The Epstein Files were never just about one man.

Jeffrey Epstein didn’t operate in a vacuum. His crimes were grotesque, systematic, and, crucially, protected for decades. That alone should unsettle anyone who believes power is held accountable.

What’s disturbing isn’t only what he did, but what didn’t happen afterwards.

• READ MORE: Struggling to navigate the Epstein files? Here is a visual guide
• Other Epstein Files reports

How does a trafficker move across borders, fly politicians and royalty, launder wealth, avoid serious prosecution for years, and then conveniently die in a high-security facility with cameras malfunctioning and guards “asleep”?

That’s not a coincidence. That’s institutional failure at best, complicity at worst.

The real scandal is the silence.

Names were known. Networks were hinted at. Evidence existed. Yet accountability stopped at Epstein himself, the perfect firewall.

How power protects itself
Once he was gone, so was the urgency. Files sealed. Investigations stalled. Media interest redirected.

This is how power protects itself.

Whether you call it the Deep State, the ruling class, elite immunity, or simply entrenched systems of power, the pattern is familiar:

The powerful are insulated, the truth is managed, and justice is selective.

Epstein wasn’t an anomaly. He was a symptom.

And until transparency replaces secrecy, and accountability reaches upward instead of downward, the question will remain:

Who was Epstein really working for?

And who benefited most from him never speaking?

Maher Khalil Nazzal is a Muslim Palestinian refugee living in Auckland and co-chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA).

A leading West Papuan advocate has welcomed this week’s launch of the Brussels Declaration in the European Parliament, calling on MPs to sign it.

“The Declaration is an important document, echoing the existing calls for a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to West Papua made by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS), and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG),” said United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) president Benny Wenda.

“I ask all parliamentarians who support human rights, accountability, and international scrutiny to sign it.”

• READ MORE: European Parliament MPs demand UN visit to West Papua
• The Brussels Declaration on West Papua

The Brussels Declaration, organised by the International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP), has also launched a new phase in the campaign for a UN visit.

European parliamentarian Carles Puigdemont, formerly president of the state of Catalonia that broke away illegally from Spain in 2017 and an ex-journalist and editor, said during the meeting that the EU should immediately halt its trade negotiations with Indonesia until Jakarta obeyed the “will of the international community” and granted the UN access.

“Six years have now passed since the initial invite to the High Commissioner was made — six years in which thousands of West Papuans have been killed and over 100,000 displaced,” said Wenda.

“Indonesia has repeatedly demonstrated that words of condemnation are not enough. Without real pressure, they will continue to act with total impunity in West Papua.”

‘Unified call’
Wenda said the call to halt European trade negotiations with Indonesia was not just being made by himself, NGOs, or individual nations.

“it is a unified call by nearly half the world, including the European Commission, for international investigation in occupied West Papua,” he said.

“If Indonesia continues to withhold access, they will merely be proving right all the academics, lawyers, and activists who have accused them of committing genocide in West Papua.

“If there is nothing to hide, why all the secrecy?”

Since 2001, the EU has spent millions of euros funding Indonesian rule in West Papua through the controversial colonial “Special Autonomy” law.

“This money is supposedly earmarked for the advancement of ‘democracy, civil society, [and the] peace process’,” Wenda said.

“Given that West Papua has instead suffered 20 years of colonialism, repression, and police and military violence, we must question where these funds have gone.

‘Occupied land’
“West Papua is occupied land. We have never exercised our right to self-determination, which was cruelly taken from us in 1963.

“States and international bodies, including the EU, should not invest in West Papua until this fundamental right has been realised. Companies and corporations who trade with Indonesia over our land are directly funding our genocide.”

Wenda added “we cannot allow Indonesia any hiding place on this issue — West Papua cannot wait any longer”.

This week the Five Eyes alliance — an intelligence alliance between Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and the United States — announced its investigation into a China-backed threat targeting US infrastructure.

Using stealth techniques, the attacker — referred to as “Volt Typhoon” — exploited existing resources in compromised networks in a technique called “living off the land”.

Microsoft made a concurrent announcement, stating the attackers’ targeting of Guam was telling of China’s plans to potentially disrupt critical communications infrastructure between the US and Asia region in the future.

• READ MORE: Deterring China isn’t all about submarines. Australia’s ‘cyber offence’ might be its most potent weapon

This comes hot on the heels of news in April of a North Korean supply chain attack on Asia-Pacific telecommunications provider 3CX. In this case, hackers gained access to an employee’s computer using a compromised desktop app for Windows and a compromised signed software installation package.

The Volt Typhoon announcement has led to a rare admission by the US National Security Agency that Australia and other Five Eyes partners are engaged in a targeted search and detection scheme to uncover China’s clandestine cyber operations.

Such public admissions from the Five Eyes alliance are few and far between. Behind the curtain, however, this network is persistently engaged in trying to take down foreign adversaries. And it’s no easy feat.

Let’s take a look at the events leading up to Volt Typhoon — and more broadly at how this secretive transnational alliance operates.

Uncovering Volt Typhoon
Volt Typhoon is an “advanced persistent threat group” that has been active since at least mid-2021. It’s believed to be sponsored by the Chinese government and is targeting critical infrastructure organisations in the US.

The group has focused much of its efforts on Guam. Located in the Western Pacific, this US island territory is home to a significant and growing US military presence, including the air force, a contingent of the marines, and the US navy’s nuclear-capable submarines.

It’s likely the Volt Typhoon attackers intended to gain access to networks connected to US critical infrastructure to disrupt communications, command and control systems, and maintain a persistent presence on the networks.

Volt Typhoon is the name Microsoft and the Five Eyes intelligence agencies have given a Chinese state sponsored hacking group, which they say installed a mysterious code in Guam’s telecommunications systems. https://t.co/xEwith7ZmM

— RN Breakfast (@RNBreakfast) May 25, 2023

The latter tactic would allow China to influence operations during a potential conflict in the South China Sea.

Australia wasn’t directly impacted by Volt Typhoon, according to official statements. Nevertheless, it would be a primary target for similar operations in the event of conflict.

As for how Volt Typhoon was caught, this hasn’t been disclosed. But Microsoft documents highlight previous observations of the threat actor attempting to dump credentials and stolen data from the victim organisation. It’s likely this led to the discovery of compromised networks and devices.

Living-off-the-land
The hackers initially gained access to networks through internet-facing Fortinet FortiGuard devices, such as routers. Once inside, they employed a technique called “living-off-the-land”.

This is when attackers rely on using the resources already contained within the exploited system, rather than bringing in external tools. For example, they will typically use applications such as PowerShell (a Microsoft management programme) and Windows Management Instrumentation to access data and network functions.

By using internal resources, attackers can bypass safeguards that alert organisations to unauthorised access to their networks. Since no malicious software is used, they appear as a legitimate user.

As such, living-off-the-land allows for lateral movement within the network, and provides opportunity for a persistent, long-term attack.

The simultaneous announcements from the Five Eyes partners points to the seriousness of the Volt Typhoon compromise. It will likely serve as a warning to other nations in the Asia-Pacific region.

Who are the Five Eyes?
Formed in 1955, the Five Eyes alliance is an intelligence-sharing partnership comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US.

The alliance was formed after World War II to counter the potential influence of the Soviet Union. It has a specific focus on signals intelligence. This involves intercepting and analysing signals such as radio, satellite and internet communications.

The members share information and access to their respective signals intelligence agencies, and collaborate to collect and analyse vast amounts of global communications data. A Five Eyes operation might also include intelligence provided by non-member nations and the private sector.

Recently, the member countries expressed concern about China’s de facto military control over the South China Sea, its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and threatening moves towards Taiwan.

The latest public announcement of China’s cyber operations no doubt serves as a warning that Western nations are paying strict attention to their critical infrastructure — and can respond to China’s digital aggression.

In 2019, Australia was targeted by Chinese state-backed threat actors gaining unauthorised access to Parliament House’s computer network. Indeed, there is evidence that China is engaged in a concerted effort to target Australia’s public and private networks.

The Five Eyes alliance may well be one of the only deterrents we have against long-term, persistent attacks against our critical infrastructure.

Dennis B. Desmond is a lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, University of the Sunshine Coast. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Peacemonger is a collection of essays about the much travelled Aotearoa peace activist and researcher Owen Wilkes, who died in May 2005. Wilkes was an extraordinary peace campaigner who discovered a foreign spy base at Tangimoana and was once charged with espionage in Norway and again while on a cycling holiday in Sweden.

After he took up beekeeping near Karamea on the West Coast in 1983, it was discovered that Customs was helping the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to read his mail, apparently worried about his legendary ability to snuffle out secret installations by foreign powers in countries from New Zealand to Norway.

They were right to note his impact – this book explains just how enormously influential Wilkes was.

• READ MORE: Other Owen Wilkes book reports

Many of these short essays are by big names in the Aotearoa peace firmament, such as Maire Leadbeater, Murray Horton, David Robie, Nicky Hager and Peter Wills. Each chapter contains gems; some hilarious, others sobering.

Wilkes was a rare beast, a man who could be, as Mark Derby writes, “unpretentious, fearless, indefatigable, at times insufferable”.

Hager, a phenomenal investigative journalist, has contributed the chapter “The Wilkes How-to Guide to Public Interest Researching’.

Coming from Hager, one of the greatest public interest researchers in the country, this should be catnip to a new generation of proto-Hagers, Thunbergs and Wilkeses.

The last chapter, “Memories of Owen”, was written by his partner, peace activist May Bass.

It is a heartfelt send-off to a human comet who lit up everything he touched, one who may never have realised in his arc across the sky what a void he left behind him, not just in the peace movement, but in the hearts of his friends and loved ones.

• Peacemonger: Owen Wilkes: International Peace Researcher, edited by May Bass and Mark Derby (NZ$35.00, Raekaihau Press and Steele Roberts Aotearoa). ISBN 9781991153869

Jenny Nicholls writes reviews for The Listener and this review has been republished from the Waiheke Weekender with permission. She is also a graphic designer: designandtype.org

Fiji MP and the leader of the opposition National Federation Party, Professor Biman Prasad, is accusing Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama’s ruling FijiFirst Party of suppressing opposition parties with newly amended electoral laws ahead of the country’s general elections this year.

“These are draconian pieces of electoral laws which are designed to keep the opposition parties at bay,” Professor Prasad said.

“They are designed to persecute and gag the opposition parties and prevent them from campaigning. These are absurd and stupid laws governing the electoral process,” he added.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji elections reports

The Electoral Amendment Bill 2022 gives the country’s Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem, the right to “direct a person, by notice in writing, to furnish any relevant information or document…notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law on confidentiality, privilege or secrecy”.

It means candidates have no rights of confidentiality if ordered to hand over a document, and the punishments for now complying range from fines of up to $50,000 to a prison term of more than five years.

Saneem has been accused in the past of having a pro-government bias.

“You would never experience such absurd and ridiculous levels of conflict of interest,” Professor Prasad said.

‘We can’t even criticise’
“The laws have been made by this government led by the Attorney-General, who is also the Minister for Elections, and who is also the General Secretary of the FijiFirst Party. We can’t even criticise the Supervisor of Elections, so I must be very careful about what I say with respect to him [Mohammed Saneem].”

Attorney-General Aiyaz Khaiyum-Sayed said the amendments were necessary for the Secretary of Elections to vet candidates.

“Without this specific power, the Secretary of Elections is unable to make enquiries to obtain information necessary for the Secretary of Elections to arrive at decisions as required by the Act. Such powers are also extremely important to allow the Secretary of Elections to conduct enquiries into allegations of breaches of campaign provisions,” Khaiyum-Sayed told Parliament when the Electoral Amendment Bill 2022 was tabled last month.

Professor Prasad alleges that only the FijiFirst party has the freedom to campaign “as they want, when they want, where they want, how they want”.

He said the opposition “have to look behind our backs constantly to make sure we don’t fall behind the wrong side of the law”.

Bainimarama’s main rival and leader of the People’s Alliance Party, Sitiveni Rabuka, shares Professor Prasad’s sentiments.

“It [electoral law amendments] is really just to tie down the hands and feet of the opposition parties,” Rabuka said.

Hampers ‘smooth running of elections’
“It does not facilitate the smooth running of an election and campaigns but only hampers the progress of other political parties,” he said.

Prime Minister Bainimarama has maintained power in the country as a popular leader since he won the democratic elections in 2014.

But opposition leaders say he is losing support due to a totalitarian style of governance that has been in force since Bainimarama first came to power after staging a coup in 2006.

Professor Prasad said foreign nations need to take notice of recent political developments in Fiji.

He said the country was not a “true democracy” because the government has been actively using laws to suppress dissent.

‘Don’t be fooled by propaganda’
“Don’t be fooled by this propaganda by Frank Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum on that international stage that we have a genuine democracy,” he said.

“Fiji is nowhere near a genuine democracy. This is a bunch who came into power through the barrel of a gun in 2006.”

“They made their own constitution, they made their own laws and they want to remain in power at any cost, giving an appearance to the international community that somehow that we are genuine democracy.”

Professor Prasad said the international community — including neighbours Australia and New Zealand — should be “seriously concerned about what’s going on” in the country.

“The international community absolutely cannot ignore these fundamental laws used by the government to gag the opposition from effectively participating in the election.”

RNZ Pacific has tried many times to contact FijiFirst for a response to this story but has yet to receive one.

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

Journalists may face decades in prison for “foreign interference” offences unless urgent changes are made to Australia’s national security laws, according to a University of Queensland researcher.

PhD candidate Sarah Kendall from UQ’s School of Law warned that reporting on issues relating to Australian politics, national security or international relations while working with overseas media organisations could place journalists at risk of criminal prosecution under the Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018.

“The law could apply to any journalist, staff member or source who works for or collaborates with foreign-controlled media organisations,” Kendall said.

• READ MORE: Other Australian media freedom reports

“There could also be repercussions for journalists working overseas, as any news published in Australia is subject to these laws.”

The Espionage and Foreign Interference Act 2018 covers nine foreign interference offences, with penalties ranging from 10 to 20 years imprisonment.

“While these offences require some part of the person’s conduct to be covert or involve deception, this does not exclude legitimate journalistic activities,” Kendall said.

“Journalists could be acting covertly whenever they liaise with a confidential source using encrypted technologies or engage in undercover work using hidden cameras.”

Public interest protection
In a Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom briefing paper, Kendall recommended that the government introduce an occupation-specific exemption to protect journalists working in the public interest.

The paper argues that the scope of offences be narrowed to remove “recklessness” and “prejudice to Australia’s national security” as punishable elements.

“For example, a journalist could be accused of recklessly harming national security when they publish a story that reveals war crimes by members of the Australian Defence Force,” Kendall said.

“Journalists and their sources could face up to 20 years in prison if any part of their conduct was covert, even if they are engaged in legitimate, good faith reporting.”

Kendall said the law’s Preparatory Offence, which carries a potential jail term of 10 years, risked creating a dangerous precedent when combined with the offence of conspiracy.

“This offence can capture the earliest stages of investigative reporting so a discussion between a journalist and source about a potential story on Australian politics could see them charged with conspiring to prepare for foreign interference,” Kendall said.

Foreign Interference Law and Press Freedom is the latest report in UQ Law School’s Press Freedom Policy Papers series, a project aimed at laying the groundwork for widespread reform in laws spanning espionage, whistleblowing and free speech as they affect the media.

Timor-Leste, the youngest independent nation and the most fledgling press in the Asia-Pacific, has finally shown how it’s done — with a big lesson for Pacific island neighbours.

Tackle the Chinese media gatekeepers and creeping authoritarianism threatening journalism in the region at the top.

In Dili on the final day of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s grand Pacific tour to score more than 50 agreements and deals — although falling short of winning its Pacific region-wide security pact for the moment — newly elected (for the second time) President José Ramos-Horta won a major concession.

• READ MORE: Outcry as China stops Pacific journalists questioning Wang Yi
• Chinese foreign minister’s visit to the Solomon Islands has been shrouded in secrecy and press restrictions
• Timor-Leste: Deals signed with China at start of visit by Chinese minister
• China calls for a ‘reset’ in relations with Australia
• Other China in Pacific media freedom reports

Enough of this paranoid secrecy and contemptuous attitude towards the local – and international – media in democratic nations of the region.

Under pressure from the democrat Ramos-Horta, a longstanding friend of a free media, Wang’s entourage caved in and allowed more questions like a real media conference.

Lusa newsagency correspondent in Dili Antonió Sampaio summed up the achievement in the face of the Pacific-wide secrecy alarm in a Facebook post: “After the controversy, the Chinese minister gave in and agreed to speak with journalists. A small victory for the media in Timor-Leste!”

Small victory, big tick
A small victory maybe. But it got a big tick from Timor-Leste Journalists Association president Zevonia Vieira and her colleagues. He thanked President Ramos-Horta for his role in ending the ban on local media and protecting the country’s freedom of information.

Media consultant Bob Howarth, a former PNG Post-Courier publisher and longtime adviser to the Timorese media, hailed the pushback against Chinese secrecy, saying the Chinese minister answering three questions — elsewhere in the region only one was allowed and that had to be by an approved Chinese journalist — as a “press freedom breakthrough”.

On the eve of Wang’s visit, Timor-Leste’s Press Council had denounced the restrictions being imposed on journalists before Horta’s intervention.

“In a democratic state like East Timor not being able to have questions is unacceptable,” said president Virgilio Guterres. “There may be limits for extraordinary situations where there can be no coverage, but saying explicitly that there can be no questions is against the principles of press freedom.”

The Chinese delegation justified the decision to ban questions from journalists or to exclude from the agenda any statements with “lack of time” and the “covid-19 pandemic” excuses.

However, Ramos-Horta was also quietly supportive of the Chinese overtures in the region.

According to Sampiaio, when questioned in the media conference about fears in the West about China’s actions in the Pacific, Ramos-Horta said “there is no reason for alarm” and noted that Beijing had always had interests in the region, for example in fishing.

‘A lot of lobbying’
“These Pacific countries have done a lot of lobbying with China to get more support and China is responding to that. These one-off agreements with one country or another, they don’t affect the long-standing interests of countries like Australia and the United States,” he said.

An article by The Guardian’s Pacific Project editor Kate Lyons highlighted China’s authoritarian approach to the media this week, saying “allegations raise press freedom concerns and alarm about the ability of Pacific journalists to do their jobs, particularly as the relationship between the region and China becomes closer.”

But one of the most telling criticisms came from Fiji freelance journalist Lice Movono, whose television crew reporting for the ABC, was deliberately blocked from filming. Pacific Islands Forum officials intervened.

“From the very beginning there was a lot of secrecy, no transparency, no access given,” she told The Guardian.

“I was quite disturbed by what I saw. When you live in Fiji you kind of get used to the militarised nature of the place, but to see the Chinese officials do that was quite disturbing.

“To be a journalist in Fiji is to be worried about imprisonment all the time. Journalism is criminalised. You can be jailed or the company you work for can be fined a crippling amount that can shut down the operation … But to see foreign nationals pushing you back in your own country, that was a different level.”

Media soul-searching

China was moderately successful in signing multiple bilateral agreements with almost a dozen Pacific Island nations during Wang’s visit to the region. The tour began 11 days ago in Solomon Islands — where a secret security pact with China was leaked in March — and since then Wang has met Pacific leaders from Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Niue (virtually), Cook Islands (virtually) and Vanuatu.

However, the repercussions from the visit on the media will lead to soul searching for a long time. Some brief examples of the interaction with Beijing’s authoritarianism:

Solomon Islands: The level of secrecy and selective media overtures surrounding Wang’s meetings with the government sparked the Media Association of the Solomon Islands (MASI) to call on local media to boycott coverage of the visit in protest over the “ridiculous” restrictions.

Samoa: Samoan journalist Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson criticised the Chinese restrictions on the media with only a five-minute photo-op allowed and no questions or individual interviews. There was also no press briefing before or after Wang’s visit.

Fiji: No questions were allowed during the brief joint press conference between Wang and Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama. Local media later reported that, according to Fijian officials, the no-question policy came from the Chinese side.

Examples of local media publishing propaganda were demonstrated by the pro-government Fiji Sun, with a full page “ocean of peace” op-ed written by Chinese Ambassador Qian Bo claiming China’s engagement with Pacific Island countries was “open and transparent”. The Sun followed up with report written by the Chinese embassy in Fiji touting the “great success” of Wang’s visit.

Tonga: Matangi Tonga also published an article by Chinese Ambassador Cao Xiaolin a day before Wang’s visit claiming how “China has never interfered in the internal affairs of [Pacific Island countries]” and would “adhere to openness.”

Papua New Guinea: As a joint scheduled press conference was about to start, media were told that after both ministers had spoken, only one Chinese journalist and one PNG journalist could ask a question of their own foreign minister. However, according to the ABC correspondent Natalie Whiting, when PNG Post-Courier’s Mirriam Zarriga “asked a question about the Solomons security deal, both the PNG and Chinese foreign ministers responded”.

Wang then “made a point of calling on the ABC to also ask a question”. The ABC asked about the “inability to get the 10 Pacific nations to sign on to the proposed regional deal”.

China has called for a “reset” in relations with Australia and blamed a “political force” for the deteriorating relations.

China’s Foreign Minister speaks about resetting relations with Australia as he finishes his 8 country tour of the region. Blames a “political force” in Australia that views China as a rival and its development as a threat:https://t.co/5dEde87taD #auspol #PNG pic.twitter.com/qB5Ygi2eXv

— Natalie Whiting (@Nat_Whiting) June 4, 2022

Global condemnation
The secrecy and media control surrounding Wang’s tour was roundly condemned by the Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists and Paris-based Reporters Without Borders and other media freedom watchdogs.

“The restriction of journalists and media organisations from the Chinese delegation’s visit … sets a worrying precedent for press freedom in the Pacific,” said the IFJ in a statement.

“The IFJ urges the governments of Solomon Islands and China to ensure all journalists are given fair and open access to all press events.”

#RSF condemns #Chinese curb on #reporters during #Pacific island tour #AsiaPacificReport @PNGAttitude @pngfacts @RSF_AsiaPacific #mediafreedom #pressfreedom #ChinaInPacific #WangYi #securitypacthttps://t.co/CGxwNn2O5U pic.twitter.com/XbBIfDIt2u

— David Robie (@DavidRobie) June 3, 2022

Likewise, RSF’s Asia-Pacific director Daniel Bastard said the actions surrounding the events organised by the Chinese delegation with several Pacific island states “clearly contravenes the democratic principles of the region’s countries”.

He added: “We call on officials preparing to meet Wang Yi to resist Chinese pressure by allowing local journalists and international organisations to cover these events, which are of major public interest.”

University of the South Pacific journalism head Associate Professor Shailendra Singh also criticised the Chinese actions, saying “we have two different systems here. China has a different political system — a totalitarian system, and in the Pacific we have a democratic system.”

In Papua New Guinea, the last country to be visited in the Pacific before Timor-Leste, “there appeared to be little resistance” to the authoritarian screen, according to independent journalist Scott Waide, a champion of press freedom in his country.

“There’s not a lot of awareness about the visit,” he admits. “I would have liked to have seen a visible expression of resistance at least of some sort. But from Hagen, where I was this week. I didn’t see much.”

Waide has been training journalists as part of the ABC’s Media for Development Initiative (MDI) programme as a prelude to the PNG’s general election in July.

‘Problems to be resolved’
“We have problems that need to be resolved. Over the last month, I’ve tried to impart as much as possible through training workshops on the elections,” he told Pacific Media Watch But there are huge gaps in terms of journalism training. I believe that is a contributor to the lack of obvious pushback over Wang’s visit.”

The #WangYi Pacific tour reached #Fiji to tight security and a clear message that #China doesn’t welcome foreign media coverage around its officials. Were it not for Pacific media solidarity that is inclusive of ANZ press, today would have been (even more) interesting. #FijiNews pic.twitter.com/C3xwARRGuc

— Lice Movono (@LiceMovono) May 29, 2022

Reflecting on China’s Pacific tour, Lice Movono, said: “At the time of my interview with The Guardian, I think I was still pretty rattled. Now I think the best way to describe my response is that I feel extremely disturbed.”

She expressed concerns that mostly women journalists from the region noted “but that didn’t get enough traction when other media covered the incident(s) — that China was able to behave that way because the governments of the Pacific allowed it, or in the case of Fiji, preferred it that way.

Movono said that since her criticisms, she had come in for nasty attention by trolls.

“I’m getting some hateful trolling from Chinese twitter accounts – got called a ‘fat pig’ yesterday,” she told Pacific Media Watch.

“Also I’m being accused of lying because some photos have come out of the doorstop we did on the Chinese ambassador here and some have purported that to be an accurate portrayal of Chinese ‘friendliness’ toward media.”

So the pushback from President Ramos-Horta is a welcome sign for media freedom in the region.

Timor-Leste rose to 17th in the 2022 RSF World Press Freedom Index listing of 180 countries — the highest in the Pacific region — while both Fiji and Papua New Guinea fell in the rankings. There are some definite lessons there for media freedom defenders.

Frustrated Pacific journalists hope that there will be a more concerted effort to defend media freedom in the future against creeping authoritarianism.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned a media blackout imposed on events during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s 10-day tour of Pacific island countries.

Wang is today in Papua New Guinea at the end of an eight-country tour that began on May 26, but a “Chinese state media reporter is so far the only journalist to be allowed to ask him a question”, says the Paris-based global media freedom watchdog.

On the second day of his two days in Fiji this week, “the media briefing itself was run by the visiting government [and] the press passes were issued by the Chinese government,” Fiji journalist Lice Movono told The Guardian.

• READ MORE: Outcry as China stops Pacific journalists questioning Wang Yi
• Solomons media condemns ‘secrecy’ controls over China delegation
• China’s foreign minister tells Pacific leaders ‘don’t be too anxious’ after they reject regional security pact
• RSF condemns Chinese media discrimination at APEC in PNG
• Other China and media freedom in the Pacific reports

Movono and her cameraman, and a crew with the Australian TV broadcaster ABC, were prevented from filming a meeting between Wang and the Pacific Islands Forum’s secretary-general shortly after Wang’s arrival in Fiji the day before, although they all had accreditation.

She also observed several attempts by Chinese officials to restrict journalists’ ability to cover the event.

“From the very beginning there was a lot of secrecy, no transparency, no access given,” Movono said.

During Wang’s first stop in the Solomon Islands on May 26, covid restrictions were cited as grounds for allowing only a limited number of media outlets to attend the press conference and only two questions were allowed ­– one to the Solomon Islands’ foreign minister by a local reporter and one to Wang by a Chinese media outlet.

No interaction with the media was allowed during his next two stops in Kiribati and Samoa.

Resist Chinese pressure
“The total opacity surrounding the events organised by the Chinese delegation with several Pacific island states clearly contravenes the democratic principles of the region’s countries,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“We call on officials preparing to meet Wang Yi to resist Chinese pressure by allowing local journalists and international organisations to cover these events, which are of major public interest.”

Following the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa and Fiji, Wang visited Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste with the same aim of signing free trade and security agreements.

RSF has previously condemned the Chinese delegation’s discrimination against local and international media during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit held in November 2018 in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, with President Xi Jinping attending.

China is among the world’s worst countries for media freedom, ranked 175th out of 180 nations in the 2022 RSF World Press Freedom Index.

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

A Pacific journalist believes the Kiribati government has been coerced by Beijing to accommodate China’s foreign minister’s visit.

Kiribati authorities have confirmed that Wang Yi would briefly stopover to meet President Taneti Maamau as part of his Pacific-wide tour.

Journalist Rimon Rimon said the government had been “very secretive” and “people are frustrated and angry” after only learning about the trip via a Facebook post.

• READ MORE: China wants closer security, trade links with the Pacific
• Other China and the Pacific security reports

Rimon said Kiribati was grappling with a covid-19 outbreak and with the borders closed it was a change in practice by the government to oblige Beijing’s request.

“I think there has been some kind of pressure from Beijing. Only last night I had confirmation from a source from Beijing that before they travelled Kiribati was finally on the list,” he said.

“So, I finally understood that there had been some pressures and our government has submitted to those pressures.”

Rimon said a deal with Kiribati had more significance for China, as Beijing had already demonstrated its willingness to develop Kiribati’s northernmost island, Kanton Island, which has strategic military potential.

Kiribati government ‘reluctant’
“And I think China is pursuing that. I think our government is quite reluctant on something military-wise, based on the narrative that the government has been saying throughout the years.

“But I have no doubt this is, this is the number one thing on China’s agenda. How our government will respond to that or accommodate that. I have no idea of that,” he said.

The Kiribati government said the high-level state visit was an important milestone for Kiribati-China relations, as it would strengthen and promote partnership and cooperation between the two countries after the resumption of diplomatic ties in 2019.

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Wang Yi is due to visit Vanuatu next Wednesday as part of his tour.

The Chinese Embassy in Port Vila has confirmed the arrival date for bilateral talks with the government of Vanuatu.

The embassy said Wang’s visit in Vanuatu had nothing to do with security issues. Instead, it said, he would discuss five memorandums of understanding as well as other business.

The embassy said the discussion points would be on tangible benefits that China could bring to the people of Vanuatu.

As well as Port Vila, Wang is due to visit Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, and Kiribati. He is currently in Solomon Islands.

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

The Media Association of Solomon Islands (MASI) has urged its members to boycott a media conference for a visiting Chinese delegation in protest over “ridiculous” restrictions.

China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi leads the high-level delegation which arrives in Solomon Islands today.

Wang is expected to sign a host of new agreements, including the security pact that has sparked anger in the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Deal proposed by China would dramatically expand security influence in Pacific
• Other reports on China in the Pacific

MASI president Georgina Kekea said it was disappointed that the media were only allowed limited access to the visit.

Kekea said Solomon Islands was a democratic country and when media freedom was dictated on someone else’s terms, it impeded the country’s democratic principles.

“The Chinese delegation’s visit is an important and historical one for our country and our members play an important role in making sure it provides the right information and awareness on the importance of the visit to our people,” she said.

She said only two questions could be asked, one from a local journalist directed to the Solomon Islands foreign affairs minister, and one from Chinese media, directed to their foreign affairs minister.

“How ridiculous is that? If we want to interview our foreign affairs minister, we can just do it without the event,” she said.

‘What’s the purpose?’
“What is the purpose of hosting such an event for the press when they are only allowed one question and directed to their foreign minister only?”

Kekea said even the discriminatory manner in which journalists were selected to cover the event did not bode well with the association.

“MASI thrives on professional journalism and sees no reason for journalists to be discriminated against based on who they represent. Giving credentials to selected journalists is a sign of favouritism,” she said.

“Journalists should be allowed to do their job without fear or favour.”

She said the reason given that the arrangements were done that way because of covid-19 protocols did not stack up.

“We have community transmission, people are crowded in buses, shops, markets, banks and so forth, so this is a very lame excuse,” she said.

Kekea said press freedom is enshrined as a fundamental element in the Solomons’ constitution.

‘MASI defending democracy’
“Same as the prime minister has defended democracy in Parliament after the November riots, MASI is also defending democracy in this space,” Kekea said.

She added that the boycott was not to disrespect the government or its bilateral partners in any way, but to showcase the media’s disagreement in this matter.

Solomons Islands opposition leader Mathew Wale has again raised concerns at the secrecy surrounding links with Beijing.

Wale said only a few top aides know what is in the agreements, and that there’s no justification for the secrecy.

“Solomon Islands is a democratic country, owned by the people and they are entitled to know what is being transacted in their name,” he said.

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

It is now certain that any decisions on the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) minus the US will take place after New Zealand’s general election this month.

Last week’s meeting of the negotiators from the remaining 11 TPPA countries rebuffed the National government’s wish to proceed with the agreement basically unchanged aside from new provisions for its entry into force.

They have all agreed to suspend (but not remove) some of the most controversial intellectual property provisions that hiked the price of medicines. Other countries want parts of the actual text and countries’ schedules reopened.

Each country has to come back with its wish-list at another meeting in Japan later this month, probably while the New Zealand government is in caretaker mode after the September 23 election.

Post-election, a Labour-led government would inherit a poisoned chalice. But its position to date gives no confidence that Labour will take a stand against the resurrection of the deal, despite the groundswell of opposition from its own core membership.

READ MORE: Response of the opposition parties to the 10 bottom lines for NZ’s future trade policy

Labour Party leader Jacinda Adern recently defended the party’s “bloody minded” opposition to the agreement. But its only firm position is an objection to a single, very specific provision in the entire 30-chapter deal: the right to discriminate against foreign purchasers of residential property in the schedule on investment.

Does Labour really intend to agree to the TPPA-11 if that minor matter is changed (as it has been in a leaked copy I have of New Zealand’s proposed schedule to the now-suspended Trade in Services Agreement negotiations)?

Hiking the price of medicines
What about the intellectual property provisions the US insisted on that will hike the price of medicines and put taxpayer money into the pockets of Big Pharma – money Labour will desperately need to upgrade our rundown hospitals and fund primary health care for our poorest communities?

To date they will be suspended, but not removed, so they can be reactivated if the US rejoins. If the New Zealand Medical Association can call for those rules to be dropped, surely it’s a safe enough bet for the Labour Party to do so?

Or the investor-state dispute mechanism. David Parker’s position is that Labour would prefer not to have them. Grow a spine! Even Crawford Falconer, the ex-MFAT official who is now the UK’s new free trade negotiator, says it should be dropped from such deals.

Parker also insists that the Treaty of Waitangi exception is the best possible drafting imaginable, and claims the Waitangi Tribunal endorsed it. In fact the Tribunal said:

“The Crown however goes further and says that nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Māori. We have some reservations about this. … Our concern is that by qualifying the Treaty exception clause to that aspect of the Treaty relationship which may allow the Crown to adopt or implement measures more favourable to Māori, the full constitutional reach of the Treaty relationship may not be as clearly protected and preserved under the TPPA as it might be.”

A Labour Party that is pitching to reclaim all the Māori seats can, and must, do better.

So far as I can see, Labour has not even called for the government’s new modelling on the TPPA-11 to be made public, despite having pointed to the failings of the initial modelling in its minority report on the original TPPA.

Leadership on record
Labour’s leadership needs to go on record before the election with some more detailed and convincing answers to these questions, and its position on other toxic provisions affecting the right to regulate on state-owned enterprises, government procurement, financial services and taxation.

Above all, Labour needs to commit now to a genuine consultation about what position New Zealand should take on the TPPA-11 (given the massive input into the original select committee hearing that was arrogantly ignored); to publish any future mandate it takes into the negotiations (as the EU does in its negotiations); and to support its position with a comprehensive, independent and public cost-benefit analysis.

Or does Labour intend to retreat behind the same wall of secrecy as National has in these renegotiations?

Jacinda Ardern, Grant Robertson, David Parker, anyone in the Labour leadership – can we know your real position on the TPP-11 before the election please?

Dr Jane Kelsey is a professor of law at the University of Auckland and a prominent New Zealand critic of globalisation. This article is republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

Author and investigative journalist Nicky Hager and war correspondent Jon Stephenson have teamed up, in a book released last night, to tell the story of a dark and guilty secret of New Zealand’s recent history.

The book is about what the New Zealand military – and especially the Special Air Service (SAS) – did in Afghanistan in response to the first New Zealander dying in combat in August 2010.

The book, called Hit&Run, was released at a book launch at Unity Books in Wellington.

It was written by Nicky Hager following a long collaboration with Jon Stephenson, who brought the majority of sources to the project. For more than two years, they gradually gathered and pieced together the evidence.

The book describes a series of operations which proved to be ill-conceived, tragic and disastrous. These included an SAS attack on two isolated villages in Afghanistan’s Baghlan province where they mistakenly believed they would find the insurgents who had attacked a New Zealand patrol 19 days earlier in neighbouring Bamiyan. SAS officers commanded and led the attack, supported by US and Afghan forces.

The insurgent group was not there. Instead, at least 21 civilians were killed and injured – many of them women and children – and the SAS and US forces burned and blew up about a dozen houses. The SAS also failed to help the wounded. The Defence Force and government then tried to keep the whole thing secret.

They have never admitted nor taken responsibility for what they did.

Second raid
In a second raid on one of the villages about 10 days later, the SAS destroyed more property. When they eventually caught one of the targeted insurgents in Kabul he was beaten before being handed to the Afghan secret police and tortured.

Fragments of the story have reached the public before but the vast majority has remained secret until now. It is much worse than anyone knew. As former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Margaret Bedggood says, there needs to be a full, principled and independent inquiry into the actions described in this book, which, if confirmed, would seriously breach international law.

Hit&Run is based on numerous and extensive interviews with people involved in these events, including New Zealand and Afghan military personnel as well as residents of the villages. All wanted this story told to recognise the dead and the injured.

“This story also needs to be told to ensure our military is held to account for its actions,” says Hager.

“Whether or not the public agreed with New Zealand sending troops to the US-led war in Afghanistan, there is no doubt that what the SAS did was wrong and betrayed the defence force’s core values of courage, commitment and integrity.”