The head of the United Nations body mandated to develop regulations for seabed mining in international waters says Pacific countries are playing a big role in shaping the regulations that will govern the future industry.

International Seabed Authority (ISA) Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho was in Fiji last week conducting training for Pacific Island nations on what it means to be a sponsoring state of a potential seabed mining company.

There is great interest from the likes of China and the US in polymetallic nodules found on the deep seabed in parts of the Pacific Ocean’s international waters.

• READ MORE: Other seabed mining reports

These nodules are rich in minerals such as copper, cobalt and nickel. These metals are highly valued in modern tech — but it remains uncertain how damaging mining would be to the marine environment.

Carvalho told RNZ Pacific Waves the region was very important to the ISA process of developing rules for mining, given the strong country positions both for and against.

“Some of them are really close to the idea of mining in the deep sea outside of national jurisdiction. Others are very much attached to the environmental safeguards and cautious about this activity, therefore this region has a big role in shaping the regime.”

She said she respected the opposing views Pacific countries had on the potential future industry.

PIF representatives
In Fiji, she met with representatives of Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) member countries and civil society organisations.

She said these were sovereign positions and her role was not to judge but rather to facilitate dialogue.

“And that is why I am here for capacity building, training, bringing my team to support these countries to better understand how they can make decisions internally and how they can sit at the table with others to find consensus in the multilateral space.”

She also acknowledged there were some civil society complaints about exclusion from the training but she clarified that the list of participants was constructed based on the relevance of the subject matter.

“So this training was particularly formulated to get government officials more enlightened about the responsibilities and how to make deals with contractors and investors.”

Carvahlo said some representatives of civil society networks were present as observers but it was not possible to invite everyone.

Before she left Fiji, Carvahlo did meet with a group of civil society representatives. She said it was good for her to hear their concerns firsthand.

‘Still big gap’
“They still see a big gap in their participation and their voices to be heard in the decision making,” she said.

“It was very enlightening for me to see that there is still work to be done in this region to make that communities can really engage and shape and influence decision making.”

The ISA boss encouraged all Pacific Island countries, regardless of their stance on deep sea mining, to participate fully in the International Seabed Authority meetings to make use of this historic opportunity to develop the proper regulations for an industry before it actually begins.

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

Last week, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said Aotearoa’s immigration settings were “no way to treat our Pacific cousins”.

“All Pacific people want is a fair go, equivalent to what other nations are getting, and they’re not getting it,” he said outside Parliament.

While Peters’ comments were made in the context of the Pacific Justice petition, the concept of the Pacific as “family” has become a common rhetoric used by politicians and leaders across New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Four key facts about climate change and human migration
• UN warns of millions displaced by climate change as COP30 opens in Brazil
• Other climate migration reports

In 2018, former Prime Minister Dame Jacinda Ardern spoke on such issues facing the Pacific.

“We are the Pacific too, and we are doing our best to stand with our family as they face these threats,” she said during a talk at the Paris Institute.

At the Pacific Islands Forum last year, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said: “This is the Pacific family and we prioritise the centrality of the Pacific Islands Forum.”

But is Aotearoa doing enough to live up to this “Pacific family” rhetoric in the face of daunting and life-changing threats, such as climate change, continues to reshape the region?

Discussions and comparisons continue to arise off the back of Australia’s Falepili Union Treaty, which saw the first group of Tuvaluan migrants relocate towards the end of 2025.

Australia’s implementation of the treaty has sparked criticism over whether New Zealand is failing its Pacific neighbours when it comes to climate-related migration.

‘Increasingly perilous situations’
For Pacific Islanders hoping to move to Aotearoa, there is a pathway.

Under the Pacific Access Category (PAC) ballot, 150 people from specifically Kiribati and 250 from Tuvalu — two of the most vulnerable nations at the forefront of climate impacts — can gain residency every year.

Applicants must pay $1385, pass health checks, meet English requirements, be under 45, and secure a job offer.

Dr Olivia Yates has spent years researching climate mobility from Kiribati and Tuvalu.

She said the tension around climate mobility sits not in a lack of awareness, but in the design of the system itself.

“I think the main takeaway is that New Zealand’s current approach to climate mobility, or at least for the last five years — things are starting to change now — but initially — we do a lot of research, get a lot more information, and leave immigration systems as they are,” she said.

She said Pacific neighbours islands are facing “increasingly difficult” circumstances.

“Disasters are becoming more frequent … the access to food and to water is being challenged because of these creeping impacts of climate change. So as the New Zealand government takes one step forward, I feel like climate change is sort of a step ahead of us,” Dr Yates said.

“It sounds very doom and gloom, but the other thing I would say is that our Pacific neighbours, fundamentally and primarily, want to stay in place. Nobody wants to have to leave.”

In the meantime, people are moving, often through pathways never intended to respond to climate pressure.

“People are using these laws to come to the country and their laws that were not really set up to address climate change and the movement of people in response to climate change,” Dr Yates said.

“They’re primarily economically motivated, and so this creates a whole bunch of issues that are the downstream consequence of using a system for something that is not what it was designed for.”

She said that PAC ballot, created in 2001, has effectively become “the de facto pathway for people from Kiribati and Tuvalu to move here for reasons related to climate change”.

While many migrants cite work, family or opportunity as the primary motivations, these distinctions are becoming blurred.

“It’s kind of becoming increasingly difficult to separate climate change drivers from these factors,” Dr Yates explained.

And the consequences can be significant. When visas hinge on employment and strict eligibility criteria, families can find themselves vulnerable if those circumstances shift.

“Our current immigration laws are being used in a way that they weren’t designed for, and this is having really negative consequences on people, specifically from Kiribati and Tuvalu,” she said.

“On the other side of that, those that wish to stay, whether because they choose to or because they can’t afford to leave, that visas aren’t available to them, and they start to face increasingly perilous situations that breach their rights.”

Lacking a plan
Kiribati community leader Kinaua Ewels, who works closely with Pacific migrants settling in Aotearoa, said the system’s rigidity has left many feeling excluded and unsupported.

She does not believe New Zealand is set up to deal with the realities of climate migration

“I’m hoping the New Zealand government could help the people who are able to move on their own, using their own money, but when they get here, they can actually access work opportunities,” she said.

Ewels said the PAC still feels restrictive, and lacks a plan to help new arrivals adapt or secure employment.

“They pressure them to look for their own job. There’s no plan for the government to help them settle very easily, to run away from climate change and their life situations back on the island,” Ewels said.

“More can be done.”

According to Ewels, the families who do arrive with the hopes of safety and stability, end up struggling to navigate basic systems, such as healthcare and employment, and get no formal support.

“It’s very restricted in the way that it’s not supportive to the people from the Pacific Islands,” she said.

NZ govt ‘not ready to bring climate refugees’

Ewels said that while New Zealand spoke of the Pacific as “family,” those words continued ringing hollow for communities who saw little practical support.

“They use the family name, which is a very meaningful and deep word back home, but the process is not done yet,” she said.

“In reality, the government is not actually ready to bring people over here in terms of climate refugees or people needing to move because of climate change.”

Ewels said if New Zealand truly viewed the Pacific as family, that connection would extend itself into some meaningful collaboration with Pacific community leaders here in Aotearoa, who could help them navigate the complexities of this situation.

“If the government talks about family, they should work with us, the community leaders, so we can help them at least make sure people are warmly welcomed and supported when they come here,” Ewels said.

Dr Yates said the government was making efforts, but warned the the pace of policy was struggling to keep up with the pace of change happening in the world today.

“I would say that the New Zealand government is trying. But as the government takes one step forward, climate change is starting to outpace us.”

Pacific sea levels have risen by as much as 15cm over the past three decades.

There are predictions that around 50,000 Pacific people across the region could lose their homes each year as the climate crisis reshapes their environments.

In the past decade, one in 10 people from Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu have already migrated.

Kiribati community leader Charles Kiata told RNZ Pacific in October last year that life on the Micronesian island nation was becoming increasingly difficult, as it was being hit by severe storms, with higher temperatures and drought.

“Every part of life, food, shelter, health, is being affected and what hurts the most is that our people feel trapped. They love their home, but their home is slowly disappearing,” Kiata said at the time.

Crops are dying and fresh drinking water is becoming increasingly scarce for the island nation.

Kiata said Kiribati overstayers in New Zealand were anxious they would be sent back home.

“Deporting them back to flooded lands or places with no clean water like Kiribati is not only cruel but it also goes against our shared Pacific values.”

In 2020, Kiribati man Ioane Teitiota took New Zealand to the United Nations Human Rights Committee after his refugee claim, based on sea-level rise, was rejected.

The committee did find his deportation lawful, although ruled that governments must consider the human rights impacts of climate change when assessing deportations.

The term “climate refugee” remains unrecognised in binding international law. It is a term Dr Yates has previously told RNZ was always flawed.

“Climate change is this unique phenomenon because what is forcing people out of their countries comes from elsewhere,” she said.

“At face value, the idea of being a refugee didn’t fit.”

Many communities suffering at the hands of climate change do not want to leave their home, their culture, their land, their community.

Dr Yates said the term “climate mobility” was a better fit — describing it as a spectrum that recognises the desire for communities to have options.

Australia’s Falepili Treaty v NZ’s climate pathways
In late 2025, the first Tuvaluans began relocating to Australia under the Falepili Union, a bilateral treaty signed with Tuvalu in 2023.

The agreement creates a new permanent visa for up to 280 Tuvaluans each year, allocated by ballot. Applicants do not need a job offer, there is no age cap, nor disability exclusion.

The treaty has led debate on online platforms around why New Zealand does not offer a similar pathway.

International law expert Professor Jane McAdam is cautious against simplistic comparisons between New Zealand and Australia.

“It has been mislabelled in a lot of the international media as a climate refugee visa when it’s nothing of the sort,” Prof McAdam said.

“There’s often nothing in this visa that requires you to show that you’re concerned about the impacts of climate change in the future,” she said.

Professor McAdam pointed out that New Zealand had never been viewed as “totally useless” in climate-related migration of Pacific peoples.

“Historically, New Zealand has been seen as leading the way when it comes to providing pathways for people in the Pacific to move,” she said, noting the PAC visa and labour mobility schemes as examples.

“New Zealand has been leading the way globally in recognising how existing international refugee law and human rights work,” she added.

That includes influential tribunal decisions examining how climate impacts intersect with refugee and human rights law, even where claims ultimately failed.

In 2023, Pacific leaders endorsed the Pacific Regional Framework on Climate Mobility, the first regional document to formally acknowledge climate-related migration and commit states to cooperate on safe and dignified pathways.

Dr Yates said New Zealand was “furiously involved” in shaping the framework.

“The framework is the first time, put down on paper, that people are migrating because of climate-related reasons,” she said.

However, the document is non-binding.

“It means our government is ready to take this seriously. But I wouldn’t say they are taking this seriously, yet.”

She added a dedicated, rights-based climate mobility visa is needed that can account for a wide-range of people, including those with disabilities and others disproportionately affected.

RNZ Pacific approached the Immigration Minister Erica Stanford’s office for comment on whether New Zealand immigration law does explicitly recognise climate change or climate-induced displacement as grounds for special protection or a dedicated visa category.

We were advised Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters was the appropriate person to comment on the issue.

However, a spokesperson for Peters told RNZ Pacific the specific issue “would be a question for the Minister of Immigration, or the Climate Change Minister”.

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

When the Pacific Islands Forum concluded in Honiara last month, leaders pledged regional unity under the motto “Iumi Tugeda” — “We are Together”.

Eighteen Pacific heads of government reached agreements on climate resilience and nuclear-free oceans.

They signed the Pacific Resilience Facility treaty and endorsed Australia’s proposal to jointly host the 2026 COP31 climate summit.

• READ MORE: ULMWP alleges 15 civilians killed in West Papua military operation
• Other West Papua reports

However, the region’s most urgent crisis was once again given only formulaic attention. West Papua, where Indonesian military operations continue to displace and replace tens of thousands of Papuans, was given just one predictable paragraph in the final communiqué.

This reaffirmed Indonesia’s sovereignty, recalled an invitation made six years ago for the UN High Commissioner to visit, and vaguely mentioned a possible leaders’ mission in 2026.

For the Papuan people, who have been waiting for more than half a century to exercise their right to self-determination, this represented no progress. It confirmed a decades-long pattern of acknowledging Jakarta’s tight grip, expressing polite concern and postponing action.

A stolen independence
The crisis in West Papua stems from its unique place in Pacific history. In 1961, the West Papuans established the New Guinea Council, adopted a national anthem and raised the Morning Star flag — years before Samoa gained independence in 1962 and Fiji in 1970.

Papuan delegates had also helped to launch the South Pacific Conference in 1950, which would become the Pacific Islands Forum.

However, this path was abruptly reversed. Under pressure from Cold War currents, the Netherlands transferred administration to Indonesia.

The promised plebiscite was replaced by the 1969 Act of Free Choice, in which 1026 hand-picked Papuans were forced to vote for integration under military coercion.

Despite protests, the UN endorsed the result. West Papua was the first Pacific nation to have its recognised independence reversed during decolonisation.

Systematic blockade
Since the early 1990s, UN officials have been seeking access to West Papua. However, the Indonesians have imposed a complete block on any international institutions and news media entering.

Between 2012 and 2022, multiple UN high commissioners and special rapporteurs requested visits. All were denied.

More than 100 UN member states have publicly supported these requests. It has never occurred. Regional organisations ranging from the Pacific Islands Forum to the Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States have made identical demands. Jakarta ignores them all.

International media outlets face the same barriers. Despite former Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s 2015 declaration that foreign journalists could enter Papua freely, visa restrictions and surveillance have kept the province as among the world’s least reported conflicts.

During the protests in 2019, Indonesia shut down internet access across the territory.
Indonesia calculates that it can ignore international opinion because key partners treat West Papua as a low priority.

Australia and New Zealand balance occasional concern with deeper trade ties. The US and China prioritise strategic interests.

Even during his recent visit to Papua New Guinea, UN Secretary-General António Guterres made no mention of West Papua, despite the conflict lying just across the border.

Bougainville vs West Papua
The Pacific’s inaction is particularly striking when compared to Bougainville. Like West Papua, Bougainville endured a brutal conflict.

Unlike West Papua, however, Bougainville received genuine international support for self-determination. Under UN oversight, Bougainville’s 2019 referendum allowed free voting, with 98 per cent choosing independence.

Today, Bougainville and Papua New Guinea are negotiating a peaceful transition to sovereignty.

West Papua has been denied even this initial step. There is no credible mediation. There is no international accompaniment. There is no timetable for a political solution.

The price of hypocrisy
Pacific leaders are confronted with a fundamental contradiction. They demand bold global action on climate justice, yet turn a blind eye to political injustice on their doorstep.

The ban on raising the Morning Star flag in Honiara, reportedly under pressure from Indonesia, has highlighted this hypocrisy.

The flag symbolises the right of West Papuans to exist as a nation. Prohibiting it at a meeting celebrating regional solidarity revealed the extent of external influence in Pacific decision-making.

This selective solidarity comes at a high cost. It undermines the Pacific’s credibility as a global conscience on climate change and decolonisation.

It leaves Papuans trapped in what they describe as a “slow-motion genocide”. Between 2018 and 2022, an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 people were displaced by Indonesian military operations.

In 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that violence had reached levels unseen in decades.

Breaking the pattern
The Forum could end this cycle by taking practical steps. For example, it could set a deadline of 12 months for an Indonesia-UN agreement on unrestricted access to West Papua.

If no agreement is reached, the Forum could conduct its own investigation with the Melanesian Spearhead Group. It could also make regional programmes contingent on human rights benchmarks, including ensuring humanitarian access and ending internet shutdowns.

Such measures would not breach the Forum’s charter. They would align Pacific diplomacy with the proclaimed values of dignity and solidarity. They would demonstrate that regional unity extends beyond mere rhetoric.

The test of history
The people of West Papua were among the first in Oceania to resist colonial expansion and to form a modern government. They were also the first to experience the reversal of recognised sovereignty.

Until Pacific leaders find the courage to confront Indonesian obstruction and insist on genuine West Papuan self-determination, “Iumi Tugeda” will remain a beautiful slogan shadowed by betrayal.

The region’s moral authority does not depend on eloquence regarding the climate fund, but on whether it confronts its deepest wound.

Any claim to a unified Blue Pacific identity will remain incomplete until the issue of West Papua’s denied independence is finally addressed.

Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic and writer from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He holds a Master of Arts in international relations from Flinders University – Australia.

Palau’s President Surangel Whipps Jr says it is “a missed opportunity” not to include partners at next mont’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders’ summit.

However, Whipps said he respects the position of the Solomon Islands, as hosts, to exclude more than 20 countries that are not members the regional organisation.

The Solomon Islands is blocking all external partners from attending the PIF leaders’ week in Honiara from September 8-12.

• READ MORE: Other China-Taiwan relationship reports

The decision means that nations such as the United States and China (dialogue partners), and Taiwan (a development partner), will be shut out of the regional gathering.

Whipps Jr told RNZ Pacific that although he has accepted the decision, he was not happy about it.

“These are Forum events; they need to be treated as Forum events. They are not Solomon Islands events, [nor] are Palau events,” Whipps said.

“It is so important for any Pacific [Islands] Forum meeting that we have all our partners there. It is a missed opportunity not to have our partners attending the meeting in the Solomon Islands, but they are the host.”

‘Space’ for leaders
Last week, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele said the decision gave leaders space to focus on a review of how the PIF engaged with diplomatic partners, through reforms under PIF’s Partnership and Engagement Mechanism.

Solomon Islands opposition MP Peter Kenilorea Jr said that the move was about disguising the fact that the Manele administration was planning on blocking Taiwan from entering the country.

“The way I see it is definitely, 100 percent, to do with China and Taiwan,” he said.

Kenilorea said he was concerned there would still be bilateral meetings on the margins, which would be easy for countries with diplomatic missions in Solomon Islands, like China and the US, but not for Taiwan.

“There might be delegations coming through that might have bilaterials that make a big deal out of it, the optics and the narratives that will be coming out of those, if they do happen [they] are out of the control of the Pacific Islands Forum architecture, which is another hit to regionalism.”

Palau, Tuvalu and Marshall Islands are the remaining Pacific countries that have ties with Taiwan.

The Guardian reported that Tuvalu was now considering not attending the leaders’ summit.

Tuvalu disappointed
Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo said he would wait to see how other Pacific leaders responded before deciding whether to attend. He was disappointed at the exclusion.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he was concerned.

“We have advocated very strongly for the status quo. That actually the Pacific Islands Forum family countries come together, and then the dialogue partners, who are from all over the world can be present as well.”

President Whipps said all would be welcome, including China, at the Pacific Islands Forum next year hosted in Palau.

He said it was important for Pacific nations to work together despite differences.

“Everybody has their own sovereignty, they have their own partners and they have their reasons for what they do. We respect that,” he said.

“What’s most important is we find ways to come together.”

Know the reason
Kenilorea said other Solomon Islands MPs knew the deferral was about China and Taiwan but he was the only one willing to mention it.

Solomon Islands switched diplomatic ties from Taiwan to China in 2019. In 2022 the island nation signed a security pact with China.

“If [the deferral] had happened earlier in our [China and Solomon Islands] relationship, I would have thought you would have heard more leaders saying how it is.

“But we are now six years down the track of our switch and leaders are not as vocal as they used to be anymore.”

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

The Pacific’s peak diplomatic bodies have signalled they are ready to engage with Papua New Guinea’s Autonomous Government of Bougainville as mediation begins on the delayed ratification of its successful 2019 independence referendum.

PNG and Bougainville’s leaders met in the capital Port Moresby this week with a moderator to start negotiations on the implementation of the UN-supervised Bougainville Peace Agreement and referendum.

Ahead of the talks, ABG’s President Ishmael Toroama moved to sideline a key sticking point over PNG parliamentary ratification of the vote, with the announcement last week that Bougainville would unilaterally declare independence on September 1, 2027.

• READ MORE: PNG and Bougainville to hold more talks on independence issue
• Other Bougainville reports

The region’s two leading intergovernmental organisations — Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) — have traditionally deferred to member state PNG on discussion of Bougainville independence as an internal matter.

But as a declaration of nationhood becomes increasingly likely and near, there has been a subtle shift.

“It’s their [PNG’s] prerogative but if this matter were raised formally, even by Bougainville themselves, we can start discussion on that,” PIF Secretary-General Baron Waqa told a press briefing at its headquarters in Fiji on Monday.

“Whatever happens, I think the issue would have to be decided by our leaders later this year,” he said of the annual PIF meeting to be held in Solomon Islands in September.

Marked peace deal
The last time the Pacific’s leaders included discussion of Bougainville in their official communique was in 2004 to mark the disarmament of the island under the peace deal.

Waqa said Bougainville had made no formal approach to PIF — a grouping of 18 Pacific states and territories — but it was closely monitoring developments on what could eventually lead to the creation of a new member state.

In 2024, Toroama told BenarNews he would be seeking observer status at the subregional MSG — grouping PNG, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia’s FLNKS — as Bougainville’s first diplomatic foray.

No application has been made yet but MSG acting Director-General Ilan Kiloe told BenarNews they were also keeping a close watch.

“Our rules and regulations require that we engage through PNG and we will take our cue from them,” Kiloe said, adding while the MSG respects the sovereignty of its members, “if requested, we will provide assistance” to Bougainville.

“The purpose and reason the MSG was established initially was to advance the collective interests of the Melanesian countries, in particular, to assist those yet to attain independence,” he said. “And to provide support towards their aim of becoming independent countries.”

The 2001 peace agreement ended more than a decade of bloody conflict  known as the Bougainville crisis, that resulted in the deaths of up to 15,000 people, and laid out a roadmap for disarmament and the referendum in 2019.

‘We need support’
Under the agreement, PNG retains responsibility for foreign affairs but allows for the ABG to engage externally for trade and with “regional organisations.”

“We need countries to support us, we need to talk to those countries [ahead of independence],” Toroama told BenarNews last September.

The referendum on independence was supported by 97.7 percent of Bougainvillians and the outcome was due to be ratified by PNG’s Parliament in 2020, but was deferred because of the covid-19 pandemic.

Discussions by the two parties since on whether a simple or two-thirds majority vote by parliamentarians was required has further delayed the process.

Toroama stood firm on the issue of ratification on the first day of discussions moderated by New Zealand’s Sir Jerry Mataparae, saying his people voted for independence and the talks were to define the “new relationship” between two independent states.

Last week, the 15 members of the Bougainville Leaders Independence Consultation Forum issued a statement declaring PNG had no authority to veto the referendum result and recommended September 1, 2027 as the declaration date.

“As far as I am concerned, the process of negotiating independence was concluded with the referendum,” Toroama said.

Implementation moderation
“My understanding is that this moderation is about reaching agreement on implementing the referendum result of independence.”

He told Marape “to take ownership and endorse independence in this 11th Parliament.”

PNG’s prime minister responded by praising the 25 years of peace “without a single bullet fired” but warned Bougainville was not ready for independence.

“Economic independence must precede political independence,” Marape said. “The long-term sustainability of Bougainville must be factored into these discussions.”

“About 95 percent of Bougainville’s budget is currently reliant on external support, including funding from the PNG government and international donors.”

Proposals to reopen Rio Tinto’s former Panguna gold and copper mine in Bougainville, that sparked its civil conflict, is a regular feature of debate about its economic future.

Marape also suggested people may be secretly harbouring weapons in breach of the peace agreement and called on the UN to clarify the outcome of the disarmament process it supervised.

“Headlines have come out that guns remain in Bougainville. United Nations, how come guns remain in Bougainville?” Marape asked on Monday.

“You need to tell me. This is something you know. I thought all guns were removed from Bougainville.”

PNG relies on aid
By comparison, PNG has heavily relied on foreign financial assistance since independence, currently receiving at about US$320 million (1.3 billion kina) a year in budgetary support from Australia, and suffers regular tribal violence and massacres involving firearms including assault rifles.

Bougainville Vice-President Patrick Nisira rejected Marape’s concerns about weapons, the Post-Courier newspaper reported.

“The usage of those guns, there is no evidence of that and if you look at the data on Bougainville where [there are] incidents of guns, it is actually very low,” he said.

Further talks are planned and are due to produce a report for the national Parliament by mid-2025, ahead of elections in Bougainville and PNG’s 50th anniversary celebrations in September.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

The Marshall Islands marked 71 years since the most powerful nuclear weapons tests ever conducted were unleashed over the weekend.

The Micronesian nation experienced 67 known atmospheric nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, resulting in an ongoing legacy of death, illness, and contamination.

The country’s President Hilda Heine says her people continue to face the impacts of US nuclear weapons testing seven decades after the last bomb was detonated.

• READ MORE: Marshall Islands signs treaty banning nuclear weapons in the South Pacific
• Four decades after Rongelap evacuation, Greenpeace makes new plea for nuclear justice by US
• Nuclear justice for the Marshall Islands — a strategy for coordinated action
• UN rights council examines nuclear legacy consequences in the Marshall Islands
• Eyes of Fire – the Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior archive (Little Island Press)

The Pacific Islands have a complex history of nuclear weapons testing, but the impacts are very much a present-day challenge, Heine said at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Tonga last year.

She said that the consequences of nuclear weapons testing “in our own home” are “expensive” and “cross-cutting”.

“When I was just a young girl, our islands were turned into a big laboratory to test the capabilities of weapons of mass destruction, biological warfare agents, and unexploded ordinance,” she said.

“The impacts are not just historical facts, but contemporary challenges,” she added, noting that “the health consequences for the Marshallese people are severe and persistent through generations.”

“We are now working to reshape the narrative from that of being victims to one of active agencies in helping to shape our own future and that of the world around us,” she told Pacific leaders, where the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres was a special guest.

She said the displacement of communities from ancestral lands has resulted in grave cultural impacts, hindering traditional knowledge from being passed down to younger generations.

“As well as certain traditional practices, customs, ceremonies and even a navigational school once defining our very identity and become a distant memory, memorialised through chance and storytelling,” President Heine said.

“The environmental legacy is contamination and destruction: craters, radiation, toxic remnants, and a dome containing radioactive waste with a half-life of 24,000 years have rendered significant areas uninhabitable.

“Key ecosystems, once full of life and providing sustenance to our people, are now compromised.”

Heine said cancer and thyroid diseases were among a list of presumed radiation-induced medical conditions that were particularly prevalent in the Marshallese community.

Displacement, loss of land, and psychological trauma were also contributing factors to high rates of non-communicable diseases, she said.

“Despite these immense challenges, the Marshallese people have shown remarkable resilience and strength. Our journey has been one of survival, advocacy, and an unyielding pursuit of justice.

“We have fought tirelessly to have our voices heard on the international stage, seeking recognition.”

In 2017, the Marshall Islands government created the National Nuclear Commission to coordinate efforts to address testing impacts.

“We are a unique and important moral compass in the global movement for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation,” Heine said.

The US Deputy Secretary of State in the Biden-Harris administration Kurt Cambell said that Washington, over decades, had committed billions of dollars to the damage and the rebuilding of the Marshall Islands.

“I think we understand that that history carries a heavy burden, and we are doing what we can to support the people in the [Compact of Free Association] states, including the Marshall Islands,” he said.

“This is not a legacy that we seek to avoid. We have attempted to address it constructively with massive resources and a sustained commitment,” he told reporters in Nuku’alofa.

A shared nuclear legacy
The National Nuclear Commission chairperson Ariana Tibon-Kilma, a direct descendant of survivors of the nuclear weapons testing programme Project 4.1 — which was the top-secret medical lab study on the effects of radiation on human bodies — told RNZ Pacific that what occured in Marshall Islands should not happen to any country.

“This programme was conducted without consent from any of the Marshallese people,” she said.

“For a number of years, they were studied and monitored, and sometimes even flown out to the US and displayed as a showcase.

“The history and trauma associated with what happened to my family, as well as many other families in the Marshall Islands, was barely spoken of.

“What happened to the Marshallese people is something that we would not wish upon any other Pacific island country or any other person in humanity.”

She said the nuclear legacy was a shared one.

“We all share one Pacific Ocean and what happened to the Marshall Islands, I am, sure resonates throughout the Pacific,” Tibon-Kilma said.

Billions in compensation
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the Pacific head, Heike Alefsen, told RNZ Pacific in Nuku’alofa that “we understand that there are communities that have been displaced for a long time to other islands”.

“I think compensation for survivors is key,” she said.

“It is part of a transitional justice approach. I can’t really speak to the breadth and the depth of the compensation that would need to be provided, but it is certainly an ongoing issue for discussion.”

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

In a fervent appeal to the global community, Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has called on US President Donald Trump to “rethink” his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and current global climate initiatives.

Marape’s plea came during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, on 23 January 2025.

Expressing deep concern for the impacts of climate change on Papua New Guinea and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations, Marape highlighted the dire consequences these nations face due to rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather patterns.

• READ MORE: Trump is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement (again), reversing US climate policy
• How are Trump’s deportation targets reacting to his threats?
• Fact check: Trump’s first-week immigration orders – what are the effects?

“The effects of climate change are not just theoretical for us; they have real, devastating impacts on our fragile economies and our way of life,” he said.

The Prime Minister emphasised that while it was within President Trump’s prerogative to prioritise American interests, withdrawing the United States — the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide– from the Paris Agreement without implementing measures to curtail coal power production was “totally irresponsible”, Marape said.

“As a leader of a major forest and ocean nation in the Pacific region, I urge President Trump to reconsider his decision.”

He went on to point out the contradiction in the US stance.

US not closing coal plants
“The United States is not shutting down any of its coal power plants yet has chosen to withdraw from critical climate efforts. This is fundamentally irresponsible.

“The science regarding our warming planet is clear — it does not lie,” he said.

Marape further articulated that as the “Leader of the Free World,” Trump had a moral obligation to engage with global climate issues.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape’s plea to President Trump.  Video: PNGTV

“It is morally wrong for President Trump to disregard the pressing challenges of climate change.

He must articulate how he intends to address this critical issue,” he added, stressing that effective global leaders had a responsibility not only to their own nations but also to the planet as a whole.

In a bid to advocate for small island nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts, PM Marape announced plans to bring this issue to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

He hopes to unify the voices of PIF member countries in a collective statement regarding the US withdrawal from climate negotiations.

US revived Pacific relations
“The United States has recently revitalised its relations with the Pacific. It is discouraging to see it retreating from climate discussions that significantly affect our region’s efforts to mitigate climate change,” he said.

Prime Minister Marape reminded the international community that while larger nations might have the capacity to withstand extreme weather events such as typhoons, wildfires, and tornadoes, smaller nations like Papua New Guinea could not endure such impacts.

“For us, every storm and rising tide represents a potential crisis. Big nations can afford to navigate these challenges, but for us, the stakes are incredibly high,” he said.

Marape’s appeal underscores the urgent need for collaborative and sustained global action to combat climate change, particularly for nations like Papua New Guinea, which are disproportionately affected by environmental change.

Republished with permission.

It didn’t come as a surprise to see President Donald Trump sign executive orders to again pull out of the Paris Agreement, or from the World Health Organisation, but the immediate suspension of US international aid has compounded the impact beyond what was imagined possible.

The slew of executive orders signed within hours of Trump re-entering the White House and others since have caused consternation for Pacific leaders and communities and alarm for those operating in the region.

Since Trump was last in power, US engagement in the Pacific has increased dramatically. We have seen new embassies opened, the return of Peace Corps volunteers, high-level summits in Washington and more.

• READ MORE: Trump 2.0 chaos and destruction — what it means Down Under
• Other Donald Trump reports

All the officials who have been in the region and met with Pacific leaders and thinkers will know that climate change impacts are the name of the game when it comes to security.

It is encapsulated in the Boe Declaration signed by leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2018 as their number one existential threat and has been restated many times since.

Now it is hard to see how US diplomats and administration representatives can expect to have meaningful conversations with their Pacific counterparts, if they have nothing to offer when it comes to the region’s primary security threat.

The “on again, off again” approach to cutting carbon emissions and providing climate finance does not lend itself to convincing sceptical Pacific leaders that the US is a trusted friend here for the long haul.

Pacific response muted
Trump’s climate scepticism is well-known and the withdrawal from Paris had been flagged during the campaign. The response from leaders within the Pacific islands region has been somewhat muted, with a couple of exceptions.

Vanuatu Attorney-General Kiel Loughman called it out as “bad behaviour”. Meanwhile, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape has sharply criticised Trump, “urging” him to reconsider his decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, and plans to rally Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders to stand with him.

It is hard to see how this will have much effect.

The withdrawal from the World Health Organisation – to which the US provides US$500 million or about 15 percent of its annual budget – creates a deep funding gap.

In 2022, the Lowy Pacific aid map recorded that the WHO disbursed US$9.1 million in the Pacific islands across 320 projects. It contributes to important programmes that support health systems in the region.

In addition, the 90-day pause on disbursement of aid funding while investments are reviewed to ensure that they align with the president’s foreign policy is causing confusion and distress in the region.

Perhaps now the time has come to adopt a more transactional approach. While this may not come easily to Pacific diplomats, the reality is that this is how everyone else is acting and it appears to be the geopolitical language of the moment.

Meaningful commitment opportunities
So where the US seeks a security agreement or guarantee, there may be an opportunity to tie it to climate change or other meaningful commitments.

When it comes to the PIF, the intergovernmental body representing 18 states and territories, Trump’s stance may pose a particular problem.

The PIF secretariat is currently undertaking a Review of Regional Architecture. As part of that, dialogue partners including the US are making cases for whether they should be ranked as “Strategic Partners” [Tier 1] or “Sector Development Partners [Tier 2].

It is hard to see how the US can qualify for “strategic partner” status given Trump’s rhetoric and actions in the last week. But if the US does not join that club, it is likely to cede space to China which is also no doubt lobbying to be at the “best friends” table.

With the change in president comes the new Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He was previously known for having called for the US to cut all its aid to Solomon Islands when then Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare announced this country’s switch in diplomatic ties from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China.

It is to be hoped that since then Rubio has learned that this type of megaphone diplomacy is not welcome in this part of the world.

Since taking office, he has made little mention of the Pacific islands region. In a call with New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters they “discussed efforts to enhance security cooperation, address regional challenges, and support for the Pacific Islands.”

It is still early days, a week is a long time in politics and there remain many “unknown unknowns”. What we do know is that what happens in Washington during the next four years will have global impacts, including in the Pacific. The need now for strong Pacific leadership and assertive diplomacy has never been greater.

Dr Tess Newton Cain is a principal consultant at Sustineo P/L and adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and has more than 25 years of experience working in the Pacific islands region. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Northern Marianas Governor Arnold Palacios and Senator Celina Babauta have travelled to Guam to attend a luncheon with Taiwan President Lai Ching-te.

Taiwan is officially known as the Republic of China (Taiwan). China claims Taiwan as its own territory, with no right to state-to-state ties, a position Taiwan strongly disputes.

Palacios welcomed the opportunity to meet Lai and said this could pave the way for improved relations with the East Asian country.

• READ MORE: Other Taiwan and the Pacific reports

“This meeting is an opportunity for the CNMI to foster relations with allies in the region.”

When asked if meeting the President would upset the People’s Republic of China, which considers Taiwan a rogue state and part of its territory, Palacios said: “As far as being in the crosshairs of China, we already are in many ways.”

Worldwide, a dozen countries maintain formal diplomatic ties with Taipei.

In January, Nauru cut ties with Taiwan and shifted its diplomatic allegiance to Beijing.

Fiji’s Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, says he will “apologise” to fellow Melanesian leaders later this month after failing to secure agreement from Indonesia to visit its restive West Papua province.

At last year’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders meeting in Cook Islands, the Melanesian Spearhead Group appointed Rabuka and PNG Prime Minister James Marape as the region’s “special envoys” on West Papua.

Several Pacific officials and advocacy groups have expressed anguish over alleged human rights abuses committed by Indonesian forces in West Papua, where an indigenous pro-independence struggle has simmered for decades.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

Rabuka and Marape have been trying to organise a visit to West Papua for more than nine months now.

But in an exclusive interview with the ABC’s Pacific Beat, Rabuka said conversations on the trip were still “ongoing” and blamed Indonesia’s presidential elections in February for the delay.

“Unfortunately, we couldn’t go . . .  Indonesia was going through elections. In two months’ time, they will have a new substantive president in place in the palace. Hopefully we can still move forward with that,” he said.

“But in the meantime, James Marape and I will have to apologise to our Melanesian counterparts on the side of the Forum Island leaders meeting in Tonga, and say we have not been able to go on that mission.”

Pacific pressing for independent visit
Pacific nations have been pressing Indonesia to allow representatives from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to conduct an independent visit to Papua.

A UN Human Rights committee report released in May found there were “systematic reports” of both torture and extrajudicial killings of indigenous Papuans in the province.

But Indonesia usually rejects any criticism of its human rights record in West Papua, saying events in the province are a purely internal affair.

West Papua Resistance Leader, Victor Weimo: I must thank the colonialists for continuously teaching us to aspire to true humanity by means of rebellion. pic.twitter.com/h9n4rN9yyN

— Sina Brown-Davis سينا (@uriohau) December 1, 2022

Rabuka said he was “still committed” to the visit and would like to make the trip after incoming Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto takes power in October.

The Fiji prime minister made the comments ahead of a 10-day trip to China, with Rabuka saying he would travel to a number of Chinese provinces to see how the emerging great power had pulled millions of people out of poverty.

He praised Beijing’s development record, but also indicated Fiji would not turn to China for loans or budget support.

“As we take our governments and peoples forward, the people themselves must understand that we cannot borrow to become embroiled in debt servicing later on,” he said.

“People must understand that we can only live within our means, and our means are determined by our own productivity, our own GDP.”

Rabuka is expected to meet Chinese president Xi Jinping in Beijing towards the end of his trip, at the beginning of next week.

Delegation to visit New Caledonia
After his trip to China, the prime minister will take part in a high level Pacific delegation to Kanaky New Caledonia, which was rocked by widespread rioting and violence earlier this year.

While several Pacific nations have been pressing France to make fresh commitments towards decolonisation in the wake of a contentious final vote on independence back in 2021, Rabuka said the Pacific wanted to help different political groups within the territory to find common ground.

“We will just have to convince the leaders, the local group leaders that rebuilding is very difficult after a spate of violent activities and events,” he said.

Rabuka gave strong backing to a plan to overhaul Pacific policing which Australia has been pushing hard ahead of the PIF leaders meeting in Tonga at the end of this month.

Senior Solomon Islands official Collin Beck took to social media last week to publicly criticise the initiative, suggesting that its backers were trying to “steamroll” any opposition at Pacific regional meetings.

Rabuka said the social media post was “unfortunate” and suggested that Solomon Islands or other Pacific nations could simply opt out of the initiative if they didn’t approve of it.

“When it comes to sovereignty, it is a sovereign state that makes the decision,” he said.

Republished with permission from ABC Pacific Beat.

The high-level Pacific mission to New Caledonia will be a three person-led delegation and it is still expected to happen prior to the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders (PIF) Meeting in Tonga on August 26, says PIF chair Mark Brown.

Brown, who is also the Cook Islands Prime Minister, made the comment at the PIF Foreign Ministers Meeting on Friday following French President Emmanuel Macron approving the mission.

“It’s important that everyone can assess the situation together with [France],” the French Ambassador to the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, told RNZ Pacific on Friday.

• READ MORE: Macron gives Pacific mission to Kanaky New Caledonia green light, says diplomat
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia crisis reports

Brown said Tonga’s Prime Minister, Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni, may not be on the trip “because of pending obligations in preparation for the leaders meeting”.

“In which case the incoming troika member, Prime Minister of Solomon Islands [Jeremiah Menele], would be the next person,” he said.

“It will be a three-person delegation that will be leading the delegation to New Caledonia and the expectation is it will be done before the leaders meeting at the end of this month.”

Brown and Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka will both be on the mission.

‘Sensitive political dimensions’
“The Forum is very mindful of the nature of the relationship that New Caledonia as a member of the Forum has, but also France’s relationship with New Caledonia currently as a territory of France.

“There are some sensitive political dimensions that must be taken into account, but we feel that our sentiments as a Forum, firstly, is to try and reduce the incidents of violence that has taken place over the last few months and also to call for dialogue as the way forward.”

He said the decision around timing of the trip is up to the troika members — current chair, previous chair and incoming chair.

Meanwhile, New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters prior to the announcement from France, said it was still to be worked out what role New Zealand would play on the New Caledonia mission.

“We are seriously concerned to ensure that the long-term outcome is a peaceful solution but also where the economics of New Caledonia is sustained, that’s important,” he said.

Peters said he expected that over time there would be more than one delegation sent to New Caledonia.

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

France has approved a high-level Pacific “fact-finding mission” to New Caledonia to gather information from all sides involved in the ongoing crisis.

“We are welcoming a mission of the troika for a fact-finding mission in New Caledonia before the [Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting],” the French Ambassador to the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, told RNZ Pacific in an exclusive interview today.

“I gave a letter to the [PIF] Secretary-General Baron Waqa and Prime Minister Mark Brown, the chair.

• READ MORE: Other Kanaky New Caledonia crisis reports

“It’s a good idea. It’s important that everyone can assess the situation together with [France].”

She said it was important that dialogue continued.

“We repeat the fact that these riots were conducted by a handful of people who contest democratic, transparent and fair processes, and that the French state has restored security, and is rebuilding and organising the reconstruction [of New Caledonia]. ”

Forum leaders wrote to French President Emmanuel Macron last month, requesting to send a Forum Ministerial Committee to Nouméa to gather information from all sides involved in the ongoing crisis.

The confirmation comes as the Forum foreign ministers are meeting in Suva, ahead of the 53rd PIF Leaders Summit on Tonga at the end of the month.

‘We are family’
Melanesian Spearhead Group chairperson and Vanuatu Prime Minister Charlot Salwai backs independence for New Caledonia through a democratic process.

“It’s a concern … and we decided to have a mission into New Caledonia to talk to the both sides,” Salwai said.

It has been almost three months since violence broke out in the French territory, killing 10 people, and causing tens of millions of dollars in damage to the economy.

Salwai told RNZ Pacific he had supported the independence of Melanesian countries for a long time.

“It’s not only a [PIF] member and neighbour, but we are family,” Salwai said.

“We are also for a long time Vanuatu support independence of Melanesian countries.

“We’re not going to interfere in the politics in France, but politically and morally, we support the independence of New Caledonia. Of course, it has to go through democratic process like a referendum, they are the ones to decide.”

Pacific leaders want to send a high-level Pacific mission to Nouméa before the end of the month.

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

France is “checking” whether a high-level mission to New Caledonia will be possible prior to or after the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders’ Summit in Tonga at the end of the month.

Forum leaders have written to French President Emmanuel Macron requesting to send a Forum Ministerial Committee to Nouméa to gather information from all sides involved in the ongoing crisis.

The French Ambassador to the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, will be in Suva on Friday for the Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting to “continue the dialogue . . . and explain the facts”.

• READ MORE: Other Kanaky New Caledonia unrest reports

She told RNZ Pacific that sending a mission to New Caledonia was a request and it was up to the PIF to decide if “anything is realistic”.

“Paris is checking whether it can be before the summit or after. We still need information,” she said.

Asked if France was open to the idea of such a visit by Pacific leaders, Roger-Lacan said: “Paris is always open for dialogue.”

On Monday, the incoming PIF chair and Tonga’s Prime Minister, Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni, confirmed he was still waiting to “receive any notification from Paris”.

“It’s very important for the Pacific Islands Forum to visit New Caledonia before the leaders meeting,” he said.

But Roger-Lacan said it is up to Paris to decide.

“New Caledonia is French territory and it is the State which decides on who enters the French territory and when and how.”

It has been almost three months now since violent unrest broke out in Nouméa after an amendment to the French constitution that would voter eligibility in New Caledonia’s local elections, which the pro-independence groups said would marginalise the indigenous Kanaks.

French security forces are still working on removing roadblocks, mainly in the capital Nouméa and its outskirts.

The death toll stands at 10 — eight civilians and two gendarmes. Senior pro-independence leaders who were charged for instigating the civil unrest are in jail in mainland France awaiting trial.

It is estimated over 800 buildings and businesses have been looted and burnt down by rioters.

There have been reports that people were leaving the territory for good in the aftermath of the unrest.

“There are lots of industries that have closed because of the burning and of the riots, and maybe those people are not sure that anything will reopen.

“When there is a place which is not worth investing anymore people change places. It’s normal life.”

She slammed the Pacific media for “not being very balanced” with their reports on the New Caledonia situation.

“Apparently, there have been people in the Pacific briefed by one side, not by all the sides, and they have to hear all the points of view.”

Saint-Louis still not under control
She said security was now “almost back”.

“There is one last pocket of of instability, which is the Saint-Louis community and there are 16,000 New Caledonian people who still cannot move freely within that area because there is  so many unrest.

“But otherwise, security has been brought back,” she added.

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

New Zealand should join others in calling New Caledonia’s third independence referendum invalid, one of the founders of the Kanaky Aotearoa Solidarity Network says.

It follows the 10th Pacific Islands Leaders Meeting (PALM10) in Tokyo last week, where New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters called for the Pacific Islands Forum to facilitate mediation in the French territory.

In December 2021, the Kanak population boycotted the referendum to mourn their dead during the covid-19 pandemic, after their calls for the referendum to be delayed was ignored.

• READ MORE: From Kanaky to Palestine, how Paris is weaponising deportations from Pacific
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia crisis reports

As a result, Peters said the referendum saw voter turnout collapse and almost 97 percent of voters who cast a ballot voted “No” to independence.

“Delegitimising the result, in the eyes of pro-independence forces and some neutral observers at least, was the low turnout of only 44 percent.”

Kanaky Aotearoa Solidarity group’s David Small said Peters should have aligned with the Melanesian Spearhead Group which has called for a UN mission to New Caledonia.

‘Referendum delegitimised’
“He said that the third referendum was delegitimised in the eyes of some, and did not include New Zealand in that,” Small said.

“It would have been better if he had because that third referendum was indefensible.”

The group said Peters had mentioned the need for dialogue but failed to provide a clear pathway or goal.

“The Kanaky Aotearoa Solidarity Group is deeply disappointed by Peters’ insufficient support for the Kanak people’s struggle.

“His statement at PALM10 represents a missed opportunity for New Zealand to assert its commitment to justice and self-determination for all Pacific peoples.”

‘Fed by disinformation’, claims envoy
However, the top French diplomat in the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, said she had reassured Pacific Islands Forum Leaders (PIF) that attended PALM10 that France’s actions during the third and final independence referendum were fair.

Roger-Lacan spoke to RNZ Pacific from Tokyo following talks with the leaders of Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

She said there was “so much disinformation” surrounding issues in New Caledonia and that Pacific leaders had only heard one side of the story.

“For example, Mark Brown sent a letter to President [Louis] Mapou but he did not try and contact France, kind of ignoring that New Caledonia until further notice is France,” she said.

“We tried to call them, but Mark Brown would not be there to pick up the phone.

“But luckily, the Prime Minister of Tonga, the incoming chair of the PIF and everyone else was there, so that everyone was very happy to hear the information that we were providing.

“We are going to provide full information in writing because it seems that everybody ignores . . . the substance of the matter, and everybody is totally fed by disinformation and propaganda” surrounding issues in New Caledonia.

“We will now go through the process of how we will put this into practice. Of course, it will require the support of the government of France for the mission to proceed,” Brown said at a news conference at the PALM10 meeting in Tokyo.

A spokesperson for the New Caledonia President’s office, Charles Wea, has told RNZ Pacific that the high-level group was expected to be made up of the leaders of Fiji, Cook Islands, Tonga and Solomon Islands.

“The decision that has been made by the leaders during the meeting in Japan to send a mission to New Caledonia before the annual meeting over the of PIF around the second or third week of August,” he said.

“The objectives of the mission will be to come and listen and discuss with all parties in New Caledonia in order to [prepare] a report [for] the leaders meeting in Tonga.”

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

An unheralded visit to Indonesia’s Papuan provinces by a leading Pacific diplomat has drawn criticism for undermining a push for a United Nations human rights mission to the region where indigenous pro-independence fighters have fought Indonesian rule for decades.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group’s Director-General, Leonard Louma, has not responded to BenarNews’ questions about the brief visit. It occurred just days after the most recent clash between Indonesian forces and the Papuan resistance, which resulted in four deaths and hundreds of civilians fleeing their homes in Paniai regency in Central Papua province.

Indonesia has capitalised on the visit earlier this month to portray its governance of the contested Melanesian territory, generally referred to as West Papua in the Pacific, in a positive light.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

State news agency Antara said Louma had declared Papua to be in a “stable and conducive” condition.

A highly critical UN Human Right Committee report on Indonesia released in May highlighted “systematic reports about the use of torture” and “extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances of Indigenous Papuan people.”

The Indonesian government’s sponsorship of the visit is “another attempt to downplay a global call, including from the MSG, to allow the UN Human Rights Commission to visit and assess human rights conditions in Papua,” said Hipo Wangge, an Indonesian foreign policy researcher at Australian National University.

“It’s also another attempt to neutralise regional concern over deep-seated discrimination against Papuans,” he told BenarNews.

UN human rights rebuff
For several years, Indonesia has rebuffed a request from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out an independent fact-finding mission in Papua.

The Pacific Islands Forum, a regional organisation of 18 nations, has called on Indonesia since 2019 to allow the mission to go ahead.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) — whose members are Fiji, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia’s Kanak independence movement FLNKS — has made similar appeals.

It is unclear whether the comments attributed to Louma by Antara and an Indonesian government statement are his own words. The Antara article, published last week on June 19, in English and Indonesian, is more or less identical to a statement released by Indonesia’s Ministry of Information and Communications.

An insurgency has simmered in Papua since the early 1960s when Indonesian forces invaded the region, which had remained under a separate Dutch administration following Indonesia’s 1945 declaration of independence from the Netherlands.

Indonesia argues its incorporation of the mineral rich territory was rightful under international law because it was part of the Dutch East Indies empire that is the basis for Indonesia’s modern borders.

Papuans, culturally and ethnically distinct from the rest of Indonesia, say they were denied the right to decide their own future and are now marginalised in their own land. Indonesian control was formalised in 1969 with a UN-supervised referendum restricted to little more than 1000 Papuan voters.

Arrived from PNG
The Indonesian statement said Louma, his executive adviser Christopher Nisbert and members of their entourage arrived on June 17 at the Skouw-Wutung border crossing after traveling overland from Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea.

They were met by an Indonesian diplomat and then traveled to Jayapura accompanied by Indonesian officials.

On June 19 they took part in a conference organised by Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that was purportedly to address security concerns in Melanesia.

Yones Douw, a Papuan human rights activist based in Paniai, said a properly conducted visit by the Melanesian Spearhead Group should have had wide public notice and involved meetings with churches, customary leaders, journalists and civil society organisations, including the independence movement.

“This visit is just like a thief — in secret. I suspect that the comments submitted to the mass media were the language of the Indonesian government, not on behalf of the MSG,” he told BenarNews.

“This way can damage the togetherness or unity of the Melanesian people,” he said.

The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), an independence movement umbrella organisation, said it should have been notified of the visit because it has observer status at the MSG. Indonesia is an associate member.

‘A surreptitious visit’
“We were not notified by the MSG Secretariat. This is a surreptitious visit initiated by the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” said Markus Haluk, the ULMWP’s executive secretary.

“We will file a protest,” he told the MSG’s chair, Vanuatu Prime Minister Charlot Salwai.

Indonesia, over several years, has stepped up its efforts to neutralise Pacific support for the West Papuan independence movement, particularly among Melanesian nations that have ethnic and cultural links to Papuans living under Indonesian rule.

It has had success in ending direct criticism from Pacific island governments — many of which had used the UN General Assembly as a forum to air their concerns about human rights abuses — but grassroots support for Papuan self-determination remains strong.

Wangge, the ANU researcher, said the Indonesian government had been particularly active with Melanesian nations since Louma became director-general of the MSG’s secretariat in 2022.

At the same time it had avoided addressing ongoing reports of abuses in the Papuan provinces, he said, and militarisation of the region.

Indonesia’s military offered a rare apology to Papuans in March after video emerged of soldiers repeatedly slashing an indigenous man with a bayonet while he was forced to stand in a water-filled drum.

Regional security meetings
Among the initiatives, Indonesian police have facilitated regional security meetings, the Indonesian foreign ministry established an Indonesia-Pacific Development Forum, fisheries training has been provided, and the foreign ministry is providing diplomacy training for young diplomats from Melanesian countries and the MSG’s secretariat.

There was nothing to show, Wangge said, from the MSG’s appointment last year of Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape as special envoys to Indonesia on West Papua.

The two leaders met Indonesian President Joko Widodo, whose second five-year term finishes in October, at a global summit in San Francisco in November.

Following the meeting, there was no agenda to facilitate a dialogue over West Papua, he said.

Marape is due in Indonesia mid-July for an official state visit.

“One thing is clear: the Indonesian government will buy more time by initiating more made-up efforts to cover pressing problems in West Papua,” Wangge said.

Copyright ©2015-2024, BenarNews. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

As New Caledonia passes the one-month mark since violent and deadly clashes erupted on last month, there has been no clear path put forward by Paris as far as the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) is concerned.

Eight people — including the leader of the Field Action Coordinating Cell (CCAT) Christian Téin — were arrested yesterday by New Caledonia’s security forces over the unrest since May 13.

According to the Public Prosecutor’s office, they face several potential charges, including organised destruction of goods and property and incitement of crimes and murders or murder attempts on officers entrusted with public authority.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Listen to the people that were harassed in their houses” – French Ambassador to the Pacific Véronique Roger-Lacan
• New Caledonia police arrest pro-independence leader among 11 people over deadly protests – Al Jazeera
• French police raid pro-independence Kanak party HQ, arrest eight in crackdown
• Nouméa’s Tontouta International Airport reopened after civil unrest
• Other New Caledonia unrest reports

“All the unrest, all the troubles, is the result of the ignorance of the French government,” said New Caledonia territorial government spokesperson Charles Wea.

“We cannot have peace without the independence of the country. New Caledonia will always get into trouble if the case of independence is not taken into consideration,” he said.

But speaking in an exclusive interview with RNZ Pacific, the French Ambassador to the Pacific, Véronique Roger-Lacan, said there were options to resolve the ongoing conflict — but the violence needed to stop first.

Roger-Lacan said there was a national process to address the independence issue — that was through the controversial constitutional changes which has sparked the unrest.

Paris is also engaged with the UN Committee on Decolonisation (C24) where options of self-determination through independence or free association with an independent state are being discussed.

On top of that, Paris has met with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) heads, or troika, over the phone and said talks are underway to either organise a meeting with regional leaders soon, or at the PIF leaders meeting in Tonga in August.

Whatever the option, the FLNKS and the wider pro-independence movement want a robust process that leads to independence, said Wea.

Roger-Lacan said the forces were needed and she rejected claims that the territory was being “militarised”.

She stressed that the thousands of special forces deployed were “necessary” to contain the violence and restore law and order.

Territorial Route 1 has been blocked by barricades erected by the rioters, and Roger-Lacan posed the question: “How do you remove this type of barricade if you have no forces?”

They have called for the immediate withdrawal of the extra forces and a phasing down of security options.

Pacific Conference of Churches general secretary Reverend James Bhagwan told RNZ Pacific France’s heavy deployment of security forces looked like militarisation to him.

“We have seen far too much already these last few weeks to be fooled,” he said.

“We still have militias who are armed, we still have increasing numbers of security forces on the ground. That is militarisation whether it is formal or something that’s been organised in a different way.

“We are just calling it as we see it.

“We’ve also seen the way in which the French government treats that particular area, recognising that this is part of maintaining their colonies as part of the Indo-Pacific strategy, that there is a militarisation movement happening by the French in the Pacific.”

‘Get their facts right’
However, Ambassador Roger-Lacan vehemently disagrees with such claims, saying individuals such as Reverend Bhagwan need to “get their facts right”.

She said claims that the French state had militarised New Caledonia and the region, must be corrected because “it’s not true”.

“First of all, violence had to be stopped, and public order and law enforcement had to be resumed,” she said.

“I would like to suggest for those people [civil society] to watch the houses that were burnt, to listen to the people that were harassed in their houses, to listen to people who were scared of the violence.”

She said such comments were biased, doubling down that “reinforcement was needed”.

Intergenerational trauma
The French Ambassador to the Pacific said concerns that the death toll from the unrest was much higher than reported was also not true.

The death toll stands at eight, she said, adding that three state security officers and five civilians had died.

But some indigenous Kanaks have called for Paris to investigate the death toll, as they believe more young rioters were feared dead.

Roger-Lacan wants worried parents to know France had heard them and concerned parents could call the 24/7 hotline.

“With gendarmes in New Caledonia everywhere, they know all the families, they know all the tribes,” she said.

“It is not true that we don’t have the appropriate links with the whole population.”

Reverend Bhagwan believes it is naive to expect communities to simply trust France given the political history of the territory.

He said there was “intergenerational trauma” simmering under the surface, especially when Kanaks see French forces on their land.

“You can understand then why mothers are concerned about their children, and so to ignore that intergenerational trauma for people in Kanaky, is really a little bit of naivety on the French High Commissioner’s part,” Reverend Bhagwan said.

But one thing all parties agree on is that “force” is not the answer to solve the current crisis.

“Of course, force is not the answer,” Ambassador Roger-Lacan said, but added “force has to be used to bring back public order sometimes”.

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

Cook Islands Prime Minister and Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) chair Mark Brown has written to the president of the government of New Caledonia to offer support in finding a way forward.

Brown said the political situation in the French territory — which is a full member of the PIF — remains deeply concerning to the Forum family.

He said there were a number of mechanisms and processes available to PIF members to help resolve “complex and historical issues” which remain “unsettled”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: French Ambassador for the Pacific Véronique Roger-Lacan talks to Lydia Lewis
• Other Kanaky New Caledonia reports

He also stressed implementing an agreed way forward “must not be rushed”.

“Our Pacific region is home to independent experts and skilled personnel, that are familiar with this region, its history, its people, and importantly, its context, that can support all parties to move this process forward,” Brown said.

“Pacific Islands Forum [is ready to] to facilitate and provide a supported and neutral space for all parties to come together in the spirit of the Pacific Way, to find an agreed way forward that safeguards the interests of the people of New Caledonia.”

French President Emanuel Macron came and left Nouméa last week without announcing a return to a freeze or scrapping of the controversial constitutional amendment, which indigenous Kanaks and pro-independence groups have been calling for.

Dialogue promised
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,” he said.

Indigenous Kanaks have also called for Macron to investigate the death toll, with more young rioters feared dead, and for the proposed constitutional amendments to be withdrawn.

Concerns have also been raised around the Kanak population facing a great deal of inequity and poor health, education and job outcomes.

Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu told the media at the fourth UN Small Islands Developing States conference that “everyone could see this coming three years ago”.

“France has caused this crisis by its failure to recognise the Kanaks’ call for the third referendum to be deferred,” Regenvanu said.

Regenvanu said Macron’s visit made no difference “because France has to withdraw its legislative change to open the electoral rolls to allow for a resolution through dialogue”.

He said if that did not happen it will push the situation back to the cycle of violence that was prevalent in the 1980s.

“We are calling on France to withdraw the legislative proposals, and come back to the table and set up a new accord with the indépendantistes and the anti-independentists in the territory,” Regenvanu said.

“If France does not withdraw the legislative amendments, the violence will continue.”

‘France’s credibility challenged’
Massey University Defence and Security Studies associate professor Dr Powles said the PIF had produced a “fairly scathing” report on the third and final New Caledonia referendum.

But the French President’s stand on the issue of the third self-determination referendum (held in December 2021 and boycotted by the pro-independence camp) is: “I will not go back on this.”

Dr Powles said there were options for the Forum Secretariat, including using the existing regional crisis mechanism under the Biketawa Declaration.

The declaration has been used on a number of occasions in the Pacific, in Nauru, in Solomon Islands, as well as in several other cases, she said.

“France’s credibility was strongly challenged by virtue of the fact that it is a colonial power in the Pacific,” Dr Powles said.

“A resilient Pacific is a Pacific in which all Pacific peoples are free and independent. And that is really the best type of resilience which will keep the region safe.”

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

As the new year gets underway, now is the time to look ahead to what will be significant in the Pacific islands region. Chances are this part of the world will continue to be a focus for the media and commentariat who will view what happens through their own lenses.

However, more now than ever, it is imperative to see the events of the Pacific in their context, with the nuance that allows for them to be more fully understood.

The Pacific will play a small part in the year in which more than half of the global population will go to the polls. We have already seen Dr Hilda Heine sworn in as the 10th President of Marshall Islands following elections late last year.

• READ MORE: Hilda Heine inaugurated as Marshall Islands president

Next cab off the rank is Tuvalu, with voting to take place at the end of January. Of particular interest here is how, if at all, a change of government might affect the future of the Falepili Union with Australia that was signed in November 2023.

Perhaps most closely watched will be the elections in Solomon Islands, scheduled to take place in April. The Sogavare government is now in caretaker mode, but a date for the polls is yet to be announced.

These are the first general elections since the controversial “switch” in 2019 which saw diplomatic relations between Solomon Islands and Taiwan come to an end and China established as a leading development and security partner for Sogavare’s government.

It is hard to know how significant this switch will be for voters more than three years down the track. Sogavare can point to last year’s Pacific Games as a stellar achievement for his government and one in which the support of China was key.

Largely irrelevant outside Honiara
But this is unlikely to have much resonance for those Solomon Islanders who live outside Honiara and for whom the games were largely irrelevant.

Other Pacific island countries holding elections this year are Palau (November) and Kiribati (date to be confirmed).

In addition, Vanuatu is expected to hold its first-ever referendum on proposed constitutional changes intended to address chronic political instability.

The issue of security will continue to be vexed in 2024 in the Pacific islands region. As we have seen in recent years, narratives around climate change and those centred on “traditional” security concerns will become increasingly enmeshed.

The apparent acceptance of the significance of climate change as a security threat by partners such as the US is no doubt welcome. However, it is not enough to assuage concern among those who warn against the increased militarisation of the region.

Preliminary findings from the Rules of Engagement project led by Associate Professor Anna Powles and I show that “defence diplomacy” has become an important aspect of international engagement with Pacific island countries. We can expect this to continue throughout this year.

We need to understand better the extent to which these engagements add to feelings of security and safety in Pacific communities and how, if at all, they influence how Pacific people feel about the relationships between their countries and their international partners.

Internal security threats
As we have seen already this year, internal security threats will be front of mind in Papua New Guinea, and likely elsewhere in the region. Given the mix of cost-of-living pressures, political instability, and a febrile (social) media environment fuelled by rumour and counter-rumour, maintaining social cohesion will become increasingly challenging.

With globalisation in retreat and geopolitical competition on the rise, there is every reason to expect that the high tempo of international strategic engagement with Pacific policymakers, businesses, civil society leaders, and communities will continue throughout 2024.

While this provides numerous opportunities to secure resources for development and other initiatives, it can also create a serious burden in terms of transaction costs, particularly for small resource-constrained administrations.

Last year, the government of Solomon Islands announced that it would have a “block out” period during which senior officials are unavailable to meet with visiting delegations. This is an approach that could be beneficial for other countries to preserve valuable time for budget preparation or key policy work.

At the regional level, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is still in the process of determining how best to manage the increased attention the organisation is receiving from countries that want to become dialogue partners. There are currently six applications awaiting consideration (Denmark, Ecuador, Israel, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Ukraine).

Last year at the PIF Leaders Meeting it was made clear that the ongoing review of regional architecture includes a refreshed framework for engagement with dialogue partners — one that is led and driven by Pacific priorities.

In conclusion, 2024 holds both challenges and opportunities for the Pacific islands region. With elections, security concerns, and regionalism on the agenda, policymakers, businesses, civil society leaders, and communities must work together to tackle these issues.

Tess Newton Cain is the project lead for the Pacific Hub at the Griffith Asia Institute and is an associate of the Development Policy Centre. The author’s Pacific Predictions have been produced annually since 2012. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

The President of Palau has slammed New Zealand’s new government for its oil and gas exploration plans as the COP28 global climate summit gets underway.

The National-led government intends to reopen Aotearoa waters to oil and gas exploration, despite a commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Pacific leaders are poised to hold what they describe as “perpetrators of climate chaos” to account.

The National-led government intends to reopen Aotearoa waters to oil and gas exploration, despite a commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Pacific leaders are poised to hold what they describe as “perpetrators of climate chaos” to account.

While the new Climate Change Minister Simon Watts was not expecting criticism over fossil fuels at the summit, Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr has served it up.

“What a backward position that an island that is part of the Pacific Island Forum that should understand the challenges that we’re facing,” Whipps Jr said.

NZ ‘should take lead’
“New Zealand as a Pacific Island and a member of the forum should take a leadership role and should be active in doing all they can to transition away from fossil fuels. That’s what they should be working on,” he said.

“They shouldn’t be going out and exploring more gas and oil.”

The Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) has also taken aim at the New Zealand government’s plans.

Regional coordinator Lavetanalagi Seru said it was not the time to be exploring and expanding the extraction of fossil fuel including gas.

“At a time when the Pacific and many climate frontline communities are grappling with the single greatest security threat of climate change, intensifying fossil fuel dependency, not only undermines collective efforts, but also sends a very strong sense of wrong market signals, neglecting broader environmental and social ramifications,” Seru said.

“It will undermine all our efforts to ensure climate resilience for communities, and this isn’t the time to be exploring and expanding the extraction of fossil fuels, including gas.”

Watts said the overturning of the ban did not weaken New Zealand’s climate position.

‘We rely on NZ’
Tuvalu’s former prime minister and now opposition leader Enele Sopoaga has a reminder for the new government: “We rely on New Zealand to stand up strong with the island countries”.

Niue’s Minister for Natural Resources Mona Ainu’u will be drumming home the tangable impacts felt in the Pacific while in Dubai.

“We come to COP, without any commitment from a lot of these countries and these perpetrators of climate chaos, as I call them,” she said.

“It’s very difficult to hold them accountable. We continue to travel 1000s and 1000s of miles, because our people are suffering. People continue to find innovative ways to survive on this earth. From no fault of ours. But we need to hold these countries accountable.”

Ainu’u said there had been little to no movement on last year’s commitment by the world’s biggest emitters to contribute to costs caused by climate change.

This year, one of the main Pacific priorities is building up that loss and damage fund.

A delegate from Palau, Xavier Matsutaro said there was a lot to put into action.

“Let’s just put it this way, there’s a lot to prove on COP28, and every subsequent COP becomes more and more urgent because it narrows down that window that we need to do to wrap up in emission reduction,” he said.

“And that’s one of the things are the heart of this meeting. And one of the things that will spell out the level of success.”

‘Affect real lives’
A Pacific youth delegate, Metoyer Lohia who is also there, wants to remind the world of the reality of the situation:

“There’s a lot of that. I guess media and the Western world don’t really understand about the real problems and the real challenges that are faced by our communities and people on the ground,” Lohia explained.

“Because at the end of the day, although these are very high level discussions, they ultimately affect real people with real lives and as a Pacific.”

Whipps Jr said US President Joe Biden was a noticeable absence from this year’s meeting.

“The United States needs to be active, it needs to show leadership. And of course, not having Biden here definitely weakens at least or gives us concern about our hope for the future,” he said.

“But there’s Australia, there’s China, there’s India, there’s the EU. I mean, everybody’s got to step it up.”

“As a Pacific island country. I believe that New Zealand should understand better than any other country in the world the challenges that Pacific islands have,” Whipps Jr said.

“We have Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, all their islands are less than two metres above water.

“I mean, if you’re a Pacific island nation, and you don’t understand that, I don’t know, I don’t know how, what else we can say.

“It’s just tragic to be hearing these kinds of actions by the New Zealand government.”

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

The leaders of five Melanesian countries and territories avoided a definitive update on the status of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua’s application for full membership in the Melanesian Spearhead Group in Port Vila.

However, the 22nd MSG Leaders’ Summit was hailed as the “most memorable and successful” by Vanuatu’s prime minister as leaders signed off on two new declarations in their efforts to make the subregion more influential.

As well as the hosts, the meeting was attended by Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and the pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) of New Caledonia.

• READ MORE: ‘The world is watching’ – it’s a test for Melanesian leaders over West Papua, says Wenda
• Other MSG reports

But the meeting had an anticlimactic ending after the leaders failed to release the details about the final outcomes or speak to news media.

The first agreement that was endorsed is the Udaune Declaration on Climate Change to address the climate crisis and “urging countries not to discharge potentially harmful treated nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean”.

“Unless the water treated is incontrovertibly proven, by independent scientists, to be safe to do and seriously consider other options,” Vanuatu Prime Minister Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau said at the event’s farewell dinner last night.

The leaders also signed off on the Efate Declaration on Mutual Respect, Cooperation and Amity to advance security initiatives and needs of the Melanesian countries.

This document aims to “address the national security needs in the MSG region through the Pacific Way, kipung, tok stori, talanoa and storian, and bonded by shared values and adherence to the Melanesian vuvale, cultures and traditions,” Kalsakau said.

He said the leaders “took complex issues such as climate change, denuclearisation, and human rights and applied collective wisdom” to address the issues that were on the table.

Stefan Armbruster reporting from Port Vila.  Video: SBS World News

No update on West Papua
The issue of full membership for the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP)  was a big ticket item on the agenda at the meeting in Port Vila, according to MSG chair Kalsakau.

However, there was no update provided on it and the leaders avoided fronting up to the media except for photo opportunities.

ULMWP leader Benny Wenda (above) told RNZ Pacific late on Thursday he was still not aware of the result of their membership application but that he was “confident” about it.

“I don’t know the outcome. Maybe this evening the leaders will announce at the reception,” Wenda said.

“From the beginning I have been confident that this is the time for the leaders to give us full membership so we can engage with Indonesia.”

According to the MSG Secretariat the final communique is now expected to be released on Friday.

Referred to Pacific Islands Forum
However, it is likely that the West Papua issue will be referred to the Pacific Islands Forum to be dealt with.

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape said after the signing: “on the issues that was raised in regards to West Papua…these matters to be handled at [Pacific Islands Forum]”.

“The leaders from the Pacific will also visit Jakarta and Paris” to raise issues about sovereignty and human rights,” he said.

Kalsakau said he looked forward to progressing the implementaiton of important issue recommendations from the 22nd MSG Leaders’ Summit which also include “supporting the 2019 call by the Forum Leaders for a visit by the OHCHR to West Papua”.

Indonesia ‘proud’
Indonesia’s Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Pahala Mansury, said Indonesia was proud to be part of the Melanesian family.

Indonesia is an associate member of MSG and has said it does not accept ULMWP’s application to become a full member because it claims that this goes against the MSG’s founding principles and charter.

During the meeting this week, Indonesian delegates walked out on occasions when ULMWP representatives made their intervention.

Some West Papua campaigners say these actions showed that Indonesia did not understand “the Melanesian way”.

“You just don’t walk out of a sacred meeting haus when you’re invited to be part of it,” one observer said.

However, Mansury said Indonesia hoped to “continue to increase, enhance and strengthen future collaboration between Indonesia and all of the Melanesian countries”.

“We are actually brothers and sisters of Melanesia and we hope we can continue to strengthen the bond together,” he said.

Australia and China attended as special guests at the invitation of the Vanuatu government.

China supported the Vanuatu government to host the meeting.

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

Japan’s release of more than one million tonnes of treated Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the Pacific is officially underway.

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings has confirmed that the disposal started at 1pm local time today.

“This is a big step and punctuating moment in the process of decommissioning,” TEPCO spokesperson Junichi Matsumoto told news media.

• READ MORE: Countdown starts as Japan poised to release first batch of treated nuclear wastewater
• Other Fukushima reports

“We will have 30 years or so [to release the water], we will ensure safety and quality.

“We will accomplish this discharge, we have to buckle down ourselves and we have to do it with an intense attitude,” he said.

TEPCO said it was an important step towards decommissioning the destroyed Fukushima power plant after it was hit by a tsunami 12 years ago.

“Per day 460 tonnes is the amount of discharge. So if there are no troubles in about 17 days, 7800 cubic metres of water will be successfully discharged,” Matsumoto said.

Assurances given
Assurances were given in TEPCO’s latest media briefing that if unsafe levels of tritium were detected, the operation would stop until the water has been re-treated through its ALPS processing system and was safe.

Daily monitoring has begun and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is also independently monitoring the process on site.

“So, after a sea water pump is operated regarding the vertical shaft, the monitoring will become in service,” Junichi Matsumoto said.

The treated water is being discharged “continuously”, he added.

Holding Japan ‘fully accountable’
Pacific leaders are committed to holding Japan accountable should anything go wrong, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Henry Puna said.

“We’ve done our best to get Japan not to commence the discharge, until there is full agreement that it’s verifiably safe to do so. But Japan has taken a sovereign decision.

“And you know that point is now past. What we need to focus on now is to hold Japan to account,” he said.

SHAME JAPAN!

NO FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR WASTE WATER IN THE PACIFIC OCEAN!

YOU CREATED THE PROBLEM, SOLVE IT PROPERLY ON YOUR OWN TERRITORY.

THIS REGION IS NOT YOUR DUMPING GROUND. pic.twitter.com/MK4WOeDU4c

— Pacific Feminist Community of Practice (@pacfemcop) August 15, 2023

Puna said Japan had made a guarantee that it would comply with international standards and the Pacific would be watching keenly to make sure it stayed that way.

“Since the announcement of the discharge in April 2021, our leaders have been busy engaging with Japan,” Puna said.

“The statements are very clear. Their collective statements expressing our concerns given our nuclear legacy issues and that position has never changed.”

Pacific leaders are to discuss the issue face-to-face in Rarotonga in November at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting.

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

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.

As Pacific communities protest the Japanese government’s plan to dump more than a million tonnes of radioactive waste water from the Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean, Australian anti-nuclear activists are highlighting the complicity of Australian uranium exporting companies.

While the Fukushima Daiichi power station operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), claims that the water will be treated to reduce radioactive content, anti-nuclear activists have no faith in TEPCO’s assurances.

The Candlelight Alliance, a Korean community group in Sydney, is organising a protest outside the Japanese consulate this Saturday.

• READ MORE: Other Fukushima nuclear power plant reports

Spokersperson Sihyun Paik told Green Left: “We have a great fear that it may already be too late to stop Japan’s release of radioactively contaminated waste water into our largest ocean, an action by which every Pacific Rim nation will be impacted.

“There are serious, global ramifications,” he said. “It will directly endanger the marine life with which it comes into contact, as well as devastate the livelihoods of those reliant on such marine life, such as fisherfolk.

“All living organisms will be implicitly affected, whether it is the unwitting consumer of contaminated produce, or even beachgoers.

“The danger posed by the plan cannot be contained within just the Northeast Asia region. In two to three years, it will eventually reach and contaminate all ocean waters to certain, yet significant degrees according to scientists.

Korean fishery victims
“The local Korean fishery industry is the first commercial victim of the Fukushima nuclear disaster and it raised deep concerns to the Korean government immediately after the explosion of the nuclear reactors.

“This was in conjunction with Korea’s progressive action groups during the term of the previous Moon Jae-In administration.

“However, since the current administration (2022), the voice of protest has been extinguished at the government level, invariably raising suspicion of possible under the table dealings between Japan’s Kishida government and current Korean President Yoon [Suk Yeol] during the latter’s recent visit to Japan.”

Epeli Lesuma, from the Fiji-based Pacific Network on Globalisation, told Green Left that “for Pacific people the Ocean represents more than just a vast blue expanse that Japan can just use as a dumpsite.

“Our Ocean represents the economic, spiritual and cultural heart of Pacific countries.

“Pacific people know all too well the cost of nuclear testing and dumping. The Pacific was used as a nuclear test site by the UK, France and the USA who carried out a total of 315 tests on Christmas Island in Kiribati, Australia, Māohi Nui or French Polynesia and the Marshall Islands.

“These nuclear legacies have cost us countless lives and continue to impact the health and well-being of our people; it has impacted access to our fishing grounds and land to plant crops to support our families; and it has cost us our homes, with Pacific people displaced (on Bikini and Enewetak) due to nuclear contamination.

Japan, Pacific share trauma
“Japan and the Pacific share the trauma of nuclear weapons and testing.

“So it comes as a deep disappointment to us that the Japanese government would consider actions that threaten not only Pacific people and our Ocean but the health and well-being of all the planet’s oceans and the people who depend upon them.

“The Pacific Ocean also contains the largest tuna fish stocks which are a source of economic revenue for our countries. The Japanese government’s plans to dump its nuclear wastewater into our Ocean pose a direct threat to the economic prosperity of our countries and in turn our developmental aspirations as well as being a fundamental breach of Pacific people’s rights to a clean and healthy sustainable environment.”

Australian anti-nuclear activist Nat Lowrey delivered a statement of solidarity from the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance when she visited affected local communities in Fukushima in March.

The statement acknowledged that uranium from the Ranger and Olympic Dam mines was in TEPCO’s Fukushima reactors when the meltdowns, explosions and fires took place in March 2011.

The ANFA statement said that “Australian governments, and mining companies BHP and Rio Tinto, are partly responsible for the death and destruction resulting from the Fukushima disaster. They knew about the corruption in Japan’s nuclear industry but kept supplying uranium.”

Lowrey said that since it was Australian uranium that fuelled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, “the Australian government has a responsibility to stand with local communities in Fukushima as well as communities in Japan, Korea, China and Pacific Island states in calling on the Japanese government not to dump radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean”.

‘Fundamental self-determination right’
“We must support Pacific peoples’ fundamental right to their sovereignty and self-determination against Japan’s nuclear colonialism.

“If Japan is to go ahead with the dumping of radioactive waste, Australia should play a lead role in taking a case to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea against Japan.”

Paik said no Australian government had taken serious action since the Fukushima disaster.

“Despite the Japanese government’s decision to release nuclear contaminated water into the ocean, no official statement or comment has been made by the [Anthony] Albanese government.

“We did not expect any form of government level protest on this issue due to conflicts of interest with Australia’s member status in the Quad partnership which is a key pillar in Australia’s foreign policy, and an influential determinant of our stance on nuclear energy.”

When the G7 met in Tokyo, the Japanese government urged the summit to approve the planned radioactive water release.

Tanaka Shigeru, from the Pacific Asia Resource Centre in Japan, said: “Japan did not get the approval by the G7 as it had hoped, but it stopped at saying the G7 will adhere to the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

‘IAEA approves release’
“The IAEA is of course approving of the release, so it is a way for them to say they have approved without explicitly saying so.”

Shigeru said that despite a three-year propaganda campaign over Fukushima, most people polled in Japan in April said that “the government has not done enough to garner the understanding of the public”.

Only 6.5 percent of those polled believe that the Japanese government has done enough.

Yet it has “done enough to keep people from the streets”, Shigeru said.

“While there are, of course, people who are still continuing the struggle, I must say the movement has peaked already after what has been a fervent three-year struggle.”

Japanese opponents of the radioactive water release, including fisherfolk, have been fighting through every administrative and legal step but now “there are no more domestic hurdles that the Japanese government needs to clear in order to begin the dumping”, Shigeru said.

“The opposition parties have been so minimised in Japan that there is very little realistic means to challenge the situation except for maybe international pressure. That is really the only thing standing in the way of the dumping.

Ambassador propaganda
“So Japan has been taking ambassadors from the Pacific nations on lucrative paid-for trips to Fukushima to spread the propaganda that the dumping will be safe.”

Lesuma confirmed the impact on swaying some Pacific Island governments, such as Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia.

“Pacific Islands Forum member states have been some of the most vocal opponents at the international level of the Japanese government’s plans to dump their nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean,” he said.

“The PIF leaders had appointed an Independent Panel of Experts who have engaged with TEPCO scientists and the IAEA to provide advice to Pacific governments on the wastewater disposal plans … the Panel has concluded unanimously that Japan should not release nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean and should explore other alternatives.

“The Fiji government has been one such Pacific government consistent in coming out strongly in opposing Japan’s plans.

“The PNG Fisheries Minister, Jelta Wong, has also been vocal and consistent in expressing his disapproval of the same, going as far as saying that the nuclear wastewater discharge would create a ‘Pacific Chernobyl’ with the potential to cause harm to Pacific people for generations to come.”

Peter Boyle is a Green Left activist and contributing writer. Republished with permission.

On World Press Freedom Day the world remembers the importance of a free and independent media as the cornerstone of thriving and healthy democracies.

For our developing and developed Pacific nations of the Blue Continent, the 30th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day is also an opportunity to acknowledge the role of journalists whose first rule is to uphold the news creed — to tell the truth without fear or favour, to serve the public interest, to hold power to account.

For our Forum leaders, the primacy and importance of independent reporting and communication of Forum decisions goes back to our beginnings.

One of the key decisions in those early years more than five decades ago was the mandate to communicate, recognising the benefits of sharing information about the leaders meetings and decisions.

I am pleased to note our strong relationship with Pacific media continues to this day.

Across our key regional leader meetings, we actively partner with and brief news journalists to ensure quality reporting of the issues shaping our world. We recognise that editorial independence and quality journalism rely on strong access to facts, information, and certainty.

The watchdog and public interest role of the press as the Fourth Estate complementing the other three — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, has never been more important to public accountability, transparency, and good governance.

Together, they ensure engaged, active, and informed Pacific citizens. This level of empowerment sets the basis for a Pacific future that is safe, secure, and peaceful.

From the Biketawa Declaration on Good Governance to the Boe Declaration on Regional Security and the Teieniwa Vision on Anti-Corruption, our leaders are demonstrating their understanding that independent and free media are part of the work we do.

The digital age, amid times of covid and climate crisis, has also brought a new layer of transformative disruption and opportunity.

A free, thriving, and diverse Pacific press is a key partner to our Blue Pacific strategy to 2050. Today we can all celebrate the independence and impact of quality news journalism led by news and media practitioners across the Pacific and globally.

Despite often harsh work conditions, they continue a vocation for a news agenda of truth, transparency, and accountability.

The global rights-based theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day is a timely recognition that in serving the public interest, the journalist is often the implementing arm of the people’s right to know. Independent truth telling and investigation is not an easy or popular calling.

World Press Freedom Day allows us to reiterate the safety and the rights of journalists, particularly women in journalism.

Without this ability to do their work without fear or favour, we cannot count on the facts that matter, that stand out in a world of fake news, misinformation, and noise.

Today, I join those who pay tribute to all journalists who frame the stories of our times in the values of truth, balance, and our collective right to know. Vinaka vakalevu, thank you.

PIF Secretary-General Henry Puna gave this message for the 30th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day on 3 May 2023. It has been republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating’s recent strident criticism of the A$368 billion nuclear-powered submarine deal announced under the AUKUS security pact
will have little effect on Australian policy.

Canberra’s deepening level of security cooperation is underpinned by a deep political consensus.

But the clarity of Australian policy stands in stark contrast with New Zealand’s position on AUKUS, the trilateral technology-sharing agreement between Australia, the UK and US. In fact, New Zealand’s AUKUS policy can be summed up in one word — ambiguity.

• READ MORE: Paul Keating lashes Albanese government over AUKUS, calling it Labor’s biggest failure since WW1
• AUKUS submarine plan will be the biggest defence scheme in Australian history. So how will it work?
• Nukes, allies, weapons and cost: 4 big questions NZ’s defence review must address
• Other China and the Pacific reports

The establishment of AUKUS in September 2021 was met with an equivocal endorsement by New Zealand. On the one hand, the prime minister at the time, Jacinda Ardern, was “pleased to see” the initiative, declaring she “welcome[d] the increased engagement of the UK and the US in our region”.

On the other hand, Ardern noted the country’s longstanding nuclear-free policy meant any nuclear-propelled submarines developed by our Australian ally would be prohibited from New Zealand waters.

After Tuesday’s joint AUKUS leaders’ statement in San Diego by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, it is time to start counting the opportunity cost to New Zealand of maintaining this ambiguous policy posture.

‘Worst deal in all history’: Former Labor PM Paul Keating savages AUKUS submarine deal https://t.co/wp5VXqEAdx

— ABC News (@abcnews) March 15, 2023

Bets both ways
It may be surprising to hear, but Wellington’s AUKUS policy is ambiguous by design, reflecting a broader policy of “hedging”. This deliberately seeks to maximise the economic gains from trade with China, while supporting a US-constructed international order that aligns with New Zealand’s interests and values.

Unfortunately for New Zealand, the geopolitical environment that underpinned this policy has been torpedoed by the deterioration in US-China relations. It began during the Obama administration and has escalated during the Trump and Biden administrations.

The creation of AUKUS is a reflection of this broader strategic environment. And it has a direct effect on New Zealand’s security in two respects.

First, New Zealand’s leading trade partner, China, views AUKUS as contributing negatively to regional security dynamics. And Beijing cannot be expected to placidly accept this démarche.

China responded to the formation of AUKUS with the China-Solomon Islands security agreement in April 2022. What will its response be this time?

It is likely to involve some attempt to reduce Australian security, such as a Solomon Islands-style partnership with any number of states in the Pacific Islands Forum. This will have knock-on effects for New Zealand’s own security.

Regional instability
The possible scenarios are limited only by China’s capabilities and level of resolve to respond to AUKUS. As it stands, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, reacted critically to the AUKUS leaders’ statement. According to Wang:

The latest joint statement from the US, UK and Australia demonstrates that the three countries, for the sake of their own geopolitical interests, completely disregard the concerns of the international communities and are walking further and further down the path of error and danger.

To put it mildly, such criticism is misplaced. Truth be told, while there is clearly an interactive dynamic at work, AUKUS is much more an effect of a deteriorating security environment than a cause of it.

Like all countries, China has legitimate security concerns and interests. And it is clearly misleading, as many hawks in the US are doing, to paint China as an unvarnished threat to regional stability in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

But it is equally misleading to overlook China’s role in the increased regional instability over the past decade or more, which has led to the creation of AUKUS and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) involving Australia, India, Japan and the US.

Historic turning point
Second, the latest AUKUS developments have clear implications for New Zealand’s alliance with Australia, which is at a historic turning point. The principle at play here is clear — investment signals commitment, while lack of investment signals lack of commitment.

What is New Zealand’s level of commitment to the alliance? We will soon find out.

The New Zealand Ministry of Defence is conducting a major review that will release its report after the 2023 general election.

It is a fair bet Canberra is open to a serious discussion with Wellington on investing in a retooled ANZAC alliance. This would secure both countries’ national interests, not least their maritime, cyber and regional security.

Australia has chosen to invest in AUKUS. As Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles stated at a press conference in Canberra timed to occur immediately after Albanese’s joint ceremony with Biden and Sunak:

This is an investment in our nation’s security. It is an investment in our economy. And it is an investment that we cannot afford not to make.

AUKUS is both a catalyst and a mirror reflecting a swiftly changing strategic environment. New Zealand now needs to make some considered decisions on how to respond.

Dr Nicholas Khoo, Associate Professor of International Politics, University of Otago. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Recognising Indonesia’s sovereignty is one thing.

However, failing to allow West Papuans a seat at regional discussion tables like the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and Melanesian Spearhead Group to address human rights atrocities, torture and killing at the hands of Indonesian security forces is not the Pacific way.

United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) president Benny Wenda gave this view when he spoke to The Fiji Times yesterday.

• READ MORE: Why a NZ pilot is a pawn in the West Papua conflict that the world ignores
• Other West Papua politics reports

He also said he wanted to take their 60-year issue to the forefront of the PIF because they were “tired of the rhetoric about recognising the political sensitivities of the issue of West Papua” and PIF’s expression of “deep concern about past and recent violence and loss of life” at previous Forum meetings.

He said that with PIF leaders arriving in Fiji for their special retreat over the next two days, he hoped to get the plight of the West Papuan people into mainstream Forum discussions.

“Indonesia cannot continue to use the sovereign state excuse to torture, abuse and kill the West Papuan people,” Wenda said.

“It is a moral obligation for the PIF and Melanesian leaders especially to relook at their foreign policy.

“The PIF and Pacific leaders are quick to look at and speak about Ukraine and other issues but we are right here at their doorstep, we are your brothers and sisters.

“Our focus was lobbying Melanesian leaders so we could engage in talanoa with Indonesia about what has happened and is happening to our people.

“If we are left outside as observers, how can we address this issue?”

At a media conference in Suva on Tuesday, Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape and Fijian PM Sitiveni Rabuka said any human rights issues in West Papua must not be overshadowed by the fact that the country remained under the sovereignty of Indonesia.

They said the West Papua issue had resurfaced many times on the margins of PIF meetings and engagements but it must be viewed in the context of Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

West Papua independence campaigner Benny Wenda is in Vanuatu to meet Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau’s newly-installed government.

Wenda said he would also “strategise” on the way forward towards gaining eventual sovereignty from Indonesia and would be discussing ongoing issues in West Papua.

These include human rights abuses, and internal displacement of at least 160,000 Papuans by the Indonesian military while, he says, Jakarta continues to “pretend that nothing is happening in West Papua”.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

Wenda said seven church pastors were among more than 200 people who had died in the conflict in the region in the last five years.

Wenda’s United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has observer status in the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

“We are developing in Melanesia, but unfortunately we cannot develop on top of all the suffering in West Papua which is another Melanesian country,” he said.

“I look forward to meeting Vanuatu’s new government leaders to brief them on the realities happening in West Papua. For example in the last five years, almost 240 Melanesians have died in West Papua.

‘Seven pastors killed’
“So far seven of our church pastors have been killed, including the most well-known Pastor Sanabani — a Bible translator.

“Indonesian soldiers also target our children while women give birth in the bush. Nobody has any statistics because Indonesia has banned all journalists for almost 50 years now from entering and reporting on what has been happening in our country.”

Comparing their situation with that of Russia’s war with Ukraine, he said television viewers are focused on their screens while no one really cares about what is happening in their next door neighbour of West Papua.

“We, the Melanesian countries call ourselves Christians but where is the Melanesian spirit of Christian brotherhood regarding West Papua?

“We badly need Melanesian Good Samaritans and perhaps now is the right time to prove that level of responsible leadership,” he said.

Vanuatu has pushed through the West Papua case at the Pacific Islands Forum as well as further abroad through the Organisation of Asia Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) in Brussels.

Len Garae is a Vanuatu Daily Post journalist and RNZ Pacific correspondent. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

French Polynesia has voted a draft opinion for a temporary ban on seabed mining projects.

Of the territory’s Council for the Economy, Social, Environment and Culture, 43 members vote for the proposal, while two abstained.

The council acts as a consultant in advising and recommending during the enacting of legislation’s from the French Polynesian government.

This is after the territory’s President, Édouard Fritch, made a resolution to ban seabed mining after the Pacific Islands Forum.

Marine Resources Minister Heremoana Maamaatuaiahutapu told Tahiti Nui TV that this should be an example to other Pacific neighbours.

“Kiribati, Nauru and the Cook Islands are already engaged in an exploration process,” he said.

“We need to convince our cousins of the Pacific to stop this craziness.

‘We are the first’
“We are the first country or associate member of the Forum to take this resolution on, I must say — the exploration of the seabed,” Maamaatuaiahutapu said.

“The knowledge that we have of our seabed is only 5 percent.”

French Polynesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is more than 4.7 million sq km and accounts for almost half of the water surface under French jurisdiction.

The council has been urging the government to secure resources in the seabed off France’s overseas territories.

It said France would be negligent not to profit from this as French Polynesia has rare earths, whose reserves are held by China in a near monopoly.

The pro-independence movement regularly challenges French control of the resource.

‘Solely for knowledge’

In May, Maamaatuaiahutapu said that Wallis and Futuna, New Caledonia and French Polynesia all had the same stance on deep-sea mining — “if we have to examine what’s on the ocean floor, it should be solely for the acquisition of knowledge, not for exploitation purposes”.

“And that has to be very clear. We want knowledge acquisition missions.

“I dare not even say ‘exploration’ because that term is too often associated with exploitation.

“We have 502 seamounts listed and we don’t know a single one. I think it’s important to know about the biodiversity around these seamounts beyond the minerals they house,” he said at the time.

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

The Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) has condemned the absence of West Papua in last week’s Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) official communique, saying it was “greatly disappointed” that the human rights situation in the Indonesian-ruled Melanesian region had not been mentioned.

“It is understandable that the PIF has huge challenges in the region and in particular climate change. But for all the talk about inclusiveness it would appear West Papua is not a major concern for the Forum,” spokesperson Joe Collins said in a statement.

“The PIF could have shown solidarity with the Papuan people by a simple statement of concern about the human rights situation in West Papua (particularly as the situation continues to deteriorate).”

• READ MORE: The Pacific Islands Forum communique 2022
• The West Papua independence movement — a history

Collins called on the forum to continue to urge Jakarta to allow a fact-finding mission to the region.

“The leaders would have had the support of the people of the Pacific region in doing so,” he added.

It’s a wrap- From the Suva Agreement to the 2050 Strategy, get the last word on what’s next for regionalism in the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Communique 2022 at https://t.co/VwQslLSmXk pic.twitter.com/MHTNd6rh9O

— Pacific Islands Forum (@ForumSEC) July 17, 2022

A Fiji women’s advocacy group has condemned their government for remaining silent over the human rights violations in West Papua amid the Pacific Islands Forum being hosted by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainmarama this week.

Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC) coordinator Shamima Ali with other staff members and activists made the criticisms at a ceremony raising the independence flag Morning Star, banned in Indonesia.

The women raised the flag of West Papua on Wednesday to show their solidarity.

• READ MORE: Kiribati ‘cooking something with China’, says ex-Kiribati president
• Fiji police evict two Chinese defence attaches amid Pacific Forum tensions
• US announces major Pacific push, embassies in Tonga, Kiribati
• Climate crisis top Pacific agenda item and it’s a security issue, says Ardern
• $10m climate funding to support Pacific seed crops
• More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out as crisis grows
• Pacific Islands Forum ‘on course’ as China issue casts shadow
• Kiribati exit from Pacific forum ‘out of order’, says founding president
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

Ali said this ceremony was done every Wednesday to remember the people of West Papua, particularly women and girls who were “suffering twofold” due to the increased militarisation of the two provinces of Papua and West Papuan by the “cruel Indonesian government”.

She said this was a perfect time since all the Pacific leaders were in Fiji for the forum but the Fiji government stayed silent on the issue.

Ali added that with Fiji as the chair of the forum, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama should have negotiated for West Papua to be on the agenda.

Wenda appeals to Pacific Islands Forum
Meanwhile, United Liberation Movement of West Papua interim president Benny Wenda has appealed to Pacific leaders to show “timely and effective leadership” on the great issues facing the Pacific — “the human rights crisis in West Papua and the existential threat of climate change”.

“West Papua is a green land in a blue ocean. Our blue Pacific has always united our peoples, rather than dividing them,” he said in a statement.

Shamima Ali speaking out on West Papua in Suva. Video: Fijivillage

“In this spirit of Pacific solidarity, we are grateful for the support our Pacific family showed for our struggle in 2019 by calling for Indonesia to allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, to visit West Papua.”

However, Indonesia continued to undermine the forum by refusing to allow a UN visit to take place.

“For decades, we have been crying that Indonesia is bombing our villages and killing our people, but we have been ignored,” Wenda said.

“Now, the world is taking notice of our struggle. The United Nations has shown that up to 100,000 West Papuan civilians have been internally displaced by Indonesian military operations in the past three years alone.

“They have fled into the bush, where they lack access to shelter, food, water, and proper medical facilities. This is a rapidly worsening human rights disaster, requiring immediate attention and intervention by the United Nations.

“Indonesia hears the increasing calls for a UN visit, but is employing delaying tactics to avoid exposing their crimes against my people to the world.”

Rusiate Baleilevuka is a Fijivillage reporter.

A wrap up of this week’s #BluePacific village. Youngsolwara & PRNGO+ partners hosted the morning star flag in solidarity with #WestPapua. A reminder to our @ForumSEC leaders that West Papua needs to be addressed. #FreeWestPapua #Pacific2050 #HumanRights pic.twitter.com/0U1WjmefYQ

— Youngsolwara Pacific (@YoungsolwaraP) July 17, 2022

Armed conflict in West Papua continues to claim lives, displace tens of thousands of people and cause resentment at Indonesian rule.

But despite ongoing calls for help, neighbouring countries in the Pacific Islands region remain largely silent and ineffectual in their response.

This year, Indonesia’s military has increased operations to hunt down and respond to attacks by pro-independence fighters with West Papua National Liberation Army (WPNLA) which considers Indonesia an occupying force in its homeland.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua reports

Since late 2018, several regencies in the Indonesian-ruled Papuan provinces have become mired in conflict, notably Nduga, Yahukimo, Intan Jaya, Puncak Jaya, Maybrat as well as Pegunungan Bintang regency on the international border with Papua New Guinea.

The ongoing cycle of violence has created a steady trickle of deaths on both sides, and also among the many villages caught in the middle.

Identifying the death toll is difficult, especially because Indonesian authorities restrict outside access to Papua.

However, research by the West Papua Council of Churches points to at least 400 deaths due to the conflict in the aforementioned regencies since December 2018, including people who have fled their villages to escape military operations and then died due to the unavailability of food and medicine.

‘Some cross into PNG’
“We have received reports that at least 60,000 Papuan people from our congregations have currently evacuated to the surrounding districts, including some who have crossed into Papua New Guinea,” says Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman, president of the Fellowship of Baptist Churches of West Papua.

The humanitarian crisis which Yoman described has spilled over into Papua New Guinea, bringing its own security and pandemic threats to PNG border communities like Tumolbil village in remote Telefomin district.

Reverend Yoman and others within the West Papua Council of Churches have made repeated calls for the government to pull back its forces.

They seek a circuit-breaker to end to the conflict in Papua which remains based on unresolved grievances over the way Indonesia took control in the 1960s, and the denial of a legitimate self-determination for West Papuans.

But it is not simply the war between Indonesia’s military and the Liberation Army or OPM fighters that has created ongoing upheavals for Papuans.

This year has seen:

• more arbitrary arrests and detention of Papuans for peaceful political expression;
• treason charges for the same;
• harassment of prominent human rights defenders;
• more oil palm, mining and environmental degradation that threatens Papuans’ access to their land and forest;
• a move by Indonesian lawmakers to extend an unpopular Special Autonomy Law roundly rejected by Papuans; and
• a terror plot by alleged Muslim extremists in Merauke Regency in Papua’s south-east corner.

Not only the churches, but also Papuan customary representatives, civil society and the pro-independence movement have been calling for international help for many years, particularly for an intermediary to facilitate dialogue with Indonesia towards some sort of peaceful settlement.

Groups frustrated with Jakarta
The groups have expressed frustration about the way that Jakarta’s defensiveness over West Papua’s sovereignty leaves little room for solutions to end conflict in the New Guinea territory.

On the other hand, Indonesian government officials point towards various major infrastructure projects in Papua as a sign that President Joko Widodo’s economic development campaign is creating improvements for local communities.

Despite the risks of exacerbating the spread of covid-19 in Papua, Indonesia recently held the National Games in Jayapura, with President Widodo presiding over the opening and closing of the event, presenting it as a showcase of unity and development in the eastern region.

“The president and vice-president of Indonesia while in Papua did not discuss the resolution of the protracted Papua conflict. They turned a blind eye and heart to the Papua confict,” says Reverend Yoman.

Beyond the gloss of the Games, Papuans were still being taken in by authorities as treason suspects if they bore the colours of the banned Papuan Morning Star flag.

Regional response
At their last in-person summit before the pandemic, in 2019, Pacific Islands Forum leaders agreed to press Indonesia to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights into Papua region in order for it to present them with an independent assessment of the rights situation in West Papua.

Advocating for the UN visit, as a group in the Forum, appears to be as far out on a limb that regional countries — including Australia and New Zealand — are prepared to go on West Papua.

However even before 2019, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights office had already been trying for years to send a team to Papua, and found it difficult securing Indonesia’s approval.

That the visit has still not happened since the Forum push indicates that West Papua remains off limits to the international community as far as Jakarta is concerned, no matter how much it points to the pandemic as being an obstacle.

The question of how the Pacific can address the problem of West Papua is also re-emerging at the sub-regional level within the Melanesian Spearhead Group whose full members are PNG, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia’s Kanaks.

The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) is looking to unlock the voice of its people at the regional level by applying again for full membership in the MSG, after its previous application had “disappeared”.

The ULMWP’s representative in Vanuatu, Freddy Waromi, this month submitted the application at the MSG headquarters in Port Vila.

No voice at the table
The organisation already has observer status in the MSG, but as Waromi said, as observers they do not have a voice at the table.

“When we are with observer status, we always just observe in the MSG meeting, we cannot voice our voice out.

“But with the hope that we become a full member we can have a voice in MSG and even in Pacific Islands Forum and even other important international organisations.”

Indonesia, which is an associate member of the MSG, opposes the ULMWP’s claim to represent West Papuans.

“They’re still encouraging them (the MSG) not to accept us,” Waromi said of Jakarta.

He said the conflict had not abated since he fled from his homeland into PNG in 1979, but only worsened.

“Fighting is escalating now in the highlands region of West Papua – in Nduga, in Intan Jaya, in Wamena, in Paniai – all those places, fighting between Indonesian military and the National Liberation Army of West Papua has been escalating, it’s very bad now.”

Vanuatu consistently strong
Vanuatu is the only country in the Pacific Islands region whose government has consistently voiced strong support for the basic rights of West Papuans over the years. Other Melanesian countries have at times raised their voice, but the key neighbouring country of PNG has been largely silent.

The governor of PNG’s National Capital District, Powes Parkop, this month in Parliament lambasted successive PNG governments for failing to develop a strong policy on West Papua.

He claimed that PNG’s long silence on the conflict had been based on fear, and a “total capitulation to Indonesian aggression and illegal occupation”.

“We have adopted a policy that is shameful and unethical,” he said of PNG’s “friends to all, enemies to none” stance.

“How do we sleep at night when the people on the other side are subject to so much violence, racism, deaths and destruction?

“When are we going to summon the courage to talk and speak? Why are we afraid of Indonesia?”

Parkop’s questions also apply to the Pacific region, where Indonesia’s diplomatic influence has grown in recent years, effectively quelling some of the support that the West Papua independence movement had enjoyed.

Time is running out for West Papuans who may soon be a minority in their own land if Indonesian transmigration is left unchecked.

Yet that doesn’t mean the conflict will fade. Until core grievances are adequately addressed, conflict can be expected to deepen in West Papua.

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

The French government’s decision to press ahead with the third and final referendum vote for self-determination in Kanaky New Caledonia was “unjust and unfair” for the Indigenous Kanak people, says a coalition of nine pan-Pacific civil society groups.

The groups have also accused the French state of “colonial manoeuvring in the middle of a health crisis” to gain a “premeditated outcome”.

“This process has been unjust, culturally insensitive, disingenuous and falls completely short of the spirit of the Noumea Accord. This referendum is clearly null and void,” said a statement by the Pacific Civil Society Organisations (CSO).

• READ MORE: France’s New Caledonia policy labelled a ‘catastrophe’ by left leader
• New Caledonian referendum result rejected – not wish of ‘silent majority’
• New Caledonia votes to stay with France, but it’s a hollow victory that will only ratchet up tensions
• Why New Caledonia’s final independence vote could lead to instability and tarnish France’s image in the region
• Betrayal of Kanaky decolonisation by Paris risks return to dark days

“Despite numerous calls from state and non-state actors to postpone the referendum to 2022, the French government used its colonial manoeuvring in the middle of a health crisis — where almost half the population has tested positive for covid-19 — to arrive at a premeditated outcome.”

The statement said the referendum was not consultative and it did not serve the “common good of the Kanaky population, who exercised their right to not participate in the pseudo-referendum”.

“This non-participation of pro-independence indigenous people should have been a clear signal to France of the public mood, recognising that the poll results cannot be received as the genuine resolve of the Kanak people.

“Unfortunately, it appears that there is a blindspot in Paris, where the results of the referendum are being celebrated as the legitimate will of the Kanaky New Caledonia population – although over 103,480 or more than 56 percent of the registered did not participate in the vote.

Call for UN to ‘void’ referendum
“We join the Indigenous people of Kanaky and other pro-independence activists and organisations in the region, such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group, in calling for the United Nations to declare the outcome of the referendum null and void.

“We also call on the Pacific Islands Forum Ministerial Committee as observers to New Caledonia to ensure an independent, candid and just observation report of the referendum vote is made public.”

The civil society coalition statement is enorsed by the Diverse Voices and Action (DIVA) for Equality, Fiji; Fiji Council of Social Services; Fiji Women’s Rights Movement; Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict–Pacific; Melanesian Indigenous Land Defence Alliance; Pacific Conference of Churches; Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG); Peace Movement Aotearoa; and Youngsolwara Pacific.

The Pacific Islands are at the frontline of climate change. But as rising seas threaten their very existence, these tiny nation states will not be submerged without a fight.

For decades this group has been the world’s moral conscience on climate change. Pacific leaders are not afraid to call out the climate policy failures of far bigger nations, including regional neighbour Australia.

And they have a strong history of punching above their weight at United Nations climate talks — including at Paris, where they were credited with helping secure the first truly global climate agreement.

• READ MORE: Australia ranks last out of 54 nations on its strategy to cope with climate change. The Glasgow summit is a chance to protect us all
• Who’s who in Glasgow: 5 countries that could make or break the planet’s future under climate change
• Scotland readies for COP26 spotlight

The momentum is with Pacific island countries at next month’s summit in Glasgow, and they have powerful friends. The United Kingdom, European Union and United States all want to see warming limited to 1.5℃.

This powerful alliance will turn the screws on countries dragging down the global effort to avert catastrophic climate change. And if history is a guide, the Pacific won’t let the actions of laggard nations go unnoticed.

A long fight for survival
Pacific leaders’ agitation for climate action dates back to the late 1980s, when scientific consensus on the problem emerged. The leaders quickly realised the serious implications global warming and sea-level rise posed for island countries.

Some Pacific nations — such as Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu — are predominantly low-lying atolls, rising just metres above the waves. In 1991, Pacific leaders declared “the cultural, economic and physical survival of Pacific nations is at great risk”.

Successive scientific assessments clarified the devastating threat climate change posed for Pacific nations: more intense cyclones, changing rainfall patterns, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, coastal inundation and sea-level rise.

Pacific states developed collective strategies to press the international community to take action. At past UN climate talks, they formed a diplomatic alliance with island nations in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, which swelled to more than 40 countries.

The first draft of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – which required wealthy nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – was put forward by Nauru on behalf of this Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

Securing a global agreement in Paris
Pacific states were also crucial in negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol in Paris in 2015.

By this time, UN climate talks were stalled by arguments between wealthy nations and developing countries about who was responsible for addressing climate change, and how much support should be provided to help poorer nations to deal with its impacts.

In the months before the Paris climate summit, then Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, the late Tony De Brum, quietly coordinated a coalition of countries from across traditional negotiating divides at the UN.

This was genius strategy. During talks in Paris, membership of this “High Ambition Coalition” swelled to more than 100 countries, including the European Union and the United States, which proved vital for securing the first truly global climate agreement.

When then US President Barack Obama met with island leaders in 2016, he noted “we could not have gotten a Paris Agreement without the incredible efforts and hard work of island nations”.

The High Ambition Coalition secured a shared temperature goal in the Paris Agreement, for countries to limit global warming to 1.5℃ above the long-term average. This was no arbitrary figure.

Scientific assessments have clarified 1.5℃ warming is a key threshold for the survival of vulnerable Pacific Island states and the ecosystems they depend on, such as coral reefs.

De Brum took a powerful slogan to Paris: “1.5 to stay alive”.

The Glasgow summit is the last chance to keep 1.5℃ of warming within reach. But Australia – almost alone among advanced economies – is taking to Glasgow the same 2030 target it took to Paris six years ago.

This is despite the Paris Agreement requirement that nations ratchet up their emissions-reduction ambition every five years.

Australia is the largest member of the Pacific Islands Forum (an intergovernmental group that aims to promote the interests of countries and territories in the Pacific). But it is also a major fossil fuel producer, putting it at odds with other Pacific countries on climate.

When Australia announced its 2030 target, De Brum said if the rest of the world followed suit:

the Great Barrier Reef would disappear […] so would the Marshall Islands and other vulnerable nations.

Influence at Glasgow
So what can we expect from Pacific leaders at the Glasgow summit? The signs so far suggest they will demand COP26 deliver an outcome to once and for all limit global warming to 1.5℃.

At pre-COP discussions in Milan earlier this month, vulnerable nations proposed countries be required to set new 2030 targets each year until 2025 — a move intended to bring global ambition into alignment with a 1.5℃ pathway.

COP26 president Alok Sharma says he wants the decision text from the summit to include a new agreement to keep 1.5℃ within reach.

This sets the stage for a showdown. Major powers like the US and the EU are set to work with large negotiating blocs, like the High Ambition Coalition, to heap pressure on major emitters that have yet to commit to serious 2030 ambition – including China, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Australia.

The chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, has warned Pacific island countries “refuse to be the canary in the world’s coal mine”.

According to Bainimarama:

by the time leaders come to Glasgow, it has to be with immediate and transformative action […] come with commitments for serious cuts in emissions by 2030 – 50 percent or more. Come with commitments to become net-zero before 2050. Do not come with excuses. That time is past.

Dr Wesley Morgan, researcher, Climate Council, and research fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

The Speaker of Fiji’s Parliament has rejected calls from the opposition to debate the controversial deportation of the University of the South Pacific’s vice-chancellor, Professor Pal Ahluwalia.

Ratu Epeli Nailatikau ruled that an oral question from National Federation Party (NFP) leader Professor Biman Prasad, a former USP economics academic, and an adjournment motion from Sodelpa leader Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu were not urgent.

The deportation of the regional 12-nation body’s vice-chancellor has led to widespread regional criticism of Fiji’s government and urgent calls for action.

• READ MORE: Other updates on the USP saga

However, Speaker Ratu Epeli said Dr Prasad’s question did not relate to a matter of public importance and did not qualify as urgent.

Further, the adjournment motion was disallowed under standing orders.

“I have considered the nature of the adjournment motion and ruled that the matters raised in the adjournment motion are not something that requires the immediate attention of Parliament or the government,” Ratu Epeli said.

The council stated that it had not dismissed Professor Ahluwalia and expressed disappointment that it was not advised, as his employer, of the decision by Fiji’s government to deport him.

The council has established a subcommittee, chaired by the President of Nauru, Lionel Angimea, including the council representatives of Australia, Tonga, Niue, Solomon Islands, Samoa and two Senate representatives to look into matters surrounding the deportation.

The meeting on Friday also discussed the possibility of a vice-chancellor being based in and operating out of another country apart from Fiji.

Dr Giulio Masasso Tu’ikolongahau Paunga has been appointed acting vice-chancellor of USP in the meantime.

The sub-committee has been tasked to bring recommendations to the council as soon as possible. The next meeting is on February 16.

Dame Meg ‘disheartened’
The incoming Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum, Henry Puna, of the Cook Islands, said he would not be speaking about the removal of the vice-chancellor until after a communique from the regional grouping was released.

However, the outgoing Secretary-General, Dame Meg-Taylor, of Papua New Guinea, issued a statement.

“As the permanent chair of the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific and a member of the USP Council, I am disheartened by the ongoing and recent events at the university culminating in the deportation [last week] of vice-chancellor and president, Professor Pal Ahluwalia.

“I am confident that fellow council members will continue to uphold good governance and follow due process to ensure the immediate restoration of strong leadership of the university,” Dame Meg said.

Meanwhile, the chairman of the Forum, Tuvalu Prime Minister Kausea Natano urged the university council to find a resolution to the situation.

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

Former Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna has been narrowly elected as the new secretary-general of the Pacific Islands Forum after a marathon online meeting.

Puna was voted in over Micronesia’s candidate Marshall Islands Ambassador to the US, Gerald Zackious, by nine to eight.

The outgoing secretary-general, Papua New Guinea’s Dame Meg-Taylor had been in the role for more than six years.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

Regional divisions over who should replace her emerged last year.

Micronesian states threatened to leave the Forum if the role was not given to their candidate, saying that it was Micronesia’s turn, citing a pledge to rotate the post by sub-region.

But Polynesian and Melanesian countries backed their own candidates.

The appointment has already drawn expressions of frustration from Micronesia, with Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr describing the Forum as an organisation in which the South Pacific countries side with the bigger countries – Australia and New Zealand – to dominate decision-making.

‘No need for Micronesians’
“Clearly there is no need really for Micronesians to be part of them (PIF), they don’t really consider us part of them,” Whipps Jr lamented.

He said other Forum members did not want to honour the pledge, denying that they knew anything about it.

Other contenders were Tongan economist Amelia Kinahoi Siamomua, Fiji former foreign minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, and Jimmie Rodgers of Solomon Islands, formerly the director-general of the Pacific Community.

With leaders unable to reach consensus in last night’s Special Leaders Retreat, the appointment process went to a vote. It resulted in three eliminations and a final vote after midnight.

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was one of the only national leaders of the 18 Forum members states or territories not to attend the online meeting. The country’s Foreign Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, logged on instead.

‘Stellar leadership’
In a statement, Forum leaders commended Dame Meg’s “stellar leadership and guidance to the Pacific Islands Forum on regional issues over the past 6 years and wished her well in her future endeavours”.

Also on the agenda of the Special Leaders Retreat, conducted via video-conferencing, was the covid-19 pandemic, including the distribution of vaccines to the region.

Leaders acknowledged the region’s efforts to date to manage the spread of the covid-19 pandemic in the Pacific region, including through the establishment and operationalisation of the Pacific Humanitarian Pathway on covid-19.

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

The chair of the Pacific Islands Forum has welcomed the re-entry of the United States to the Paris agreement over climate change.

Within hours of his taking the oath as the 46th US President, Joe Biden issued an executive order for the US to return to the Paris Agreement.

Forum Chair Kausea Natano, who is Tuvalu’s prime minister, said the US order as a priority was warmly appreciated in the Pacific.

• READ MORE: Biden moves to have US rejoin Paris Accord, halt Arctic leasing

Natano said he looked forward to continued and strengthened relationships between the people of the Pacific and the US, especially on the climate crisis facing the “Blue Pacific”.

He said the international community must use the positive development to inject greater urgency to climate action on the Paris goal of limiting global warming increase to within 1.5-degrees celsius

“The announcement comes at a time when the world is faced with a multitude of hazards including covid-19,” Natano said.

“Our Blue Pacific faces a climate change crisis that threatens our future prosperity and the move by President Biden and his administration to bring the US back to the Paris Agreement is warmly welcomed and appreciated.

“We look forward to working closely with President Biden and his administration, with urgency and shared values for a safe and secure future for our great Blue Planet.”

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

By Makereta Komai in Funafuti, Tuvalu

Tonga’s Prime Minister, ‘Akilisi Pohiva, has delivered a stinging attack against regionalism and the Pacific Islands Forum’s stance of leaving no one behind, for failing to amicably resolve the issue of West Papua.

Pohiva admitted the issue has divided the 18 members of the Forum for many years since it has been on the agenda of the leaders’ meeting.

“Is regionalism a myth, is it real or based on reality, he questioned leaders during the dialogue with the regional civil society organisations (CSO) this week in Funafuti.

Pohiva called out Indonesia – claiming it has a powerful influence over some members of the group – naming Fiji, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

“How can they reconcile the concept of leaving no one behind when they are friends with Indonesia?

“We should not let others control us. We should stand together in solidarity in support of the people of West Papua,” said Pohiva.

There was pin-drop silence when the Tongan Prime Minister delivered his intervention responding to the regional CSO’s call for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua.

Human rights importance
“None of us can speak of an inclusive and peaceful Pacific and remain silent on the serious human rights issues for West Papuans. We call on Pacific Leaders to observe the importance of human rights in all parts of our region.

“We urge that Forum Leaders call on Indonesia to immediately allow access of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN special mandate holders to West Papua, said the CSO statement.

Civil society organisations also requested Indonesia to immediately restore the access of independent journalists in the region, so that the international community can have better access to the ongoing human rights situation in West Papua.

Responding to the concerns of civil society organisations, Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama said that while Fiji heard the CSO’s position “loud and clear” on West Papua, it would be guided by the leaders’ previous decision.

“Fiji fully respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, including Indonesia, and we will always uphold the principles of the UN charter,” said Bainimarama.

He said Fiji was concerned with alleged reports of human rights violation and would continue to advocate for the protection of the human rights of all West Papuans.`

“This is a matter of life or death to many West Papuans and we must tread boldly – but thoughtfully – as we move forward as a region.

‘War and chaos’
“Territorial disputes have fuelled war and chaos since the beginning of time and we must approach this situation with both caution and hope in finding a solution,” said Bainimarama.

The Tongan leader warned that Indonesia was powerful and could challenge anyone in the Forum membership.

“We will never get a solution because Indonesia is so powerful. Our only weapon is to stand together in unity and in solidarity and support the people of West Papua,” said Pohiva.

Samoa’s Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, said that despite Forum leaders taking a position over the years, the violations and challenges for the people of West Papua had not reduced.

“It keeps on increasing. We can’t continue to ignore the violations of human rights against the people of West Papua. Its time that we review our position.”

Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister reserved his government’s position on the issue.

United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) spokesperson Jacob Rumbiak greeted with emotion the strong support from some Pacific leaders – particularly Tonga and Vanuatu.

Papuan tribute to Tonga
“We are happy that it has taken the 50th session of the Pacific Forum Leaders meeting to see some positive movement in the leaders of the Pacific. I am deeply appreciative of the great efforts of the CSOs for pushing this issue through their position to the leaders,” Rumbiak said.

He paid tribute to Tongan Prime Minister Pohiva for his powerful intervention.

“The response from Prime Minister Pohiva was the strongest so far and very powerful, especially when he urged them to unite and stand up to Indonesia.

“This issue has been on the regional agenda for 10-15 years and it’s not a domestic issue any more. It’s now a regional issue and leaders should now act on it’,” said Rumbiak.

• Makereta Komai is editor of the Fiji-based Pacnews regional news service.
• The Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu communique

Relocation is a cheap option for sinking island countries – but “we are going to stay”, vows Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who is this year’s chair of the Pacific Islands Forum.

Sopoaga highlighted this during a press conference held before the main Forum meetings took place.

He said the issue of relocation had been around at the Forum for several years now. However, in spite of climate change, the small island nation is not giving up hope.

READ MORE: NZ’s Jacinda Ardern to tackle climate change conversation in Tuvalu

“We have been trying in Tuvalu at least to build a trust and the conviction that we can still do something, not to give up but to work to do something to save the islands, to save Tuvalu and possibly to save the small islands,” he said.

“Because we believe by relocation that would be fine, but we believe that is going to be a cheap option for those who caused global warming and climate change.

“It would be so easy for them to say to pass a resolution in the United Nations that we resolve to look for money to relocate these guys to somewhere safe, but there is nowhere safe in the world because of climate change.”

His views highlighted the Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project (TCAP) that will provide 7 ha of raised flood-free new land.

‘Self-defeating option’
“I think it is a cheap option and it is self-defeating, therefore we in Tuvalu say no,” he said.

“We are going to stay and that in front of us – TCAP – that reclaimed area is a statement by Tuvalu.

“We can save Tuvalu by raising the islands, by building the islands, by reclaiming lands, to protect the islands.”

Sopoaga expressed gratitude at Fiji’s offer to take Tuvalu refugees if the time came for relocation, but he reaffirmed that that stage had not come yet.

It is a view that Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama echped at the Sautalaga meeting, but acknowledged the will of Tuvalu to maintain a foothold on its home.

“Fiji will offer a home to you the people of Tuvalu,” Bainimarama said.

Natural justice
“We have made the same offer to your neighbours in Kiribati. This is obviously not our preferred option or yours, because natural justice demands that you continue to live in a place you call home, the islands you love and the islands of your ancestors.

“In the Fijian spirit of loving and open hearts, we are determined that you not only become refugees in a worst case scenario we will offer you refuge among us so that at the very least you remain close to where you belong.”

He called on the region and the greater world not to forsake the people of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Marshall Islands.

• Matthew Vari is a PNG Post-Courier journalist covering the Pacific Islands Forum.
• More climate change stories

A leading New Caledonian pro-independence politician, Victor Tutugoro, says governments of Melanesian countries have quietly supported the New Caledonian independence cause.

Tutugoro, second vice-president of New Caledonia’s Kanak-ruled Northern province and a Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) representative, said that this had been muted in part because of their bilateral links with France.

He said support for the Kanaks had been channelled through the MSG.

“The government of Fiji has been very discreet but generally speaking it’s been the organisation. With governments it’s a different story, they have to be more reserved towards France given their bilateral relation.”

Tutugoro, of the Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS), said he was yet to speak to delegates of the the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), who visited Noumea for the weekend’s independence referendum.

The forum defied France in the 1980s by facilitating New Caledonia’s re-inscription on the UN decolonisation list.

French police yesterday reopened the main road between Noumea and the south of New Caledonia after a blockade by protesters had caused tension throughout Monday, the day after the referendum.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

• New Caledonia blockade tension
• Other referendum reports

Vanuatu’s Foreign Minister Ralph Regenvanu has called on New Zealand to get on the right side of history when it comes to West Papua.

Reaffirming Prime Minister Charlot Salwai Tabimasmas’ remarks at the UN General Assembly late last month, Regenvanu told Asia Pacific Report that the “people of West Papua have never had the opportunity to exercise their right of self-determination, which is an unalienable right under international law, and they must be given that opportunity”.

Vanuatu was one of three countries – four less than in 2016 – whose leaders gave UN strong messages in support of West Papuan self-determination.

READ MORE: Background to the 1969 Act of Free Choice

Independence for Vanuatu was achieved from the co-colonisers France and the United Kingdom in 1980.

West Papua had been a colony of the Dutch New Guinea but was annexed by Indonesia with UN and Western support and a so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969 described by critics as fraudulent. This followed an unsuccessful Indonesian “invasion” by paratroopers in 1962.

Asked why Vanuatu has taken the lead in advocating for West Papua, Regenvanu says:

“We take this position because of our historical solidarity with the people of West Papua – we were once together and the struggles as colonies trying to become independent; we achieved ours and we will not forget our brothers-and-sisters-in-arms who have not got theirs.”

Forum failure
For Prime Minister Salwai and Regenvanu, the recent Pacific Islands Forum was a failure at gaining Pacific support for West Papuan self-determination.

“We are disappointed at the position of Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia to vocally oppose self-determination for West Papua. We are pleased that most other countries support self-determination, however.”

Regenvanu also criticises New Zealand for not following the advice that it gives to Pacific Island countries.

New Zealand should, “actively support with actions on this issue the ‘international rules-based order’ it is always promoting to PICs”.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group, which shares an ethnicity with the people of West Papua, has also failed at achieving solidarity over the issue.

“PNG and Fiji have strong ties to Indonesia and work actively to ensure the MSG does not address the issue.”

End colonialism call
Prime Minister Salwai introduced the issue of West Papua to the UN General Assembly this year.

Prime Minister  Charlot Salwai Tabimasmas addressing the UN General Assembly about West Papua. Video: UN

“For half a century now, the international community has been witnessing a gamut of torture, murder, exploitation, sexual violence, arbitrary detention inflicted on the nationals of West Papua perpetrated by Indonesia.”

“We also call on our counterparts throughout the world to support the legal right of West Papua to self-determination.”

For Prime Minister Salwai, it is an issue of justice and equality for the people of West Papua,

“I would like to get back to the principles in the charter of the United Nations to reaffirm that we believe in the fundamental rights of human beings in dignity and worth of the human person and in equality of rights between men and women and nations large and small.”

Prime Minister Salwai has been the flag bearer of West Papuan self-determination. His aim is for West Papua to be placed back onto the decolonisation list under the UN charter.

However, Prime Minister Salwai was supported by two other Pacific leaders, Marshall Islands’ President Hilda Heine of the Marshall Islands, and Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu.

Sopoaga said: “The United Nations must also engage with the people of West Papua to find lasting solutions to their struggles.”

Constructive engagement
President Heine staid that Pacific Island countries supported constructive engagement on the issue.

At the 2016 UN General Assembly, seven countries stated their supported for West Papuan self-determination. These were: Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Tonga, Palau.

Decolonisation has become an important part of foreign relations in the Pacific with the New Caledonian independence vote on November 4.

After hundreds of years of European colonisation, the UN has provided a platform for and facilitated the self-determination of indigenous peoples across the world.

The Indonesian delegation denounced Vanuatu at the UN General Assembly just days ago. The Indonesia delegation used the entirety of their second right of reply in the general debate to deplore Vanuatu’s support for West Papuan self-determination.

“Although being disguised with flowery human rights concern, Vanuatu’s sole intention and action are directly challenging the internationally agreed principles of friendly relations between state, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” UN General Assembly Vice-President Muhammad Kalla said on behalf of his country.

UN General Assembly Vice-President Muhammad Kalla giving his speech. Video: UN

He said: “Like any other country, Indonesia will firmly defend its territorial integrity.”

The Indonesian representative, Aloysius Taborat, said: “respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity is the cardinal rule in the relation among nations and in the United Nations”.

However, critics say Indonesia’s handling of West Papua’s vote in the 1969 Act of Free Choice “was rigged” so that West Papua would vote to join Indonesia. Therefore, many see hypocrisy in Indonesia’s words, including in their reputation over press freedom.

Human rights abuses are a common occurrence in West Papua, according to human rights organisations. Simply raising the West Papuan flag can result in 15-years imprisonment.

James Halpin is a student journalist on the Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies course at AUT. He is filing articles in the Asia-Pacific Journalism Studies paper.

By RNZ Pacific

Journalist Barbara Dreaver has been released after being detained in Nauru today while covering the Pacific Islands Forum summit, reports TVNZ.

RNZ’s reporter on Nauru said it was understood Dreaver was taken to the police station on the island after trying to interview a refugee outside of the camp.

She said they asked for her visa, told her she was breaching her conditions and stripped her of her accreditation for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders summit being held on the island.

EARLIER STORY: TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver detained

World Vision New Zealand said it helped Dreaver connect with refugees on Nauru and it was contacted by its liaison person this afternoon.

A spokesperson said Dreaver’s interview had been stopped by the Nauru police, and she was taken by them.

The Nauru government has limited the movements of journalists covering the summit and placed restrictions on who they can talk to.

An official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was with Dreaver during the ordeal.

PM pleased over release
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she was pleased that Dreaver was released.

Ardern leaves for Nauru early tomorrow morning, and says once she gets there she will seek more advice about the situation.

She said the New Zealand government believed in freedom of the press throughout the world, and that includes the entire Pacific region.

The Nauru government had limited the journalists covering the summit and placed restrictions on those who got approval to go, limiting who they could talk to and what issues they could discuss.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was also banned from covering the Forum summit after the Nauruan government accused the public broadcaster of “continued biased and false reporting” about the country.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Nauru’s controversial ban on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from attending the main annual Pacific political summit next month has appalled New Zealand journalists but they have stopped short of wanting to join a threatened boycott.

Host nation Nauru has restricted media access and banned the ABC from attending the 49th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Summit on September 3-6 due to alleged “biased and false reporting”.

Only seven accredited New Zealand journalists will be allowed to attend the summit.

READ MORE: Nauru’s ban on ABC splits commercial media

The chair of the NZ Parliamentary Press Gallery, Stacey Kirk, says she shares the concern of Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery – which has threatened a boycott – and is appalled by Nauru’s efforts to control the media by banning and restricting the number of reporters.

Kirk told Asia Pacific Report “while infrastructure constraints play a role in the limited pooling numbers, we are appalled by this attempt to control the media coverage.

“To ban media based on unfavourable coverage is a clear violation of freedom of expression. This decision already follows restrictive reporting conditions, limiting the number of journalists who can attend this important regional summit.”

Shocked and furious
Claire Trevett, deputy political editor of the New Zealand Herald, says she is shocked and furious that only seven representatives from New Zealand would be allowed to attend and cover the summit.

She says that although there is limited accommodation in the island nation, the Nauruan authorities have the capacity to house more journalists then they intend to.

“Nauru has claimed the reason is limited space/accommodation there, but Niue – which is smaller – managed to host it without such strenuous limits in 2007, and Nauru itself has hosted it in the past without the limits.”

The Republic of Nauru said in this policy statement on its official website:

“No representative from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be granted a visa to enter Nauru under any circumstances, due to this organisation’s blatant interference on Nauru’s domestic politics… harassment and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our Government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

The government has also said that limited accommodation has forced restrictions on the number of other reporters from covering the event, adding that “there has been no other restrictions placed on media attendance for any other reason”.

Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery president David Crowe issued a response to the ban, saying the decision was appalling and threatened a media boycott from all Australian media from the event.

If the ABC could not go, the media pool should not go.

‘Dangerous precedent’
Crowe says a pool group of journalists who cover federal parliament had been set up to report on the summit which met restrictions previously set out by Nauru, but picking and choosing which journalists could cover the forum was going too far.

“If the ban is not reversed, the media pool will be disbanded. If one cannot go, none will go. It sets a dangerous precedent. What other Australian media might be banned from a similar group by another government in the future?

“We stand for a free press, not a banned one.”

ABC has declared it “does not intend to vacate” its place in Australia’s pool of journalists’ reporting on the summit.

Nauru has defied criticism and stood by its ban on the ABC, reminding journalists it was a privilege to enter Nauru and the country had the right to refuse entry to anyone entering whom they believed may pose a threat to their security.

“It is arrogant, disrespectful and a further example of the sense of entitlement shown by this activist media organisation. The Australian media does not decide who enters Nauru,” the government said.

Nauru said any restrictions placed on journalists other than ABC were due to limited accommodation, that all footage would be provided for media unable to attend and at least one Australian television media outlet would be invited to cover the summit.

Controlling the narrative
Host of RNZ’s Dateline Pacific programme Don Wiseman says it is clear Nauru is trying to control the narrative.

Wiseman says the journalists who get to Nauru are likely be stopped from reporting on any activities outside of the summit due to the severe restrictions.

However, rather than a boycott, any reporting is better than none, he says.

“It’s a good moral decision, but the other part is that it’s better to be there and to report on all the various and nefarious things going on in Nauru if you can.

“Nauru is a small place. It doesn’t have much accommodation, but it has more than it used to have. They’ve just chosen not to because they’re anti-media.”

Wiseman says the Australian government has been unwilling to criticise Nauru’s treatment of journalists, saying it is “compromised” because of its heavily criticised detention camps on Nauru.

“If no one speaks out it will become a battle between the guys running the show and some journalists, and if the Australian government doesn’t speak out, which it hasn’t done, it’s essentially been supportive of what Nauru’s done in the way in which it’s treated journalists.

“The reality is the boycott will go ahead. A number of people have been told they have visas, but if there are restrictions I would imagine it will be a universal say no.”

The Australian Federal press gallery is yet to confirm a boycott, but commentators say it is unlikely the Nauru government will reverse its ban on the ABC.

Maxine Jacobs is a postgraduate student journalist on the Asia Pacific Journalism Studies course at AUT University.

• Nauru ban on the ABC
• More Nauru ban stories

Rachael Le Mesurier, Oxfam New Zealand’s executive director, said because of this the Government needs to change its funding focus within Pacific climate finance.

“While New Zealand’s role in helping Pacific communities to access clean, efficient energy is helpful…the Government’s climate finance model is designed to be business focused, and not to benefit families living on the frontline of climate change.”

“These families need resources to adapt to rising seas and turbo-charged cyclones. The New Zealand Government’s climate finance program isn’t helping them do that,” Le Mesurier said.

‘Unmet commitments’
Her statement complied with Oxfam’s research report, released this week, which assesses the “unmet” commitments of the New Zealand and Australian governments towards Pacific climate funds.

After Paris: Climate Finance in the Pacific Islands reveals the proportion of New Zealand’s climate finance dedicated to adaptation has dropped by 20 percent since 2013.

The report urges greater investment in resilience building.

It also states that Australia has not increased its contribution for international climate finance since 2010.

“Australia has failed to increase its contribution to international climate finance in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement or in keeping with stronger commitments from other developed nations.”

• The report comes as the most senior politicians in the Pacific gather for the 47^th Pacific Islands Forum. The five-day event began today in Pohnpei, the capital of the Federated Sates of Micronesia, and will end on Sunday.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Aviation of the Department of Transportation, Communications and Infrastructure, Massy Halbert, said this new flight route would strengthen trade links and provide more business opportunities.

It would also promote a sense of “Pacificness” between both countries.

Halbert also added that it was historical and both countries will work together to ensure this service is sustained.

“Absolutely, I will continue to do my part, so plans for December to begin the passenger schedule service can proceed,” he said.

Air Niugini has begun operating the special services to Chuuk and Pohnpei in FSM and is flying a special service to FSM for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders summit whose preparatory meeting opens tomorrow.

There were 70 divers, and others, by chance were booked on the first flight PX 4072, operated by Boeing 737-700.

After 2 hr 40 min, the Bird of Paradise touched down at Chuuk. From Chuuk, it took another hour to Pohnpei.

Sharing costs
Air Niugini chief executive officer, Simon Foo, says the partnership is about sharing costs involved in operating this service.

Industries like tourism will be promoted.

“It will be twice a week, from Port Moresby to Chuuk then Pohnpei and back the next day,” he said.

This service saves time and cost.

A passenger, Quinton Devlin who works in the Solomon Islands, said it now only took three hours to Pohnpei rather than connecting through different countries.

“From Honiara, this is the best route with less time,” he said

It’s always a privilege for operating crews, like Ethel Samlai, because normally they are randomly selected.

“I am very privileged and I thank Air Niugini for selecting the team which I was part of,” she said.

Foo said the establishment of this direct service from Papua New Guinea to the Federated States of Micronesia represented a major expansion of Air Niugini in the Pacific and for Port Moresby to become the Pacific’s “hub in the aviation industry”.

EMTV News reporter

• Air Niugini operates special flight for FSM Forum meeting.
• Fijian PM snubbing Pacific leaders’ meet

Other key issues identified for leaders to consider under the Framework for Pacific Regionalism include implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, upholding human rights in West Papua, reducing the burden of cervical cancer, coordinating regional information and communications technology, trade integration, and a framework to support the rights of persons with disabilities.

Leaders from the Smaller Island States (SIS) of the Forum meet first tomorrow. Their focus will be on an implementation plan for the recently endorsed SIS Strategy.

The strategy highlights 5 key areas – climate change finance, air and sea transport, marine, mobility, and health – that, due to the unique circumstances and vulnerabilities of the SIS, require specific attention.

On Thursday, six representatives of civil society from across the region will breakfast with the Forum Troika (Leaders of Papua New Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia and Samoa) to put forward their perspective on the regional agenda.

PACP group
Thursday will also see Pacific Leaders of the African Caribbean Pacific (PACP) grouping meet to discuss future perspectives of the ACP group and post-Cotonou arrangements, current programming of the Pacific Regional Indicative Program under the 11th European Development Fund and other trade and PACP related matters.

The official opening of the 47th Pacific Islands Forum Meeting takes place on Thursday evening in Kolonia, Pohnpei.

It is followed by the full Leaders Plenary Session with associate members and observers on Friday and a dialogue with private sector representatives.

The Leaders Retreat will be held on Saturday.

On Sunday, the Forum’s dialogue partners will meet with leaders for the Post Forum Dialogue which provides an opportunity to align development support behind the Forum’s policy priorities.

#FSMPIF2016

• Devblog PIF preview by Wesley Morgan

In 2002, West Papuan leaders and I traveled to Fiji to urge leaders of the PIF to support West Papua.

I also spoke to various organisations and warned the Pacific Islands Forum that not supporting West Papua is a green-light to the Indonesian government to continue its violation of West Papuans human rights.

Fourteen years later, nothing has changed.

• MSG leaders defer West Papua membership decision