all of them; sea-level rise, storms, droughts, extreme heat.

“Other people, they can’t relate or they think it may be unreal.”

One of those people, US President Donald Trump, told the UN last month the climate crisis is “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world”.

Palau has a particularly close relationship with the US as one of the Compact of Free Association (COFA) nations. The agreement gives the US military access to Palau, which in return is given financial assistance and for Palauans the right to work in the US.

Whipps said Trump’s comments were unfortunate, and more reason for COP to come to the Pacific.

“I would invite President Trump to come to the Pacific. He should visit Tuvalu, and he should visit Kiribati and Marshall Islands.”

100% renewable Pacific
The Pacific is aiming to be the first region in the world to be completely reliant on renewable energy, a campaign which being led by Whipps.

“Leading the energy transition not only helps the planet by reducing our carbon footprint, but also gives us energy independence, [it] allows us to create jobs locally, and it keeps the money circulating.”

Whipps wants Palau to be running completely off renewable energy by 2032.

Meanwhile, the UN emissions gap report shows the world is on track for 2.3C to 2.5C global warming, if nations stick to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

However, it is an improvement from last year’s report, which predicted 2.6C to 2.8C of warming.

Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) policy advisor Sindra Sharma said the report laid bare the fact that global ambition is nowhere near where it needs to be.

“[The new forecast] still is quite unacceptable for vulnerable communities and small island states in particular, because we’ll feel the effects the fastest with crossing anywhere beyond 1.5 even 1.51 it’s going to have significant implications.

“We’ve always had all the solutions to be able to do so and it’s just a lack of political will. It’s a choice that’s being made consistently and that choice is going to affect every single one on this earth.”

Sharma is hopeful there will be positive outcomes at this year’s COP, despite ongoing geopolitical tensions, which are in part driven by it being hosted close to the Amazon Rainforest — often referred to as the lungs of the earth — and marking 10 years since the Paris Agreement was signed.

It is also the first time Pacific nations have confirmation from the world’s top court that failing to protect people from the effects of climate change could violate international law.

“The advisory opinion that we have now is the first time that we’re going into COP with this kind of legal clarity and the legal clarity is telling us that there’s due diligence in terms of limiting warming to 1.5C.”

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

Pacific civil society groups say 2025 has been a big year for the ocean.

Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) representative Maureen Penjueli said the Pacific Ocean was being hyper-militarised and there was a desire for seabed minerals to be used to build-up military capacity.

“Critical minerals, whether from land or from the deep ocean itself, have a military end use, and that’s been made very clear in 2025,” Penjueli said during the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) 2025 State of the Ocean webinar.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Ocean militarisation reports

“They’re deemed extremely vital for defence industrial base, enabling the production of military platforms such as fighter aircraft, tanks, missiles, submarines.

“2025 is the year where we see the link between critical minerals on the sea floor and use [in the] military.”

PANG’s Joey Tau said one of the developments had been the increase in countries calling for a moratorium or pause on deep sea mining, which was now up to 40.

“Eight of which are from the Pacific and a sub-regional grouping the MSG (Melanesian Spearhead Group) still holds that political space or that movement around a moratorium.”

Deep-sea mining rules
Tau said it came as the UN-sanctioned International Seabed Authority tried to come to an agreement on deep-sea mining rules at the same time as the United States is considering its own legal pathway.

“It is a bad precedent setting by the US, we hope that the ISA both assembly and the council would hold ground and warn the US.”

He said unlike US, China spoke about the importance of multilateralism and it for global partners to maintain unity within the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreement which has not been ratified by the United States.

Also in February was the deep sea minerals talanoa, where Pacific leaders met to discuss deep sea mining.

“Some of our countries sit on different sides of the table on this issue. You have countries who are sponsoring and who are progressing the agenda of deep-sea mining, not only within their national jurisdiction, but also in the international arena,” Tau said.

In May, UN human rights experts expressed concern about the release of treated nuclear wastewater.

Japan’s government has consistently maintained the release meets international safety standards, and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency shows there is no measurable impact beyond Japan’s coastal waters.

Legal and moral problem
However, Ocean Vision Legal’s Naima Taafaki-Fifita said as well as being an environmental issue, it was also a legal and moral problem.

“By discharging these radioactive contaminants into the Pacific, Japan risks breaching its obligations under international law,” she said.

“[The UN special rapporteurs] caution that this may pose grave risks to human rights, particularly the rights to life, health, food and culture, not only in Japan, but across the Pacific.”

Taafaki-Fifita said it was a “deeply personal” issue for Pacific people who lived with the nuclear legacy of testing.

In September, what is known as the “High Seas Treaty” received its 60th ratification which means it will now be legally effective in January 2026.

The agreement allows international waters — which make up nearly two-thirds of the ocean — to be placed into marine protected areas.

Taafaki-Fitita said it was important that Pacific priorities were visible and heard as the treaty became implemented.

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

A People’s Mission to Kanaky New Caledonia says the French Pacific territory remains in a fragile political and social transition nearly three decades after the signing of the Nouméa Accord.

It says the pro-independence unrest in May last year has “left visible scars” — not only in a damaged economy but in trust between the territory’s institutions and the communities being served.

The mission is launching its report at a media event in the Fiji capital Suva tomorrow.

• READ MORE: Pacific Peoples’ Mission exposes harsh realities of injustice under French rule in Kanaky New Caledonia
• The full People’s Mission to Kanaky report
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

“France cannot act as both referee and participant in the decolonisation process. Its repeated breaches and political interference have eroded trust and prolonged Kanaky’s dependency,” said mission head Anna Naupa, a Pacific policy and development specialist, in a pre-launch statement.

“The Pacific must now take a principled stand to ensure the right to self-determination is fulfilled.”

The mission — organised by Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG), Eglise Protestante de Kanaky Nouvelle-Calédonie (EPKNC) and the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) — said regional observers had noted that the situation now hinged on whether France and Pacific leaders could “re-establish credible dialogue” that genuinely included Kanak perspectives in shaping the territory’s future.

Five key findings
According to the report, the Pacific Peoples’ Mission to Kanaky New Caledonia had identified five interlinked findings that defined the current crisis:

• Political trust has collapsed. Communities no longer view the decolonisation process as impartial, citing France’s dual role as both administrator and arbiter;
• Reconciliation remains incomplete. Efforts to rebuild unity after the 2024 unrest are fragmented, with limited Kanak participation in recovery planning;
• Youth exclusion is fuelling instability. Young Kanaks describe frustration over limited education, employment, and representation opportunities;
• Economic recovery lacks equity. Reconstruction support has disproportionately benefited urban and non-Kanak areas, widening social divisions; and
• Regional leadership is missing. Pacific solidarity has weakened, leaving communities without consistent regional advocacy or oversight.

Together, said the mission, these findings underlined an urgent need for a renewed, Pacific-led dialogue that would restore confidence in the independence process and focus on  Kanak agency.

A New Zealand academic and activist who was part of the mission, Dr David Small, said: “What we witnessed in Kanaky is not instability; it is resistance born from decades of broken promises.

“The international community must stop treating this as an internal French matter and
recognise it for what it is — an unfinished decolonisation process.”

• The People’s Mission report will be launched at the Talanoa Lounge, Itaukei Trust Fund Board, Nasese, Suva, 3-5pm, Wednesday, November 4. More information.

I am saddened by the death of one of the most inspirational Pacific women and leaders I have worked with — Motarilavoa Hilda Lini of Vanuatu.

She was one of the strongest, most committed passionate fighter I know for self-determination, decolonisation, independence, indigenous rights, customary systems and a nuclear-free Pacific.

Hilda coordinated the executive committee of the women’s wing of the Vanuatu Liberation Movement prior to independence and became the first woman Member of Parliament in Vanuatu in 1987.

• READ MORE: Motarilavoa Hilda Lini, ‘a trailblazer’ for Vanuatu women in politics, dies
• Other Hilda Lini reports

Hilda became director of the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre (PCRC) in Suva in 2000. She took over from another Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) giant Lopeti Senituli, who returned to Tonga to help the late ‘Akilisi Poviha with the pro-democracy movement.

I was editor of the PCRC newsletter Pacific News Bulletin at the time. There was no social media then so the newsletter spread information to activists and groups across the Pacific on issues such as the struggle in West Papua, East Timor’s fight for independence, decolonisation in Tahiti and New Caledonia, demilitarisation, indigenous movements, anti-nuclear issues, and sustainable development.

On all these issues — Hilda Lini was a willing and fearless chief taking on any government, corporation or entity that undermined the rights or interests of Pacific peoples.

Hilda was uncompromising on issues close to her heart. There are very few Pacific leaders like her left today. Leaders who did not hold back from challenging the norm or disrupting the status quo, even if that meant being an outsider.

Banned over activism
She was banned from entering French Pacific territories in the 1990s for her activism against their colonial rule and nuclear testing.

She was fierce but also strategic and effective.

We brought Jose Ramos Horta to speak and lobby in Fiji as East Timor fought for independence from Indonesia, Oscar Temaru before he became President of French Polynesia, West Papua’s Otto Ondawame, and organised Flotilla protests against shipments of Japanese plutonium across the Pacific, among the many other actions to stir awareness and action.

On top of her bold activism, Hilda was also a mother to us. She was kind and caring and always pushed the importance of family and indigenous values.

Our Pacific connections were strong and before our eldest son Mitchell was born in 2002 — she asked me if she could give him a middle name.

She gave him the name Hadye after her brother — Father Walter Hadye Lini who was the first Prime Minister of Vanuatu. Mitchell’s full name is Mitchell Julian Hadye Simpson.

Pushed strongly for ideas
We would cross paths several times even after I moved to start the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) but she finished from PCRC in 2004 and returned to Vanuatu.

She often pushed ideas on indigenous rights and systems that some found uncomfortable but stood strong on what she believed in.

Hilda had mana, spoke with authority and truly embodied the spirit and heart of a Melanesian and Pacific leader and chief.

Thank you Hilda for being the Pacific champion that you were.

Stanley Simpson is director of Fiji’s Mai Television and general secretary of the Fijian Media Association. Father Walter Hadye Lini wrote the foreword to Asia Pacific Media editor David Robie’s 1986 book Eyes Of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior.

Regional leaders will gather later this month in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Tonga and high on the agenda will be Japan’s dumping of
treated nuclear wastewater in the Pacific Ocean.

A week ago on the 6 August 2024, the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima in 1945 and the 39th anniversary of the Treaty of Rarotonga opening for signatures in 1985 were marked.

As the world and region remembered the horrors of nuclear weapons and stand in solidarity, there is still work to be done.

• READ MORE: Other nuclear wastewater in Pacific reports

Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has stated that Japan’s discharge of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean does not breach the Rarotonga Treaty which established a Nuclear-Free Zone in the South Pacific.

Civil society groups have been calling for Japan to stop the dumping in the Pacific Ocean, but Brown, who is also the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum and represents a country
associated by name with the Rarotonga Treaty, has backtracked on both the efforts of PIFS and his own previous calls against it.

Brown stated during the recent 10th Pacific Alliance Leaders Meeting (PALM10) meeting in
Tokyo that Pacific Island Leaders stressed the importance of transparency and scientific evidence to ensure that Japan’s actions did not harm the environment or public health.

But he also defended Japan, saying that the wastewater, treated using the Advanced Liquid
Processing System (ALPS) to remove most radioactive materials except tritium, met the
standard set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Harmful isotopes removed
“No, the water has been treated to remove harmful isotopes, so it’s well within the standard guidelines as outlined by the global authority on nuclear matters, the IAEA,” Brown said in an Islands Business article.

“Japan is complying with these guidelines in its discharge of wastewater into the ocean.”

The Cook Islands has consistently benefited from Japanese development grants. In 2021, Japan funded through the Asian Development Bank $2 million grant from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, financed by the Government of Japan.

Together with $500,000 of in-kind contribution from the government of the Cook Islands, the grant funded the Supporting Safe Recovery of Travel and Tourism Project.

Just this year Japan provided grants for the Puaikura Volunteer Fire Brigade Association totaling US$132,680 and a further US$53,925 for Aitutaki’s Vaitau School.

Long-term consequences
In 2023, Prime Minister Brown said it placed a special obligation on Pacific Island States because of ’the long-term consequences for Pacific peoples’ health, environment and human rights.

Pacific states, he said, had a legal obligation “to prevent the dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone” and “to not . . .  assist or encourage the dumping by anyone of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.

“Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for
generations to come.”

The Pacific Islands Forum went on further to state then that the issue was an “issue of significant transboundary and intergenerational harm”.

The Rarotonga Treaty, a Cold War-era agreement, prohibits nuclear weapons testing and
deployment in the region, but it does not specifically address the discharge of the treated
nuclear wastewater.

Pacific civil society organisations continue to condemn Japan’s dumping of nuclear-treated
wastewater. Of its planned 1.3 million tonnes of nuclear-treated wastewater, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has conducted seven sets of dumping into the Pacific Ocean and was due to commence the eighth between August 7-25.

Regardless of the recommendations provided by the Pacific Island Forum’s special panel of
experts and civil society calls to stop Japan and for PIF Leaders to suspend Japan’s dialogue
partner status, the PIF Chair Mark Brown has ignored concerns by stating his support for
Japan’s nuclear wastewater dumping plans.

Contradiction of treaty
This decision is being viewed by the international community as a contradiction of the Treaty of Rarotonga that symbolises a genuine collaborative endeavour from the Pacific region, born out of 10 years of dedication from Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, the Cook Islands, and various other nations, all working together to establish a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. Treaty Ratification

Bedi Racule, a nuclear justice advocate said the Treaty of Rarotonga preamble had one of the most powerful statements in any treaty ever. It is the member states’ promise for a nuclear free Pacific.

“The spirit of the Treaty is to protect the abundance and the beauty of the islands for future
generations,” Racule said.

She continued to state that it was vital to ensure that the technical aspects of the Treaty and the text from the preamble is visualised.

“We need to consistently look at this Treaty because of the ongoing nuclear threats that are
happening”.

Racule said the Treaty did not address the modern issues being faced like nuclear waste dumping, and stressed that there was a dire need to increase the solidarity and the
universalisation of the Treaty.

“There is quite a large portion of the Pacific that is not signed onto the Treaty. There’s still work within the Treaty that needs to be ratified.

“It’s almost like a check mark that’s there but it’s not being attended to.”

The Pacific islands Forum meets on August 26-30.

Brittany Nawaqatabu is assistant media and communications officer of the Suva-based Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG). 

The PANG media team at this month’s Pacific International Media Conference in Fiji caught up with independent journalist, author and educator Dr David Robie and questioned him on his views about decolonisation in the Pacific.

Dr Robie, editor of Asia Pacific Report and deputy chair of Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), a co-organiser of the conference, shared his experience on reporting on Kanaky New Caledonia and West Papua’s fight for freedom.

He speaks from his 40 years of journalism in the Pacific saying the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum need to step up pressure on France and Indonesia to decolonise.

• READ MORE: Melanesian leaders oppose ‘militarisation’, call for joint UN-MSG mission to New Caledonia
• Other Pacific International Media Conference reports

This interview was conducted at the end of the conference, on July 6, and a week before the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders called for France to allow a joint United Nations-MSG mission to New Caledonia to assess the political situation and propose solutions for the ongoing crisis.

The leaders of the subregional bloc — from Fiji, FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front of New Caledonia), Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu — met in Tokyo on the sidelines of the 10th Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM10), to specifically talk about New Caledonia.

They included Fiji’s Sitiveni Rabuka, PNG’s James Marape, Solomon Islands’ Jeremiah Manele, and Vanuatu’s Charlot Salwai.

In his interview with PANG (Pacific Network on Globalisation), Dr Robie also draws parallels with the liberation struggle in Palestine, which he says has become a global symbol for justice and freedom everywhere.

“I should mention Palestine as well because essentially it’s settler colonisation.

“What we’ve seen in the massive protests over the last nine months and so on there has been a huge realisation in many countries around the world that colonisation is still here after thinking, or assuming, that had gone some years ago.

“So you’ll see in a lot of protests — we have protests across Aotearoa New Zealand every week —  that the flags of Kanaky, West Papua and Palestine fly together.

“The people see these as symbolic of the repression and injustice all over the world.”

PANG Media talk to Dr David Robie on decolonisation.  Video: PANG Media

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.

A Pacific regional network has deplored what they call increasing brutality on Kanak youth in Kanaky New Caledonia and the deployment of thousands of troops.

New Caledonia has experienced a wave of violence with Nouméa the scene of riots, blockades, looting and deadly clashes since mid-May.

France has sent armoured vehicles with machine gun capability to New Caledonia to quell violence.

• READ MORE: Emmanuel Macron’s gamble on New Caledonia’s crisis
• Open letter to President Macron: End Kanak vote ‘unfreezing’ and complete decolonisation
• Other New Caledonia crisis reports

In a joint statement, endorsed by more than a dozen groups, including Pacific Elders’ Voice and Pacific Youth Council, the Pacific Network on Globalisation said “liberation” was the answer — not repression.

“The people of Kanaky New Caledonia have spoken, saying yet again, any and all attempts to determine the future relationship between France and the territory, by force, and without its people, will never be accepted,” the PANG statement said.

The group wants Paris to implement an impartial Eminent Persons Group (EPG) to resolve the crisis peacefully.

They also want Paris to withdraw the controversial electoral bill that prompted the violent turn of events in the territory.

‘Only pathway’
“The Pacific groups, and solidarity partners therefore strongly support the affirmation of the FLNKS and other pro-independence groups — that responding to the current crisis in a political and non-repressive, non-violent manner is the only pathway towards a viable solution,” PANG said in a statement.

A week after violence broke out in Kanaky New Caledonia on May 13, President Emmanuel Macron flew to the territory for a day to diffuse tensions.

He promised dialogue would continue, “in view of the current context, we give ourselves a few weeks so as to allow peace to return, dialogue to resume, in view of a comprehensive agreement”.

Following his departure, FLNKS representatives and other pro-independence voices were neither convinced of the effectiveness of his visit nor of the genuineness of his intentions, the PANG statement went on to say.

RNZ Pacific has contacted the French Ambassador for the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, for comment.

The news service has yet to receive a response.

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

A Pacific civil society alliance has condemned French neocolonial policies in Kanaky New Caledonia, saying Paris is set on “maintaining the status quo” and denying the indigenous Kanak people their inalienable right to self-determination.

The Pacific Regional Non-Governmental Organisations (PRNGOs) Alliance, representing some 15 groups, said in a statement that it reaffirmed its solidarity with the Kanaks in a bid to to expose ongoing efforts by the French government to “derail a decolonisation process painstakingly pursued in this Pacific Island territory for the last 30 years”.

It said that France — especially under the Macron government — as the colonial power administering this UN-sanctioned process of decolonisation had repeatedly shown that it
could not remain a “neutral party” to the Noumea Accords.

• READ MORE: Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

The 1998 pact was designed specifically to hand sovereignty back to the people of Kanaky New Caledonia and end French colonial rule, said PRNGOs.

“In recent months, the Macron government [has] forced through proposed constitutional
amendments aimed at changing voting eligibility rules for local elections in the French
territory,” said the statement.

“These eligibility provisions have been preserved and protected under the [Noumea] Accords as a safeguard for indigenous peoples against demographic changes that could make them a minority in their own land and block the path to freedom.”

The electoral amendments were passed by the French Senate in early April and
will be voted on in Parliament this month.

Elections deferred
“The Macron government has, in a parallel move, also managed to defer local elections,
initially scheduled for mid-May, to mid-December at the latest, to allow voting under new
provisions that would favour pro-French parties,” the statement said.

In 2021, President Macron unilaterally called for the third independence referendum to be
held in December that year amid the covid-19 pandemic that “heavily affected the
ability of indigenous communities to organise and participate”.

Although it was a “no” vote, only 43.87 percent of the 184,364 registered voters exercised their right to vote.

“Express reservations and requests by Kanak leaders and representatives for a later date were ignored, casting serious doubt on genuine representation and participation,” said PRNGOs.

A Pacific Islands Forum Mission sent to observe proceedings concluded in its report that “the self-determination referendum that took place 12 December 2021 did so with the non-participation of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous people of New Caledonia.

“The result of the referendum is an inaccurate representation of the will of registered voters . . . ”

The alliance said that in all of these actions, the French government had shown no interest at all in respecting the Noumea Accords or in granting the Kanak people their most fundamental rights — “particularly the right to be free”.

‘Democracy’ link claimed
Macron’s allies and pro-French advocates have claimed that these initiatives by the
French government are more consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law.

The aspirations of the Kanak people for self-determination had been
“mischaracterised as being ethno-nationalistic, akin to the ‘far-right’, and racist,” PRNGOs said.

The alliance said that if the vote on May 13 succeeded in removing the electoral roll restrictions succeed, it would be seen as a direct attack on the principle of the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter and its Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

“That the evil of colonialism can continue unchecked in this manner, and in this 21st century, is not only an insult to the Pacific region but to the international system,” the statement said.

“The Pacific is not distracted by French false narratives. The Kanak, as people, are the rightful inhabitants of what is present day New Caledonia still under enduring French colonial rule.”

The alliance called on President Macron to withdraw the constitutional changes on electoral roll provisions protecting the rights of the indigenous people of Kanaky, and it appealed to France to send a neutral high-level mission to resume dialogue between pro-independence parties and local anti-independence groups over a new political agreement.

It also called for another independence referendum that “genuinely reflects their will”.

The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) has declared its solidarity with civil society groups and student protesters demonstrating against the torture of a Papuan man, Defianus Kogoya, by Indonesian troops in West Papua last February.

The torture was revealed in a video that went viral across the world last month.

PANG said in a statement that peaceful demonstrations came after the video was circulated showing Defianus Kogoya bound in a water-filled barrel, being beaten and cut with knives by Indonesian soldiers.

• READ MORE: Indonesian human rights: 13 soldiers arrested after Papuan torture video
• President Wenda: Crackdown on Jayapura protest shows need for UN visit
• Other Papua torture video reports

Indonesian authorities have since admitted and apologised for the torture, and announced the arrest of 13 soldiers.

In the same video incident, two other Papuan men, Warinus Murib and Alianus Murib, were also arrested and allegedly tortured. Warinus Murib died of his injuries.

Reports state that 62 protesting students have been arrested and interrogated before they were released, while two people were seriously injured by Indonesian security forces.

In an earlier protest, 15 people were arrested for giving out pamphlets. Protesters demand all military operations must cease in West Papua.

“We condemn the excessive military presence in West Papua and the associated human rights violation against Papuans,” said the PANG statement.

“We also condemn the use of heavy-handed tactics by the Indonesian police to violently assault and detain students who should have the right and freedom to express their views.

“This demonstrates yet again the ongoing oppression by Indonesian authorities in West Papua despite decades of official denial and media censorship.”

United Nations experts have expressed serious concerns about the deteriorating human rights situation in the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua, citing shocking abuses against indigenous Papuans, including child killings, disappearances, torture and mass displacement of people.

Thirteen arrests over the Papuan torture video.    Video: Al Jazeera

Media censorship
In its concluding observations of Indonesia’s second periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 26 March 2024, the Human Rights Committee expressed deep concern over:

• patterns of extrajudicial killings,
• enforced disappearances, torture, and
• other forms of cruel and degrading treatment, particularly of or against indigenous Papuans and the failure to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions.

The committee also highlighted continuing reports of media censorship and suppression of the freedom of expression.

“We call on the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) and the people and the governments of all Pacific Island countries to demand that Indonesia allow for the implementation of the decision of the PIF Leaders in August 2019 for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct a mission to West Papua,” the PANG statement said.

“We call on the special envoys of the PIF on West Papua to expedite their mandate to facilitate dialogue with Indonesia, and particularly to pave the way for an urgent UN visit.

“We echo the calls made from the 62 students that were arrested for the Indonesian government to cease all military operations in West Papua and allow the United Nations to do its job.

“Our Pacific governments should expect nothing less from Indonesia, particularly given its privileged position as an associate member of the MSG and as a PIF Dialogue Partner,” PANG said.

Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Other indigenous knowledge reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first step, Wolfenden believed, was awareness.

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

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

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

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

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

The Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) is disappointed with the Fiji government and Pacific Islands Forum’s endorsement of the Japanese government’s plans to dump 1.3 million tonnes of nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean at the end of this month.

Nuclear justice campaigner Epeli Lesuma of PANG said this was a “blatant disregard” of the expert opinion of a panel of scientists commissioned by the Forum.

“It’s disappointing because Pacific leaders appointed this panel of experts so ideally our trust should be with them and the recommendations they have provided to us,” Lesuma said.

• READ MORE:  PNG prime minister urged to oppose nuke wastewater release into the Pacific Ocean
• Other Fukushima reports

“These are not just random scientists. These are esteemed and respected professionals engaged to provide us with this advice.”

Last week, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said he was satisfied with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) report that stated Japan’s plans to release treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean had met relevant international standards.

“I have made it my business as a Pacific Island leader to carefully study the information and data on the matter…I am satisfied that Japan has demonstrated commitment to satisfy the wishes of the Pacific Island states, as conveyed to Japan by the Pacific Island Forum chair,” Rabuka said in a video on the Fiji government’s official Facebook page.

“I am satisfied that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report is reassuring enough to dispel any fears of any untoward degradation of the ocean environment that would adversely affect lives and ecosystems in our precious blue Pacific,” he said.

‘Convinced’ of IAEA’s seriousness
“I am convinced of the seriousness of the IAEA to continuously monitor this process in Japan.”

The controversial plan by Japan continues to spark anger and concern across many communities, environmental activists, non-government and civil society organisations.

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s statement. Video: Fiji govt

Sharing Rabuka’s sentiments was the PIF chair and Cook Islands Prime Minister, Mark Brown, who said the IAEA was the world’s foremost authority on nuclear safety.

“We have received the comments, and the report from our scientific panel and the IAEA and [we are] taking a measured response.

“I’d have to say that as the IAEA is responsible for assessment and for anything to do with the safety of reactors around the world, their findings and credibility need to be upheld.”

For Lesuma and other concerned members of Pacific communities, the fight was more than just the Pacific being used as a dumping ground.

He maintains that the two Pacific Island leaders’ support for the IAEA report discredited the PIF-commissioned panel’s decision and credibility.

“They are contradicting themselves because they have appointed this group of experts to advise them. Yet they do not believe their recommendations.

‘Now we are backtracking’
“It’s disappointing that this panel was appointed during Fiji’s term as Forum chair. Here we were as head of this regional body but now we are backtracking and saying we don’t believe you.”

Lesuma said civil society groups would continue to back the opinions and recommendations of PIF’s independent panel of scientific experts.

“Their opinions were formulated by science and with the Pacific people and the care of the ocean at its centre,” he said.

PIF’s independent panel of experts remains adamant that there is insufficient data to deem the discharge of nuclear waste safe for release into the Pacific Ocean.

In a June statement this year, PIF General Secretary Henry Puna said the Forum remained committed to addressing strong concerns for the significance of the potential threat of nuclear contamination to the health and security of the Blue Pacific, its people, and prospects.

“Even before Japan announced its decision in April 2021, Pacific states, meeting for the first time in December 2020 as States Parties to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), recalled concerns about the environmental impact of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Reactor accident in 2011 and urged Japan to take all steps necessary to address any potential harm to the Pacific,” he said.

“They ‘called on states to take all appropriate measures within their territory, jurisdiction or control to prevent significant transboundary harm to the territory of another state, as required under international law’.

International legal rules
“These important statements stem from key international legal rules and principles, including the unique obligation placed by the Rarotonga Treaty on Pacific states to ‘Prevent Dumping’ (Article 7), in view of our nuclear testing legacy and its permanent impacts on our peoples’ health, environment and human rights.”

Puna said Pacific states therefore had a legal obligation “to prevent the dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone” and “not to take any action to assist or encourage the dumping by anyone of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone”.

Specific concerns by the Forum on nuclear contamination issues were not new, Puna added, and that for many years, the Forum had to deal with attempts by other states to dump nuclear waste into the Pacific.

“Leaders have urged Japan and other shipping states to store or dump their nuclear waste in their home countries rather than storing or dumping them in the Pacific.

“In 1985, the Forum welcomed the Japan PM’s statement that ‘Japan had no intention of dumping radioactive waste in the Pacific Ocean in disregard of the concern expressed by the communities of the region’.”

Against this regional context, he said the Forum’s engagement on the present unprecedented issue signify that for the Blue Pacific, this was not merely a nuclear safety issue.

“It is rather a nuclear legacy issue, an ocean, fisheries, environment, biodiversity, climate change, and health issue with the future of our children and future generations at stake.

Pacific people ‘have nothing to gain’
“Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for generations to come,” Puna had said.

The Pacific Ocean contains the greatest biomass of organisms of ecological, economic, and cultural value, including 70 percent of the world’s fisheries. It is the largest continuous body of water on the planet.

The health of all the world’s ocean ecosystems is in documented decline due to a variety of stressors, including climate change, over-exploitation of resources, and pollution, a Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) report highlighted.

The PINA news report cited a paper by the US National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML), an organisation of more than 100 member laboratories, that stated the proposed release of the contaminated water was a transboundary and transgenerational issue of concern for the health of marine ecosystems and those whose lives and livelihoods depend on them.

Japan aims to gradually release 1.3 million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater from the defunct Fukushima power plant over a period of 30-40 years.

Aralai Vosayaco is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific. She is also the 2023 news editor (national) of Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publication. Asia Pacific Report and Wansolwara collaborate.

Australia needs to be put on notice by Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders over abandoning its commitments under the South Pacific’s nuclear free accord — the Treaty of Rarotonga — by signing up to the controversial security pact, AUKUS, says the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG).

The deal by the Australian, the United Kingdom, and the United States governments is “highly problematic” and “heightens risks for nuclear proliferation” in the region, PANG coordinator Maureen Penjueli said.

“Security and defence pacts today are about the Pacific Ocean — which is our home — but it has never been with Pacific people, let alone our governments,” she said.

• READ MORE: AUKUS pact strikes at heart of Pacific nuclear-free regionalism
• Other AUKUS pact reports

AUKUS is promoted as a trilateral partnership between the three allies to enable Australia to boost its military capacity by acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for its navy.

However, Australia, was a key part of PIF and also a party to the Rarotonga Treaty, the region’s principal nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament agreement, Penjueli said.

The accord legally binds member states “not to manufacture, possess, acquire or have control of nuclear weapons (Article 3)”, as well as “to prevent nuclear testing in their territories (Article 6)”. The treaty further places an emphasis on keeping the region free from radioactive wastes.

Penjueli said that Pacific people had had first-hand experience of the threats of nuclear weapons testing, and continued to live with the sideeffects of historical nuclear catastrophes to this day.

Long list of nuclear threats
“We see AUKUS as just one in a long list of nuclear threats and issues that the region as a whole has been confronted with,” she said.

“We see Australia playing a key, often unilateral role, taking decisions around peace and security which is not aligned with Pacific peoples’ immediate priorities around security, in particular human security.

“AUKUS raises serious concerns over Australia’s intentions for its island neighbours.”

Pacific Island governments and civil society had been at the forefront in advocating for a nuclear free and independent Pacific.

They have expressed strong opposition to AUKUS since it was announced in September, which experts say undermines regional solidarity on the issue of a nuclear free Pacific.

Australuan foreign policy analyst Dr Greg Fry said that the more immediate threat to the South Pacific nuclear-free zone lay not in the nuclear submarines, which were not due until 2040 and beyond, “but in the fundamental shift in Australian-US defence arrangements which were announced alongside AUKUS”.

According to Dr Fry, these arrangements included the possible home-basing of American submarines, surface vessels, and bombers, in Australia, as well stockpiling of munitions.

Home basing threat
“Home basing would require the presence of nuclear weapons in Australia. This raises questions for article 5 of the Rarotonga Treaty which bans the stationing of nuclear weapons in the treaty zone.

“It would, therefore, require Australia to notify the Secretary-General of the PIFS under article 9 of the treaty.”

Dr Fry said Australia’s assurances that the nuclear reactors powering the submarines would not be in danger of accidently releasing radioactive material into the Pacific Ocean needed to be examined against the history of accidents involving nuclear submarines.

“There has already been a serious accident in the Pacific. In 2005, the US nuclear attack submarine USS San Francisco ran into a sea mount near the Caroline Islands in the Federated States of Micronesia.

“Although the nuclear reactor was undamaged, it was reported as ‘remarkable’ that it was not given the extensive damage to the submarine,” he said.

“Aside from the obvious nuclear concerns, the partnership is also widely noted to be an effort by the Australia-UK-US governments to counter the growing influence of China in the Pacific.

“It [AUKUS] also means Australia is even more fully integrated with US forces in a new cold war with China right now,” said Dr Fry.

Major policy shift
He added that “this is a major shift in policy from one where we pretended we were friends to both China and US”.

Penjueli said that several Pacific countries have had long diplomatic relations with China and the Asian superpower was not considered a problem.

“Our countries have taken much more nuanced policies with China. It is time that Australia is put on notice at the Forum. It is clearly part of our neighbourhood but it is acting outside of the norms of Pacific Islands Forum.”

She said that while AUKUS had taken the limelight, it was not the only cause for nuclear anxiety for the region.

The revelation by a Japanese utility company about plans to release nuclear waste from the Fukushima nuclear power plant — one of the world’s worst atomic disasters — into the Pacific Ocean had also set the alarm bells ringing.

“Japan is also a partner to the forum and the announcement has infuriated regional governments and activist groups,” Penjueli said.

“Our governments have opposed nuclear testing, they have opposed the movement of nuclear shipments of radioactive waste and they have strongly opposed the announcement by Japan to dump radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.

“The Pacific Ocean is not a dumping ground for nuclear materials, nor is it a highway for nuclear submarines.”

Pacific regional civil society groups claim that DeepGreen, a venture capitalist company, has started “the clock ticking” with little regard for potential wide-ranging environmental damage from seabed mining in two years’ time.

An aggressive push by any industry player to fast-track the conclusion of seven years of ongoing global negotiations on the mining code was a “naked attempt to hijack and undermine” a process seeking stringent standards and regulations for the extremely risky activity, the groups say.

The company is the real beneficiary of the Nauru government’s decision to trigger the start of a process which could lead to potential widespread seabed mining, said the Pacific Civil Society Organisations Collective (CSOC) today in a statement.

• READ MORE: Nauru urged to reverse deep sea mining push

The trigger, a clause within a 1994 Agreement on implementing Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows sponsor states such as Nauru to jump-start the mining process, by invoking a rule that sets a deadline for finalising and adopting of globally negotiated mining laws and regulations.

In the event that the global community failed to agree to mining laws and regulations, DeepGreen or its Nauru subsidiary NORI could proceed to mine based on work plans submitted.

“The Pacific Blue Line collective recognises that under the Sponsorship Agreement, Nauru believes it is required, pursuant to Clause 2.1, to ‘do all things reasonably necessary to give effect to DeepGreen and its subsidiary having the full benefits of the sponsorship’.

“This would include pulling the trigger to ensure full benefits of the sponsorship,” the statement said.

Sovereign decision
“The decision to start the two-year clock ticking is a sovereign decision. However, the Pacific collective believes the Nauru government has been persuaded by DeepGreen to take this action on the pretext that the urgency of the climate crisis demands the commencement of mining in two years, without regard for the potentially wide-ranging environmental damage arising from deep sea mining (DSM).

“The damage could see the Nauru government, future administrations, and Nauruan people face liability for environmental consequences that cannot be foreseen or appreciated at this stage.”

The collective said that last week in media interviews pushing for a rapid opening of the seabed through pulling a trigger, DeepGreen had dismissed the increasing scientific knowledge about the deep sea and its biodiversity, as well as the risks to ocean health from seabed mining.

“In the same week, over 300 scientists voiced their support for a moratorium on DSM. Prior to this, major brands BMW Group, Google, Volvo Group and Samsung SDI signed a pledge not to source deep seabed minerals.

“The European Parliament also called for a moratorium on DSM. Here in the Pacific, the collective has called for a total ban on DSM.”

The collective said that in the Pacific, “one of the major concerns is the impact of mining upon coastal communities”.

“Deep seabed mining would likely cause massive sediment plumes that could affect crucial tuna and other fish stocks, thus further destabilising livelihoods for hundreds of thousands of ocean dependent people and communities,” the collective said.

Mounting pressure
“The Pacific Ocean is already under mounting pressure from human activities and the impacts of climate change, and there is substantial evidence that we need to now be embarking on an era of restoration, not further reckless exploitation.

“Those who are swayed by the false promise that deep seabed mining is a ‘green’ and attractive investment proposition need to think again and listen to the science. It is simply not the case.

“Based on the best scientific knowledge available, scientists predict deep sea mining will cause irreversible harm to the environment, including to species, habitats, ecosystems and critical ecosystem functions and services.”

While the economic gains promised by DeepGreen and other potential investors remained highly speculative and unsubstantiated there was real danger of a domino effect occurring, in which other states would follow Nauru’s lead, with potential Oceania-wide impacts on the people, nature and economies of the region.

Signatories to the civil society collective statement include the Pacific Conference of Churches, Pacific Islands Association of NGOs, and the Pacific Network on Globalisation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will not allow this history to repeat itself!

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

International law firm Blue Ocean Law and the Fiji-based regional non-governmental organisation Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) have released a report detailing the risks and pitfalls of deep sea mining for Pacific peoples in light of governments’ inadequate regulatory frameworks.

Titled Resource Roulette: How Deep Sea Mining and Inadequate Regulatory Frameworks Imperil the Pacific and its Peoples, the report is an independent legal and policy analysis of the deep sea mining (DSM) legislation of 14 Pacific Island nations, and includes in-depth case studies of DSM in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

“The report examines not only the absence of requisite indigenous rights and environmental protections in existing legislation, but the capacity of Pacific Islands to implement and enforce laws purporting to regulate deep sea mining,” said attorney Julian Aguon of Blue Ocean Law (BOL).

Insights gleaned from months of fieldwork and interviews with various commentators and experts have revealed that many countries are vastly under-resourced in terms of policing DSM activities in their waters.

As a result, countries which undertook DSM at this early, experimental stage, risked incurring great environmental and social harms likely to affect indigenous and coastal communities.

Moreover, Pacific countries may garner little to no revenue, and in some cases, actually lose money from expenses associated with DSM, including high-risk equity investments and costly environmental clean-up, as well as arbitration and other legal proceedings.

The report also documents impacts from exploratory DSM on PI nations’ fisheries and tourism sectors, which have already been felt in countries like PNG and Tonga.

Consent failure
These impacts are compounded by the failure to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples and other affected communities, and represent the opposite of a precautionary approach to hazardous industrial ventures — both required under international law.

“Countries in the region, particularly in Melanesia, have been rushing into agreements with mining companies without bothering to consult with or obtain the FPIC of indigenous peoples or affected groups,” said PANG coordinator Maureen Penjueli.

“This rush to mine is largely a result of pressure from industry and foreign governments, and has resulted in legislative frameworks favourable to mining operators, which minimise the risks of DSM and lack enforceable human rights and environmental provisions.”

Given the high number of poorly regulated, unprofitable terrestrial mines in the region, Pacific countries are advised to adopt a cautious approach exemplified by a growing number of countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Mexico, and enact moratoria on DSM until comprehensive scientific studies can be done on the deep ocean ecosystem.

The BOL-PANG report has been published by the University of South Pacific and is available on the online library catalogue.

The report can also be accessed from the BOL and PANG websites.

It is anticipated that the report will serve as a useful tool for indigenous communities, civil society organisations, and governments currently facing the prospect of DSM in their waters.

This report was developed by Blue Ocean Law (BOL) and the Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG).

Resource Roulette – the full BOL-PANG report