UN General Assembly – Asia Pacific Report

Cuban ambassador denounces US aggression and violations of international law

APR editor — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 23:37:47 +0000

INTERVIEW: By Eugene Doyle

This is a moment of great peril for the small Caribbean nation of Cuba. Nothing less than its sovereignty is on the line as the US drives its knee into the neck of 10 million Cubans by means of a crushing air and sea blockade and a set of secondary sanctions designed to muscle the nations of the world into compliance to the hegemon.

The issues are not particular to Cuba; we are in the midst of a militant US that is determined to assert domination through force.

It was therefore a pleasure to spend time this week with Luis Ernesto Morejón Rodríguez, Cuba’s Ambassador to New Zealand in Wellington.

EUGENE DOYLE: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos received considerable attention. He said: “Middle powers must act together because if we are not at the table, we are on the menu.” Cuba has been on the US menu for decades. What would be your message to those who support Carney’s call to “come together to create a third way with impact”?

AMBASSADOR RODRIGUEZ: Cuba believes a genuine “third way” can only exist if it defends the economic sovereignty of states against coercion. For more than 60 years, our country has been subjected to a policy explicitly designed to generate material hardship in order to force political change.

The issue therefore is not ideological but systemic: no nation can claim strategic autonomy while tolerating that another punishes third countries for lawful trade. True multilateralism begins when middle-sized nations act collectively to prevent the global economy from becoming an instrument of political pressure.

How does Cuba intend to use the United Nations General Assembly — where it enjoys near-unanimous support — to challenge the legality of “secondary sanctions” that weaponise the global financial system against trade with third parties?

Cuba will continue using the General Assembly to document and expose the extraterritorial nature of these measures. Each year the discussion goes beyond a vote: evidence is presented of banks cancelling humanitarian transfers, shipping companies refusing to transport fuel, and medical suppliers withdrawing contracts due to fear of penalties.

The objective is to consolidate an international legal and political consensus that no domestic legislation should be globally imposed or obstruct legitimate trade among sovereign states. The process is cumulative — it builds legitimacy and normative pressure over time.

In what other ways will Cuba navigate this latest campaign of maximum pressure by the United States? What support will it seek?

Historically Cuba responds through a combination of internal resilience and external cooperation: diversifying energy and trade partners, strengthening South-South relations, and promoting alternative financial arrangements. At the same time, priority is given to protecting essential social sectors.

Cuba does not seek geopolitical confrontation but economic normality — the ability to purchase food, fuel, spare parts or medicines without third parties being penalized. The support we request is straightforward: respect for our right to trade.

Many people do not follow international news closely. Could you describe life in Cuba today and how the population and government are responding to what must be a severe economic crisis and the threat of US pressure?

Daily life is marked by material scarcity linked to severe financial and energy restrictions. Limited access to fuel can lead to extended power outages; families organise cooking around electricity availability and neighbours share refrigeration space to prevent food spoilage. Hospitals maintain essential services using constrained backup power systems.

Despite this, the state preserves universal health and education, and communities rely heavily on solidarity networks. It is less a conventional economic cycle than a society operating under continuous external pressure.

For an audience in Wellington that might interpret this as a “political dispute”, what does “maximum pressure” mean for a Cuban mother trying to feed her children, or for a doctor performing surgery during a 20-hour blackout?

Maximum pressure is experienced through ordinary situations: planning daily meals around electricity schedules, transporting patients when fuel for ambulances is scarce, or sterilising medical instruments under limited power conditions.

These are not political slogans but cumulative consequences of restrictions that prevent the country from freely purchasing fuel, spare parts or financing. Administrative decisions taken abroad translate into domestic difficulties at home.

In the West we often speak about international law but do not always apply it to ourselves. What is your message to those who want to live in a world governed by law rather than force?

Cuba asks for legal consistency: if international trade is rule-based, no country should be penalised for lawful commerce. We also recognise and appreciate New Zealand’s consistent favourable vote in the United Nations General Assembly in support of the resolution entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.”

That position reflects a principled commitment to multilateralism. In this context, we have encouraged New Zealand to continue upholding its traditional opposition to unilateral coercive measures and to the extraterritorial application of national laws. Silence regarding such sanctions weakens the very legal principles that protect all small states alike. The issue extends beyond bilateral relations — it concerns the integrity of international law itself.

What is your life like as a diplomat in New Zealand? How is your contact with government officials and the diplomatic community?

Diplomatic work in New Zealand takes place in a serious institutional environment where dialogue exists even amid disagreement. Our exchanges with officials are respectful and professional; positions may differ, but there is willingness to listen and understand context.

Much of our work here is explanatory rather than confrontational: clarifying that the Cuban situation is not merely a bilateral dispute but part of a broader debate about how the international order functions. The diplomatic community in Wellington is active and collegial, allowing frank discussions on global issues such as climate change, development and multilateralism.

The US objective is explicitly described as regime change through economic collapse. If Cuba yielded to these demands, what would the Global South lose?

A crucial precedent would be lost: that a nation can choose its political system without external tutelage. If prolonged economic strangulation succeeded in imposing internal change, it would legitimise a model of intervention applicable to any developing country.

It would no longer be necessary to negotiate with societies — sustained financial pressure would suffice. The Global South would see its effective autonomy reduced.

What is your vision for Cuba? Where would you like it to be in 10 or 20 years?

The aspiration is a fully normalised Cuba within the global economy — able to access financing, trade, and technology without restrictions — while preserving universal social policies in health, education, and equity. Change will continue, but it should occur by national decision, not external pressure.

In 20 years we hope Cuba will be known less for conflict with a major power and more for contributions in medical cooperation, biotechnology innovation, cultural exchange, and regional development. The ultimate goal is not perpetual resistance, but the freedom to choose its own path.

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and independent writer based in Wellington, publisher of Solidarity and contributor to Asia Pacific Report. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam war. This article was first published by Solidarity on 26 February 2024.

New Zealand backing Israel over two-state solution shows galling weak leadership

APR editor — Sat, 15 Nov 2025 07:48:49 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Gerard Otto

While Israeli forces shot and killed two Palestinian children in the town of Beit Ummar, north of Hebron in the occupied West Bank, the news broke in Aotearoa New Zealand that our government had been advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) in September to recognise a Palestinian State now — before it was too late forever.

“The tide of international thinking on Palestinian statehood has shifted markedly . . . Israel’s actions are rapidly extinguishing any prospect of realising a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict,” the draft paper read.

“This leaves recognition of Palestine as the only viable option to maintain New Zealand’s long-standard support for a two-state solution.”

This is what Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour were told by MFAT, but these politicians had predetermined they were going to suck up hard to US President Donald Trump and Israel.

Seymour had to be served and so did Peters, as Luxon did their bidding again.

The way to do it with as little local public backlash and media attention was to say it was “complicated” to the press and the public, to be very secretive and let NZ First staff write a cabinet paper of their own — with a couple of options in it, and then bury the Cabinet outcomes until Peters announced it at the UN General Assembly.

The horror of a nation’s collective groan as Winston Peters read that speech still echoes over this naked complicity with genocide and colonisation, making most people feel wild and revolted, laced with the way they were being ignored and trampled on back here at home.

Disgusting business
The horror of Aotearoa aligning itself with this disgusting business sickens many but it was only The Post which published the news last night because as per usual this sort of thing is never really news in our newsrooms.

How many New Zealanders know how many Palestinians Israel have killed since the ceasefire thanks to our media?

What’s that about?

At least 69,000 killed, including 20,000 children.

Speakers Rana Hamida and Mike Treen at today’s Palestine rally against genocide in Auckland’s Te Komititanga Square. Image: Asia Pacific Report

RNZ was silent about this but instead published how four bills had passed this week while we were focused on a side show — no not the police scandal, but Te Pāti Māori apparently.

Whatever!

Buried in the fine print was the way Education Minister Erica Stanford had ripped Te Tiriti obligations off school boards and Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill had slipped past its third reading, because there was not much of a headline in that.

The way New Zealand backed Israel over the two-state solution for Palestine has weak leadership stamped all over it — and that is galling but it’s gaslighting the nation to then boast of a win over a photo op with Trump.

New Zealand companies complicit with Israel’s genocide in Gaza were highlighted in today’s pro-Palestinian rally in Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report

Gerard Otto is a digital creator, satirist and independent commentator on politics and the media through his G News column and video reports. This article is an excerpt from a G News commentary and republished with permission.

John Hobbs: Why New Zealand’s repugnant stance over Palestine damages our global standing

APR editor — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 10:25:49 +0000

New Zealanders deserve to know how the country’s foreign policy is made, writes John Hobbs.

ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

The New Zealand government remains unwilling to support Palestinian statehood recognition at the United Nations General Assembly.

This is a disgraceful position which gives support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and seriously undermines our standing. Of the 193 states of the UN, 157 have now provided statehood recognition. New Zealand is not one of them.

The purpose of this opinion piece is to highlight the troubling lack of transparency in how the government deliberates on its foreign policy choices.

READ MORE: As delegates walk out in protest, Netanyahu tells UN Israel must ‘finish job’ in Gaza

Government decisions and calculations on foreign policy are being made behind closed doors with limited public scrutiny, unlike other areas of policy, where at least a modicum of transparency occurs.

The government has, over the past two years, exceeded itself in obscuring the process it goes through, without explaining its approach to the question of Palestine.

New Zealand still inconceivably lauds the impossible goal of a two-state solution, the hallmark of successive governments’ foreign policy positions on the question of Palestine, but does everything to not bring about its realisation.

To try to understand the basis for New Zealand’s approach to Gaza and the risks generated by the government’s lack of direct action against Israel, I placed an Official Information Request (OIA) with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Winston Peters. I requested copies of advice that had been received on New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Plausible case against Israel
My initial OIA request was placed in January 2024, after the International Court of Justice had determined there was a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza. At that point, about 27,000 people in Gaza had been killed, mainly women and children. My request was denied.

I put the same OIA request to the minister in June 2025. By this time, nearly 63,000 people had been killed by Israel. At the time of my second request there was abundant evidence reported by UN agencies of Israel’s tactics. Again, my request for information was denied.

I appealed the refusal by the minister of foreign affairs to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman reviewed the case and accepted that the minister of foreign affairs was within his right to refuse to provide the material.

The basis for the decision was that the advice given to the minister was subject to legal professional privilege, and that the right to protect legally privileged advice was not outweighed by the public interest in gaining access to that advice.

The refusal by the minister and the Ombudsman to make the advice available is deeply worrying. Although I am not questioning the importance of protecting legal professional privilege, I cannot imagine an example that could be more pressing in terms of “public interest” than the complicity of nation states in genocide.

Indeed, the threshold of legal professional privilege was never meant to be absolute. Parliament, in designing the OIA regime, had this in mind when it deemed that legal professional privilege could, under exceptional circumstances, be outweighed by the public interest.

The Office of the Ombudsman has ruled in the past that legal professional privilege is not an absolute; it accepted that legal advice received by the Ministry of Health on embryo research had to be released, for example, as it was in the public interest to do so, even though it was legally privileged.

Puzzling statement
The Ombudsman concludes his response to my request with the puzzling statement that the “general public interest in accountability and transparency in government decision-making on this issue is best reflected in the decisions made after considering the legal advice, rather than what is contained in the legal advice.”

The point I was trying to clarify is whether the government is acting in a manner that reflects the advice it has received. If it has received advice that New Zealand must take particular steps to fulfil its obligations under the Genocide Convention, and the government has chosen to ignore that advice, then surely New Zealanders have a right to know.

The content of the advice is extremely relevant: it would identify any contradictions between the advice the government received and its actions. Through public access to such information, governments can be held to account for the decisions they make.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, concluded on September 16 that Israeli authorities and security forces committed four out of the five underlying acts of genocide. Illegal settlers have been let loose in the West Bank under the protection of the Israeli army to harass and kill local Palestinians and occupy further areas of Palestinian land.

At the UN General Assembly, the New Zealand government took a stance that is squarely in support of the Israeli genocide, also supported by the United States. International law clearly forbids the act of genocide, in Gaza as much as anywhere else, including the attacks on Palestinian civilians living under occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In 2015-16, New Zealand co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the illegality of Israel’s actions in the Occupied West Bank, with the intention of supporting a Palestinian state. New Zealand’s recent posture at the General Assembly undermines this principled precedent.

That New Zealand could not bring itself to offer the olive branch of statehood recognition is morally repugnant and severely damages our standing in the international community. The New Zealand public has the right to demand transparency in its government’s decision-making.

The advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister cannot be hidden behind the veil of legal professional privilege.

John Hobbs is a doctoral student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

New Zealand challenged to vote for Israel’s suspension at UN

APR editor — Tue, 26 Aug 2025 17:21:59 +0000

Asia Pacific Report

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has challenged the New Zealand government to support a move by Türkiye to vote to suspend Israeli membership of the United Nations.

Türkiye Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has told the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Riyadh that Israel should be suspended from the crucial meeting of the UN General Assembly next month, for its “genocidal aggression”.

PSNA co-chair John Minto said in a statement that New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters would have to take a stand on this issue.

“Cabinet should give him clear instructions to vote against Israeli war crimes and support Palestinian rights,” he said.

“Suspension of Israel will have a lot of backing from many countries horrified with the starvation and carnage in Gaza, and they want to do something effective, instead of just recognising Palestine as a state.

“Even if the US vetoes such a move in the Security Council, there is a precedent going back to 1974 when South Africa was suspended from the General Assembly because it practised apartheid.

“The General Assembly suspended a member then, and New Zealand should back such a move now.”

Original condition
Minto said Israel’s original condition in 1948 for joining the UN was that it allowed the 750,000 Palestinians it had expelled from Palestine to create Israel to return home.

“Israel won’t even talk about its obligations to let Palestinians return, and certainly never had any intention of allowing them to go home. Israel should pay a price for that, along with punishment for its genocide,” he said.

Minto said the escalation of the Israeli assault on Gaza called for immediate international action without waiting wait until the General Assembly debate next month.

“The Israeli ambassador in Wellington should be told to leave right now, because his government is openly committing war crimes.”

“We’ve just seen a famine declared in Gaza City. Aid is totally insufficient and deliberately so,” Minto said.

“Israel has called up its military reservists for the major assault it’s conducting on Gaza City to drive nearly a million of its inhabitants out.

“Israel’s latest dumping ground of choice is South Sudan, even though its government says it doesn’t want to have expelled Palestinians turn up there.”

“And we’ve had the news that Israel has once again killed journalists, who work for international news agencies, such as Reuters, Al Jazeera and NBC.”

“Netanyahu says it was a mistake. Who believes that?”

NZ is trailing its allies over Palestinian statehood – but there’s still time to show leadership

APR editor — Wed, 20 Aug 2025 19:01:53 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Treasa Dunworth, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

It’s now more than a week since Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced his government had begun to formally consider New Zealand’s position on the recognition of a Palestinian state.

That leaves two weeks until the UN General Assembly convenes on September 9, where it is expected several key allies will change position and recognise Palestinian statehood.

Already in a minority of UN member states which don’t recognise a Palestinian state, New Zealand risks becoming more of an outlier if and when Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom make good on their recent pledges.

READ MORE: ‘Moral imperative’: Hundreds of UK business leaders demand action on Israel

Luxon has said the decision is “complex”, but opposition parties certainly don’t see it that way. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says it’s “the right thing to do”, and Greens co-leader Chloë Swarbrick has called on government MPs to “grow a spine” (for which she was controversially ejected from the debating chamber).

Former Labour prime minister Helen Clark has also criticised the government for trailing behind its allies, and for appearing to put trade relations with the United States ahead of taking a moral stand over Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Certainly, those critics — including the many around the country who marched last weekend — are correct in implying New Zealand has missed several opportunities to show independent leadership on the issue.

The distraction factor
While it has been open to New Zealand to recognise it as a state since Palestine declared its independence in 1988, there was an opportunity available in May last year when the Irish, Spanish and Norwegian governments took the step.

That month, New Zealand also joined 142 other states calling on the Security Council to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN. But in a subsequent statement, New Zealand said its vote should not be implied as recognising Palestinian statehood, a position I called “a kind of muddled, awkward fence-sitting”.

It is still not too late, however, for New Zealand to take a lead. In particular, the government could make a more straightforward statement on Palestinian statehood than its close allies.

The statements from Australia, Canada and the UK are filled with caveats, conditions and contingencies. None are straightforward expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law.

As such, they present political and legal problems New Zealand could avoid.

Politically, this late wave of recognition by other countries risks becoming a distraction from the immediate starvation crisis in Gaza. As the independent Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese have noted, these considered and careful diplomatic responses distract from the brutal truth on the ground.

This was also Chloë Swarbrick’s point during the snap debate in Parliament last week. Her private members bill, she noted, offers a more concrete alternative, by imposing sanctions and a trade embargo on Israel. (At present, it seems unlikely the government would support this.)

Beyond traditional allies
Legally, the proposed recognitions of statehood are far from ideal because they place conditions on that recognition, including how a Palestinian state should be governed.

The UK has made recognition conditional on Israel not agreeing to a ceasefire and continuing to block humanitarian aid into Gaza. That is extremely problematic, given recognition could presumably be withdrawn if Israel agreed to those demands.

Such statements are not exercises in genuine solidarity with Palestinian self-determination, which is defined in UN Resolution 1514 (1960) as the right of peoples “to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

Having taken more time to consider its position, New Zealand could now articulate a more genuine statement of recognition that fulfils the legal obligation to respect and promote self-determination under international law.

A starting point would be to look beyond the small group of “traditional allies” to countries such as Ireland that have already formally recognised the State of Palestine. Importantly, Ireland acknowledged Palestinian “peaceful self-determination” (along with Israel’s), but did not express any other conditions or caveats.

New Zealand could also show leadership by joining with that wider group of allies to shape the coming General Assembly debate. The aim would be to shift the language from conditional recognition of Palestine toward a politically and legally more tenable position.

That would also sit comfortably with the country’s track record in other areas of international diplomacy — most notably the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, where New Zealand has also taken a different approach to its traditional allies.

Dr Treasa Dunworth is professor of law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

John Hobbs: New Zealand’s shameful stance on Israel

APR editor — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 23:14:10 +0000

ANALYSIS: By John Hobbs

Aotearoa New Zealand once earned praise for its “principled” and “independent” foreign policy. Think nuclear-free Pacific, for example.

Yet that reputation doesn’t hold true when it comes to Gaza and the Palestinian desire and right to self-determination.

Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, states must take positive steps to prevent genocide. The New Zealand government appears to be failing in this obligation.

Researcher John Hobbs . . . “So far, our ministers have chosen carefully crafted diplomatic language buried under joint country statements to influence the situation in Gaza.” Image: John Hobbs

So far, our ministers have chosen carefully crafted diplomatic language buried under joint country statements to influence the situation in Gaza, while at the same time protecting relationships with allies, particularly the US.

An example of these was a statement issued last month, in which New Zealand joined a group of 28 “concerned” countries to express horror at the “suffering of civilians in Gaza”, which, it says, “has reached new depths”. The statement calls for the lifting of restrictions on the “flow of aid” and demands “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire.”

Just to be clear, the “flow of aid” is the life-saving food and water that’s needed to prevent the mass starvation of Palestinians as famine driven by Israel deepens.

Demands for a ceasefire have been made on numerous occasions in the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council, to no effect.

Failure to sanction Israel
Yet countries like New Zealand fail to sanction Israel for its non-compliance. Indeed, they do worse. These same countries continue to trade with Israel, and a number of them continue to provide weapons and arms.

According to trade data, New Zealand in 2023 imported goods and services of US$191 million from Israel and exported US$16.4 million the other way.

Most recently, New Zealand joined 14 other countries to “express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine, as an essential step towards the two-State solution.”

The statement is heavily caveated by saying that “positive consideration” is one option — so it’s not clear if all, or indeed any, of the countries will end up recognising Palestinian statehood.

By contrast, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has issued a separate statement, saying the UK would recognise the state of Palestine in September if Israel doesn’t agree to a ceasefire.

Starmer’s concern for the starvation of civilians in Gaza hasn’t stopped the UK from sending military arms to Israel. But this is at least a clearer stance than New Zealand has been able to muster.

More than 147 UN member states out of 193 formally recognise Palestinian statehood now.

Level of solidarity
And while recognition of statehood is largely symbolic, it does signal a level of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Inexplicably, New Zealand has been unwilling to take that step, while calling it a future option under “two-state” diplomacy.

New Zealand has trundled out its support of the two-state solution since at least 1993, reinforced by its co-sponsorship, in 2015-16, of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement expansion.

That resolution declared settlements in occupied territories illegal under international law and urged member states to distinguish in its dealings between Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.

Since then, Israel has continued to transfer its citizens to the West Bank and Gaza. More than 750,000 Israeli settlers are now living illegally in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — areas where a future Palestinian state would be located.

Meanwhile, New Zealand has failed to take any meaningful action — sanctions or suspension of trade, for example — to implement the requirements of the Security Council resolution. That the government consistently frames its response as supporting a two-state solution beggars belief in light of such inaction.

New Zealand’s refusal to sanction Israel is nothing but shameful.

When foreign affairs minister Winston Peters expressed shock about the “intolerable situation” in Gaza, RNZ asked him whether New Zealand would entertain placing sanctions on Israel. He responded by saying that we are a “long, long way off doing that.”

The genocide in Gaza is happening with the support of countries like New Zealand, through inaction and failure to implement sanctions.

And statements about recognising statehood provide the appearance of supporting an end to the genocide, but change nothing in reality.

John Hobbs has been a career public servant, working in a number of government departments (most recently the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet). He also worked for a number of ministers on secondment from government agencies. He is currently undertaking a PhD at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Te Tumu School of Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Studies, Otago University. This article was first published by E-Tangata and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

NZ ‘lagging behind’ world by failing to recognise Palestinian statehood, says former PM Helen Clark

APR editor — Thu, 31 Jul 2025 19:18:59 +0000

By Craig McCulloch, RNZ News acting political editor

New Zealand is lagging behind the rest of the world through its failure to recognise Palestinian statehood, says Former Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Canada yesterday became the latest country to announce it would formally recognise the state of Palestine when world leaders met at the UN General Assembly in September.

It follows recent similar commitments from the France and the United Kingdom.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon suggested the discussion was a distraction and said the immediate focus should be on getting humanitarian aid into Gaza.

But, speaking to RNZ Midday Report, Clark said New Zealand needed to come on board.

“We are watching a catastrophe unfold in Gaza. We’re watching starvation. We’re watching famine conditions for many. Many are using the word genocide,” she said.

“If New Zealand can’t act in these circumstances, when can it act?”

Elders call for recognition
“The Elders, a group of world leaders of which Clark is a part, last month issued a call for countries to recognise the state of Palestine, calling it the “beginning, not the end of a political pathway towards lasting peace”.

Clark said the government seemed to be trying avoid the ire of the United States by waiting until the peace process was well underway or nearing its end.

“That is no longer tenable,” she said.

“New Zealand really is lagging behind.”

Even before the recent commitments from France, Canada and the UK, 147 of the UN’s 193 member states had recognised the Palestinian state.

Clark said the hope was that the series of recognitions from major Western states would first shift the US position and then Israel’s.

“When the US moves, Israel eventually jumps because it owes so much to the United States for the support, financial, military and otherwise,” she said.

“At some point, Israel has to smell the coffee.”

Surprised over Peters
Clark said she was “a little surprised” that Foreign Minister Winston Peters had not been more forward-leaning given he historically had strongly advocated New Zealand’s even-handed position.

On Wednesday, New Zealand signed a joint statement with 14 other countries expressing a willingness to recognise the State of Palestine as a necessary step towards a two-state solution.

However, later speaking in Parliament, Peters said that was conditional on first seeing progress from Palestine, including representative governance, commitment to non-violence, and security guarantees for Israel.

“If we are to recognise the state of Palestine, New Zealand wants to know that what we are recognising is a legitimate, representative, viable, political entity,” Peters told MPs.

Peters also agreed with a contribution from ACT’s Simon Court that recognising the state of Palestine could be viewed as “a reward [to Hamas] for acts of terrorism” if it was done before Hamas had returned hostages or laid down arms.

Luxon earlier told RNZ New Zealand had long supported the eventual recognition of Palestinian statehood, but that the immediate focus should be on getting aid into Gaza rather than “fragmenting and talking about all sorts of other things that are distractions”.

“We need to put the pressure on Israel to get humanitarian assistance unfettered, at scale, at volume, into Gaza,” he told RNZ.

“You can talk about a whole bunch of other things, but for right now, the world needs to focus.”

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

Fiji ‘failing’ the Gaza genocide and humanity test, says rights group

APR editor — Tue, 29 Jul 2025 09:25:45 +0000

Asia Pacific Report

The NGO Coalition on Human Rights in Fiji has sharply criticised the Fiji government’s stance over Israel’s genocide in Gaza, saying it “starkly contrasts” with the United Nations and international community’s condemnation as a violation of international law and an impediment to peace.

In a statement today, the NGO Coalition said that the way the government was responding to the genocide and war crimes in Gaza would set a precedent for how it would deal with crises and conflict in future.

It would be a marker for human rights responses both at home and the rest of the world.

“We are now seeing whether our country will be a force that works to uphold human rights and international law, or one that tramples on them whenever convenient,” the statement said.

“Fiji’s position on the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestinians starkly contrasts with the values of justice, freedom, and international law that the Fijian people hold dear.

“The genocide and colonial occupation have been widely recognised by the international community, including the United Nations, as a violation of international law and an impediment to peace and the self-determination of the Palestinian people.”

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would formally recognise the state of Palestine — the first of G7 countries to do so — at the UN general Assembly in September.

142 countries recognise Palestine
At least 142 countries out of the 193 members of the UN currently recognise or plan to recognise a Palestinian state, including European Union members Norway, Ireland, Spain and Slovenia.

However, several powerful Western countries have refused to do so, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.

At the UN this week, Saudi Arabia and France opened a three-day conference with the goal of recognising Palestinian statehood as part of a peaceful settlement to end the war in Gaza.

Last year, Fiji’s coalition government submitted a written statement in support of the Israeli genocidal occupation of Palestine, including East Jerusalem, noted the NGO coalition.

Last month, Fiji’s coalition government again voted against a UN General Assembly resolution that demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

Also recently, the Fiji government approved the allocation of $1.12 million to establish an embassy “in the genocidal terror state of Israel as Fijians grapple with urgent issues, including poverty, violence against women and girls, deteriorating water and health infrastructure, drug use, high rates of HIV, poor educational outcomes, climate change, and unfair wages for workers”.

Met with ‘indifference’
The NGO coalition said that it had made repeated requests to the Fiji government to “do the bare minimum and enforce the basic tenets of international law on Israel”.

“We have been calling upon the Fiji government to uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human rights that our nation cherishes,” the statement said.

“We campaigned, we lobbied, we engaged, and we explained. We showed the evidence, pointed to the law, and asked our leaders to do the right thing.

“We’ve been met with nothing but indifference.”

Instead, said the NGO statement, Fiji leaders had met with Israeli government representatives and declared support for a country “committing the most heinous crimes” recognised in international law.

“Fijian leaders and the Fiji government should not be supporting Israel or setting up an embassy in Israel while Israel continues to bomb refugee tents, kill journalists and medics, and block the delivery of humanitarian aid to a population under relentless siege.

“No politician in Fiji can claim ignorance of what is happening.”

62,000 Palestinians killed
More than 62,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war on Gaza, most of them women and children.

“Many more have been maimed, traumatised, and displaced. Starvation is being used by Israel as weapon to kill babies and children.

“Hospitals, churches, mosques,, refugee camps, schools, universities, residential neighbourhoods, water and food facilities have been destroyed.

“History will judge how we respond as Fijians to this moment.

“Our rich cultural heritage and shared values teach us the importance of always standing up for what is right, even when it is not popular or convenient.”

Members of the Fiji NGO Coalition on Human Rights are Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (chair), Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, Citizens’ Constitutional Forum, femLINKpacific, Social Empowerment and Education Programme, and Diverse Voices and Action (DIVA) for Equality Fiji.

Also, Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) is an observer.

The NGO coalition said it stood in solidarity with the Palestinian people out of a shared belief in humanity, justice, and the inalienable human rights of every individual.

“Silence is not an option,” it added.

Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network said it supported this NGO coalition statement.

UN expert advocates peacekeeper path to break Israel’s siege on Gaza

APR editor — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 11:40:22 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Bruce King

Almost two months ago, a UN special rapporteur, Dr Michael Fakhri, penned an opinion article in The Guardian newspaper warning that “if aid doesn’t enter Gaza now, 14,000 babies may die.”

“UN peacekeepers must step in,” he added.

Dr Fakhri is the UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food and an associate professor of international law at the University of Oregon.

His article came 15 days after a long list of UN experts — including Dr Fakhri and beginning with the outspoken Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese — published an extraordinary joint statement declaring: “End unfolding genocide or watch it end life in Gaza: UN experts say States face defining choice.”

The joint statement said humanity was descending into “a moral abyss”, and Dr Fakhri decried the response so far of nations as “slow and ghastly”.

On the other hand, he praised the individuals who “mobilise and enforce international law through their own hands”, particularly the Gaza Freedom Flotillas and the land marchers attempting to reach the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza.

Dr Fakhri appears to consider the deployment by the UN General Assembly of UN Peacekeepers as the only feasible option that is practical and also fast enough and vigorous enough to properly address the gravity of the situation in Gaza.

Many others have expressed similar sentiments. For instance, just days after The Guardian article, Ireland’s Labour Party asked the Irish government “to use every lever at its disposal to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza through a UN-mandated peacekeeping force”.

Dr Fakhri makes his case for UN peacekeepers action. Video: Badil Resource Centre

As another example, DAWN, a group promoting democracy and human rights in the Middle East and North Africa has long advocated for UN Peacekeepers for Gaza and has just started a petition.

Dr Michael Fakhri . . . deployment by the UN General Assembly of peacekeepers is the only feasible option that is practical and fast enough for saving Gaza. Image: UN

DAWN’s petition may have been timed to influence the “emergency summit”
on the crisis being held today and tomorrow in Bogota, Colombia. It is co-hosted by Colombia and South Africa and will be attended by representatives from more than 30 nations and prominent actors such as Albanese.

A crucial point is that Dr Fakhri and others have explained how the UN General Assembly can rapidly deploy a UN Peacekeeping Force for this purpose. This is important because of the widespread, but erroneous, belief that only the UN Security Council — the UN’s other main legislative organ — can authorise UN peacekeeping missions.

Arab League calls for UN peacekeepers . . . but the subheading in this report wrongly says it is up to UNSC to make the call. Image: NYT screenshot

An example of this falsehood being spread by the corporate news media is shown by this New York Times claim.

Whereas all UN member states are equally represented in the General Assembly, the Security Council is dominated by its five permanent members — the United States, China, Russia, Britain, and France — with each having the power to veto all proposals.

But the US is actively supporting Israel’s activities in occupied Palestine, and it would surely block any such peacekeeping initiative if submitted to the Security Council. This leaves it up to the UN General Assembly to organise any UN Peacekeeping Force for Gaza.

As indicated by Dr Fakri, the founding UN Charter of 1945 provides for the General Assembly to step in to restore peace where the Security Council has failed in its primary responsibility to act.

Relevant sections of the UN Charter.

As shown above, primary responsibility was given to the Security Council under the UN Charter for practical reasons only, “to ensure prompt and effective action”.

Formal protocols for the General Assembly to take over from the Security Council were added in 1950, in what is widely referred to as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution. It explicitly provides the option of setting up an armed force, as shown below.

The Uniting for Peace resolution, 1950.

As also shown, Uniting for Peace resolutions are addressed in Emergency Special Sessions of the UN General Assembly. These can be called within 24 hours and from a request by any member state. To be passed, a resolution requires a two-thirds majority of the states that voted either for, or against, the resolution.

Historically, the very first UN Peacekeeping force was set up in this way in response to the Suez Crisis of 1956-7 — see below. Those UN Peacekeepers oversaw the prompt retreat from Egypt of Israel and of the Security Council permanent members, Britain and France. Eventually, in 1957 they were present for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza itself, then a protectorate of Egypt.

UN General Assembly resolutions setting up the first UN Peacekeeping Force in 1956.

Returning to the current circumstances, Dr Fakhri says that if a UN peacekeeping force is formed then Israel’s permission is not required for its deployment in Gaza.

The actual main impediment to the success of the plan may come from covert bullying of UN member nations by the US and Israel. As explained by prominent law professor Francis Boyle: “The US government will bribe, threaten, intimidate and blackmail all members of the UN General Assembly not to [act against] Israel.”

Dr King is a physicist researching topics in renewable energy, with an interest in humanitarian issues.

Why most Pacific governments stand with Israel in spite of UN votes

APR editor — Thu, 26 Jun 2025 06:24:35 +0000

By Kaya Selby, RNZ Pacific journalist

Amid uncertainty in the Middle East, one thing remains clear — most Pacific governments continue to align themselves with Israel.

Dr Steven Ratuva, distinguished professor of Pacific Studies at Canterbury University, told RNZ that island leaders are likely to try and keep their distance, but only officially speaking.

“They’d probably feel safer that way, rather than publicly taking sides. But I think quite a few of them would probably be siding with Israel.”

With Iran and Israel waging a 12-day war earlier this month, Dr Ratuva said that was translating into deeper divisions along religious and political lines in Pacific nations.

“People may not want to admit it, but it’s manifesting itself in different ways.”

Pacific support for Israel runs deep

The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on 13 June calling for “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the war in Gaza”, passing with 142 votes, or a 73 percent majority.

Among the 12 nations that voted against the resolution, alongside Israel and the United States, were Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu.

The flags of Iran – a strong supporter of Palestine, along with a 73 percent support for a ceasefire at the United Nations – and Israel, backed by the United States. Image: 123rf/RNZ Pacific

Pacific support for Israel runs deep
The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on June 13 calling for “an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the war in Gaza”, passing with 142 votes, or a 73 percent majority.

Among the 12 nations that voted against the resolution, alongside Israel and the United States, were Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu.

Among the regional community, only Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands voted for the resolution, while others abstained or were absent.

Last week, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, in an interview with The Australian, defended Israel’s actions in Iran as an “act of survival”.

“They cannot survive if there is a big threat capability within range of Israel. Whatever [Israel] are doing now can be seen as preemptive, knocking it out before it’s fired on you.”

In February, Fiji also committed to an embassy in Jerusalem — a recognition of Israel’s claimed right to call the city their capital — mirroring Papua New Guinea in 2023.

Dr Ratuva said that deep, longstanding, religious and political ties with the West are what formed the region’s ties with Israel.

“Most of the Pacific Island states have been aligned with the US since the Cold War and beyond, so the Western sphere of influence is seen as, for many of them, the place to be.”

He noted the rise in Christian evangelism, which is aligned with Zionism and the global push for a Jewish homeland, in pockets throughout the Pacific, particularly in Fiji.

“Small religious organisations which have links with or model selves along the lines of the United States evangelical movement, which has been supportive of Trump, tend to militate towards supporting Israel for religious reasons,” Dr Ratuva said.

“And of course, religion and politics, when you mix them together, become very powerful in terms of one’s positioning [in the world].”

An anti-war protest at Parliament over Israel-Iran conflict. Image: RNZ/Mark Papalii

Politics or religion?
In Fijian society, Dr Ratuva said that the war in Gaza has stoked tensions between the Christian majority and the Muslim minority.

According to the CIA World Factbook, roughly 64.5 percent of Fijians are Christian, compared to a Muslim population of 6.3 percent.

“It’s coming out very clearly, in terms of the way in which those belonging to the fundamentalist political orientation tend to make statements which are against non-Christians” Dr Ratuva said.

“People begin to take sides . . . that in some ways deepens the religious divide, particularly in Fiji which is multiethnic and multireligious, and where the Islamic community is relatively significant.”

A statement from the Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat, released on Wednesday, said that the Pacific wished to be an “ocean of peace”.

“Leaders also reaffirmed their commitment to the “Friends to All, Enemy to None” foreign policy to guide the MSG members’ relationship with countries and development partners.”

It bookends a summit that brought together leaders from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and other Melanesian nations, where the Middle East was discussed, according to local media.

But the Pacific region had been used in a deceptive strategy as the US prepared for the strikes on Iran. On this issue, Melanesian leaders did not respond to requests for comment.

The BBC reported on Monday that B-2 planes flew to Guam from Missouri as a decoy to distract from top-secret flights headed over the Atlantic to Iran.

This sparked outrage from civil society leaders throughout the region, including the head of the Pacific Conference of Churches, Reverend James Bhagwan.

“This use of Pacific airspace and territory for military strikes violates the spirit of the Treaty of Rarotonga, our region’s declaration for being a nuclear, free peace committed zone,” he said.

“Our region has a memory of nuclear testing, occupation and trauma . . . we don’t forget that when we talk about these issues.”

Reverend Bhagwan told RNZ that there was no popular support in the Pacific for Israel’s most recent actions.

“This is because we have international law . . . this includes, of course, the US strikes on Iran and perhaps, also, Israel’s actions in Gaza.”

“It is not about religion, it is about people.”

Reverend Bhagwan, whose organisation represents 27 member churches across 17 Pacific nations, refused to say whether he believed there was a link between Christian fundamentalism and Pacific support for Israel.

“We can say that there is a religious contingency within the Pacific that does support Israel . . . it does not necessarily mean it’s the majority view, but it is one that is seriously considered by those in power.

“It depends on how those [politicians] consider that support they get from those particular aspects of the community.”

Pacific Islanders in the region
For some, the religious commitment runs so deep that they venture to Israel in a kind of pilgrimage.

Dr Ratuva told RNZ that there was a significant population of islanders in the region, many of whom may now be trapped before a ceasefire is finalised.

“There was a time when the Gaza situation began to unfold, when a number of people from Fiji, Tonga and Samoa were there for pilgrimage purposes.”

“At that time there were significant numbers, and Fiji was able to fly over there to evauate them. So this time, I’m not sure whether that might happen.”

Reverend Bhagwan said that the religious ties ran deep.

“They go to Jerusalem, to Bethlehem, to the Mount of Olives, to the Golan Heights, where the transfiguration took place. Fiji also is stationed in the Golan Heights as peacekeepers,” he said.

“So there is a correlation, particularly for Pacific or for Fijian communities, on that relationship as peacekeepers in that region.”

New Zealand and Gaza: Confronting and not confronting the unspeakable

APR editor — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:37:23 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Robert Patman

New Zealand’s National-led coalition government’s policy on Gaza seems caught between a desire for a two-state diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and closer alignment with the US, which supports a Netanyahu government strongly opposed to a Palestinian state

In the last 17 months, Gaza has been the scene of what Thomas Merton once called the unspeakable — human wrongdoing on a scale and a depth that seems to go beyond the capacity of words to adequately describe.

The latest Gaza conflict began with a horrific Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 that prompted a relentless Israel ground and air offensive in Gaza with full financial, logistical and diplomatic backing from the Biden administration.

During this period, around 50,000 people – 48,903 Palestinians and 1706 Israelis – have been reported killed in the Gaza conflict, according to the official figures of the Gaza Health Ministry, as well as 166 journalists and media workers, 120 academics,and more than 224 humanitarian aid workers.

Moreover, a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signed in mid-January, seems to be hanging by a thread.

Israel has resumed its blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza and cut off electricity after Hamas rejected an Israeli proposal to extend phase 1 of the ceasefire deal (to release more Israeli hostages) without any commitment to implement phase 2 (that envisaged ending the conflict in Gaza and Israel withdrawing its troops from the territory).

Hamas insists on negotiating phase 2 as signed by both parties in the January ceasefire agreement

Over the weekend, Israel reportedly launched air-strikes in Gaza and the Trump administration unleashed a wave of attacks on Houthi rebel positions in Yemen after the Houthis warned Israel not to restart the war in Gaza.

New Zealand and the Gaza conflict
Although distant in geographic terms, the Gaza crisis represents a major moral and legal challenge to New Zealand’s self-image and its worldview based on the strengthening of an international rules-based order.

New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation between indigenous Māori and European settlers in nation-building.

While the aspirations of the Treaty have yet to be fully realised, the credibility of its vision of reconciliation at home depends on New Zealand’s willingness to uphold respect for human rights and the rule of law in the international arena, particularly in states like Israel where tensions persist between the settler population and Palestinians in occupied territories like the West Bank.

New Zealand’s declaratory stance towards Gaza
In 2023 and 2024, New Zealand consistently backed calls in the UN General Assembly for humanitarian truces or ceasefires in Gaza. It also joined Australia and Canada in February and July last year to demand an end to hostilities.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, told the General Assembly in April 2024 that the Security Council had failed in its responsibility “to maintain international peace and security”.

He was right. The Biden administration used its UN Security Council veto four times to perpetuate this brutal onslaught in Gaza for nearly 15 months.

In addition, Peters has repeatedly said there can be no military resolution of a political problem in Gaza that can only be resolved through affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The limitations of New Zealand’s Gaza approach
Despite considerable disagreement with Netanyahu’s policy of “mighty vengeance” in Gaza, the National-led coalition government had few qualms about sending a small Defence Force deployment to the Red Sea in January 2024 as part of a US-led coalition effort to counter Houthi rebel attacks on commercial shipping there.

While such attacks are clearly illegal, they are basically part of the fallout from a prolonged international failure to stop the US-enabled carnage in Gaza.

In particular, the NZDF’s Red Sea deployment did not sit comfortably with New Zealand’s acceptance in September 2024 of the ICJ’s ruling that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) was “unlawful”.

At the same time, the National-led coalition government’s silence on US President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to “own” Gaza, displace two million Palestinian residents and make the territory the “Riviera” of the Middle East was deafening.

Furthermore, while Wellington announced travel bans on violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank in February 2024, it has had little to say publicly about the Netanyahu government’s plans to annex the West Bank in 2025. Such a development would gravely undermine the two-state solution, violate international law, and further fuel regional tensions.

New Zealand’s low-key policy
On balance, the National-led coalition government’s policy towards Gaza appears to be ambivalent and lacking moral and legal clarity in a context in which war crimes have been regularly committed since October 7.

Peters was absolutely correct to condemn the UNSC for failing to deliver the ceasefire that New Zealand and the overwhelming majority of states in the UN General Assembly had wanted from the first month of this crisis.

But the New Zealand government has had no words of criticism for the US, which used its power of veto in the UNSC for more than a year to thwart the prospect of a ceasefire and provided blanket support for an Israeli military campaign that killed huge numbers of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

By cooperating with the Biden administration against Houthi rebels and adopting a quietly-quietly approach to Trump’s provocative comments on Gaza and his apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to help Israel “to get the job done’, New Zealand has revealed a selective approach to upholding international law and human rights in the desperate conditions facing Gaza

Professor Robert G. Patman is an Inaugural Sesquicentennial Distinguished Chair and his research interests concern international relations, global security, US foreign policy, great powers, and the Horn of Africa. This article was first published by The Spinoff and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Fiji and Israel strengthen bilateral relations, plan embassy opening

Pacific Media Watch — Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:57:47 +0000

Pacific Media Watch

Fiji has reaffirmed its commitment to establishing an embassy in Israel, with plans to open the embassy in Jerusalem, despite global condemnation of Tel Aviv over the war in Gaza.

This announcement came as the Coalition Cabinet prepared to discuss the matter in Suva next week, reports Fiji One News.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka made these remarks during a bilateral meeting with Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Sa’ar Gideon Moshe on the sidelines of the 61st session of the Munich Security Conference, which opened yesterday in Germany.

The discussions between the two leaders focused on deepening the partnership in various areas of mutual interest, including agriculture, security and peacekeeping, and climate action initiatives.

Prime Minister Rabuka expressed gratitude to the Israeli government for their continued support over the years.

Fiji and Israel have maintained diplomatic relations since 1970, and their cooperation has spanned areas such as security, peacekeeping, and climate change.

In recent years, Israeli technology has played a crucial role in Fiji’s efforts to combat climate change.

Invitation to Rabuka to visit Israel
During the meeting, Minister Moshe extended an invitation to Prime Minister Rabuka to visit Israel as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen diplomatic ties.

The Israeli government also expressed readiness to assist Fiji in its plans to establish an embassy in Jerusalem.

Additionally, in response to a request from Prime Minister Rabuka, Minister Moshe offered support for providing patrol boats to enhance Fiji’s fight against illicit drugs.

The last time Israel provided patrol boats to Fiji was in 1987, when four Dabur-class boats were supplied to the Fiji Navy.

Both leaders acknowledged significant opportunities for collaboration and expressed optimism about further strengthening bilateral relations in the future.

Pariah State: Israeli Soldiers Face Arrests and Travel Bans Worldwide

Fiji defies UN, global condemnation of Israel
Asia Pacific Report comments: Fiji has been consistently the leading Pacific country supporting Israel, in defiance of United Nations resolutions and global condemnation of Tel Aviv in the 15-month war on Gaza that has killed at least 47,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children.

Israel currently faces allegations of genocide in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by South Africa and a growing number of other countries, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minster Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Last September, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in a resolution (124-43) that Israel end its “unlawful presence” in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and demanded that it withdraw without delay.

Vanuatu was the only Pacific island country to vote for this resolution.

East Jerusalem is planned to become the capital of an independent Palestinian state.

UN overwhelmingly backs immediate Gaza ceasefire – but 3 Pacific nations vote against

APR editor — Thu, 12 Dec 2024 09:18:36 +0000

Asia Pacific Report

The United Nations General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly to demand an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip — but three of the isolated nine countries that voted against are Pacific island states, including Papua New Guinea.

The assembly passed a resolution yesterday demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was adopted with 158 votes in favour from the 193-member assembly and nine votes against with 13 abstentions.

Of the nine countries voting against, the three Pacific nations that sided with Israel and its relentless backer United States were joined by Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

The other countries that voted against were Argentina, Czechia, Hungary and Paraguay.

Thirteen abstentions included Fiji, which had previously controversially voted with Israel, Micronesia, Palau. Supporters of the resolution in the Pacific region included Australia, New Zealand, and Timor-Leste.

#BREAKING
UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution A/ES-10/L.33 demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza as well as the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages

VOTE:
In favor: 158
Against: 9
Abstain: 13 pic.twitter.com/ijOnemfKL7

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 11, 2024

In a separate vote, 159 UNGA members voted in favour of a resolution affirming the body’s “full support” for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

UNRWA has been the target of diplomatic and financial attacks by Israel and its backers — which have baselessly accused the lifesaving organisation of being a “terrorist group” — and literal attacks by Israeli forces, who have killed more than 250 of the agency’s personnel.

Nine UNGA members opposed the measure — including Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Tonga — while 11 others abstained. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not, and are also not subject to vetoes.

#BREAKING
UN General Assembly ADOPTS resolution A/ES-10/L.32 affirming its full support for the mandate of the UN Relief and Works Agency @UNRWA and deploring the legislation adopted by the Israeli Knesset on 28 October 2024

VOTE:
In favor: 159
Against: 9
Abstain: 11 pic.twitter.com/KTlsA8V86k

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 11, 2024

The US has six times vetoed Security Council resolutions in favour of a ceasefire in the past 14 months.

The UN votes yesterday took place amid sustained Israeli attacks on Gaza including a strike on a home sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinians in Deir al-Balah that killed at least 33 people, including children, local medical officials said.

This followed earlier Israeli attacks, including the Monday night bombing of the al-Kahlout family home in Beit Hanoun that killed or wounded dozens of Palestinians and reportedly wiped the family from the civil registry.

“We are witnessing a massive loss of life,” said Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia, reports Common Dreams.

Call for UN sanctions on Israel to implement ICJ ruling on illegality of Palestine occupation

APR editor — Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:12:02 +0000

BDS National Committee

The Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), the largest coalition in Palestinian society leading the global BDS movement, has called for immediate pressure on all states to support the updated resolution tabled at the UN General Assembly calling for sanctions on Israel.

The resolution is aimed at enacting the July 2024 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) about the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and its violation of the prohibition of apartheid under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

A vote is expected tomorrow.

This resolution, a diluted version of an earlier draft, falls below the bare minimum of the legal obligations of states to implement the ICJ ruling, undoubtedly a result of intense bullying and intimidation by the colonial West — led by the US and Israel’s partners in the ongoing Gaza genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians.

By relegating ending the Gaza genocide to an afterthought, the resolution ignores its utmost urgency.

Despite such obvious failure, the resolution does call for:

Ending Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, within 12 months;
Ending states’ complicity in aiding or maintaining this occupation by imposing trade and military sanctions such as “ceasing the importation of any products originating in the Israeli settlements, as well as the provision or transfer of arms, munitions and related equipment” to Israel. In April 2024, the UN Human Rights Council called for an embargo on “the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, the occupying Power;”
Preventing, prohibiting and eradicating Israel’s violations of article 3 of CERD identified in the advisory opinion, regarding apartheid;
Imposing sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against individuals and entities engaged in the maintenance of Israel’s unlawful occupation.

Step in right direction
Limited in scope to addressing a mere subset of Palestinian rights, the resolution does not, indeed cannot, legally or morally prejudice the other rights of the Indigenous people of Palestine, particularly the right of our refugees since the 1948 Nakba to return and receive reparations and the right of the Palestinian people, including those who are citizens of apartheid Israel, to liberation from settler-colonialism and apartheid.

Supporting this resolution would therefore be only a step in the right direction. It cannot absolve states of their legal and moral obligations to end all complicity with Israel’s regime of oppression.

Meaningful targeted sanctions by states and inter-state groups (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Arab League, African Union etc.) remain absolutely necessary to stop Israel’s genocide and end its occupation and apartheid.

Failing to do so would further shatter international law’s credibility and relevance to the global majority.

Dozens of UN human rights experts have confirmed that the ICJ ruling “has finally reaffirmed a principle that seemed unclear, even to the United Nations: Freedom from foreign military occupation, racial segregation and apartheid is absolutely non-negotiable”.

The ruling in effect affirms that BDS is not just a right but also “an obligation,” and it constitutes a paradigm shift from one centered on “negotiations” between oppressor and oppressed to one centered on accountability, sanctions and enforcement to end the system of oppression and to uphold the inalienable, internationally recognised rights of the Palestinian people.

States must be pressured
To sincerely implement the ICJ ruling on the occupation and fulfil the legal obligations triggered by the court’s earlier finding that Israel is plausibly perpetrating genocide in Gaza, and in line with the demands by UN human rights experts, all states must be pressured to immediately:

Impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, including the export, import, shipping and transit of military and dual-use items, military cooperation, and academic and industrial research;
Impose sanctions on trade, finance, travel, technology and cooperation with Israel;
“Review all diplomatic, political, and economic ties with Israel, inclusive of business and finance, pension funds, academia and charities,” as stated by UN experts, to ensure an end to all complicity in Israel’s illegal occupation;
Impose an embargo on oil, coal and other energy exports to Israel;
Declare support for suspending apartheid Israel’s membership in the UN, as apartheid South Africa was suspended;
Take immediate actions to ensure that their economic relationship with Israel and the activities of corporations domiciled in their territories do not breach their duty to prevent and to not be complicit in genocide and are not complicit in Israel’s commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity; and
Reaffirm the right of Palestinian refugees to return, as per UNGA Resolution 194, and fully support UNRWA until this right can be exercised.

NZ’s Peters criticises Security Council at UN, says Gaza ‘a wasteland’

APR editor — Mon, 08 Apr 2024 23:52:34 +0000

RNZ News

New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has told the United Nations the situation in Gaza is an “utter catastrophe” and criticised the Security Council for failing to act decisively.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly in New York, Peters said Gaza was a “wasteland” and that New Zealand was “gravely concerned” that Israel may soon launch a military offensive into Rafah.

Peters condemned Hamas for its terrorist attacks on October 7 and since.

“All of us here must demand that Hamas release all remaining hostages immediately,” he said.

But he said the facts on the ground in Gaza were absolutely clear with more than 33,000 people killed, millions displaced and warnings that famine was imminent.

“Gaza, which was already facing huge challenges before this conflict, is now a wasteland. Worse still, another generation of young Palestinians — already scarred by violence — is being further traumatised.”

Peters said New Zealand was a longstanding opponent of the use of the veto at the UN.

Security Council ‘failed by veto’
“Since the start of the current crisis in Gaza, the veto has been used five times to prevent the Security Council from acting decisively. This has seen the Council fail in its responsibility to maintain international peace and security,” he said.

Peters acknowledged Israel’s “belated announcements” that it would allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza.

“Israel must do everything in its power to enable safe, rapid and unimpeded humanitarian access,” he said.

He called on all parties to comply with Resolution 2728 which demanded an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.

“Palestinian civilians must not be made to pay the price of defeating Hamas,” he said.

The risks of the wider region being further drawn into this conflict also remained alarmingly high.

“We strongly urge regional actors, including Iran, to exercise maximum restraint.

“Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security. There is overwhelming support in the international community — including from New Zealand — for a two-state solution.

“Achieving this will require serious negotiations by the parties and must involve a Palestinian state.”

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

DAWN calls on UN to set up global protection force for Gaza

APR editor — Mon, 04 Mar 2024 10:24:01 +0000

Asia Pacific Report

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should act urgently to establish an international protection force to safeguard Palestinian civilians and ensure the unobstructed delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza as a last-ditch attempt to prevent imminent, says DAWN.

If the UNSC is blocked by a US veto or fails to reach consensus, the UN General Assembly should reconvene the 10th session of “Uniting for Peace” and authorise such a force itself.

Recent airdrops of aid, now with the participation of the US Air Force, are “inadequate to meet the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza”, says DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now).

It signals the availability of international military forces to help stabilise the situation.

“We urgently need the UNSC to authorise an international protection force to ensure the safe and effective delivery of food to starving Palestinian men, women, and children, just as it has done in other situations of catastrophic conflicts,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of DAWN.

“Tragically, without such intervention, it has become clear that Israel will continue to deliberately block such aid, which is the sole cause of the starvation and imminent famine in Gaza.”

On February 29, at least 117 Palestinians were killed, and more than 750 others were wounded after Israeli troops opened fire on civilians gathered at a convoy of food trucks southwest of Gaza City, highlighting both the desperation of the starving civilian population and their inability to safely access humanitarian aid.

Aid delivery halted
International humanitarian organisations have halted all aid delivery to northern Gaza for nearly two weeks due to the lack of security, which is a direct result of actions and policies of the Israeli military, including targeting Palestinian police forces attempting to secure aid delivery.

The Biden administration reportedly warned Israel last week that as a direct result of its actions, “Gaza is turning into Mogadishu”.

The same day, the UN Security Council met in an emergency session called by Algeria on what is now being described as the “flour massacre,” but members failed to agree on a statement about the deaths and injuries of civilians seeking aid.

At a meeting of the UNSC last week under the auspices of UNSC Resolution 2417, UN agencies warned that at least 576,000 people in Gaza were facing famine-like conditions.

The UN World Food Programme noted that there would be an “inevitable famine” in the besieged Palestinian enclave, amid increasing reports of children dying of starvation as Israel continued to hinder aid delivery to the population.

Gaza was seeing “the worst level of child malnutrition anywhere in the world,” Carl Skau, deputy head of the World Food Programme, told the UN Security Council last week, with one child in every six under the age of two acutely malnourished.

“Civilians and aid groups have described food shortages so dire that people were turning to leaves and bird food and other types of animal feed for sustenance.”

A new World Bank report has found that Gaza’s total economic output had shriveled by more than 80 percent in the last quarter of 2023, 80 to 96 percent of Gaza’s agricultural infrastructure had been damaged or destroyed, and about 80 percent of Gazans had lost their jobs.

Since the start of the war in Gaza on October 9, Israel’s retaliatory bombardment and ground offensive has killed more than 30,000, more than 10,000 of them children, and wounded more than 70,000 people.

“The whole world is watching in horror as Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, not only impeding the delivery of aid but actually firing and killing people desperately trying to obtain a few sacks of flour,” said Whitson.

“If the international community doesn’t have the guts to hold Israel accountable for its atrocities and end this grotesque, genocidal assault on Palestinian civilians, the very least it can do is establish a UN protection force to ensure the safe delivery of aid.”

Read the full DAWN report here

New Zealand can learn from South Africa, The Gambia and others when it comes to international accountability

APR editor — Thu, 18 Jan 2024 00:00:24 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Karen Scott, University of Canterbury

In 2023, the world witnessed a sustained attack on the very foundations of the international legal order.

Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, continued its illegal invasion in Ukraine. Israel’s response to the deadly October attack by Hamas exceeded its legitimate right to self-defence. And Venezuela threatened force against Guyana over an oil-rich area of disputed territory.

But is it all bad news for the international legal order?

There are six ongoing international court cases initiated by states or organisations seeking to clarify the law and hold other states to account on behalf of the international community.

These cases offer smaller countries, such as New Zealand, an opportunity to have a significant role in strengthening the international legal order and ensuring a pathway towards peace.

A departure from the legal norm?
Normally, cases are brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) when a state’s direct interests are impacted by the actions of another state.

However, six recent court cases reflect a significant departure from this tradition and mark an important development for international justice.

These cases argue the international community has a collective interest in certain issues. The focus of the cases range from Israel’s actions in Gaza (brought by South Africa) through to the responsibility of states to ensure the protection of the climate system (brought by the United Nations General Assembly).

South Africa’s justice minister Ronald Lamola outlined the country’s genocide case against Israel, as a landmark hearing opened at the International Court of Justice pic.twitter.com/AvlM8BwhQI

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 11, 2024

Holding states accountable for genocide
Three of the six cases seek to hold states accountable for genocide using Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Put simply, Article IX says disputes between countries can be referred to the ICJ.

In late December, South Africa asked the court to introduce provisional measures — a form of international injunction — against Israel for genocidal acts in Gaza.

These proceedings build on the precedent set by a 2019 case brought by The Gambia against Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya people.

In 2022, the ICJ concluded it had jurisdiction to hear The Gambia’s case on the basis that all parties to the Genocide Convention have an interest in ensuring the prevention, suppression and punishment of genocide.

According to the ICJ, The Gambia did not need to demonstrate any special interest or injury to bring the proceedings and, in effect, was entitled to hold Myanmar to account for its treatment of the Rohingya people on behalf of the international community as a whole.

South Africa has made the same argument against Israel.

In the third case, Ukraine was successful in obtaining provisional measures calling on Russia to suspend military operations in Ukraine (a call which has been reiterated in several United Nations General Assembly resolutions).

While Ukraine is directly impacted by Russia’s actions, 32 states, including New Zealand, have also intervened. These countries have argued there is an international interest in the resolution of the conflict.

In November 2023, following the example of intervention in Ukraine v Russia, seven countries — Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (jointly) and the Maldives — filed declarations of intervention in The Gambia v Myanmar, in support of The Gambia and the international community.

States can apply for permission to intervene in proceedings where they have an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the decision in the case (in the case of the ICJ, under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute). That said, intervening in judicial proceedings in support of the legal order or international community more generally was relatively rare until 2023.

South Africa is taking Israel to the ICJ, accusing it of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Al Jazeera’s @nabilabana explains what’s behind the case pic.twitter.com/Hv9R4orEa8

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) January 11, 2024

Climate change obligations under international law
But it is not just acts of genocide that have attracted wider international legal involvement.

In 2023, three proceedings seeking advisory opinions on the legal obligations of states in respect of climate change under international law have been introduced before the ICJ, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

These cases can be similarly characterised as having been brought on behalf of the international community for the international community. New Zealand has intervened in the Law of the Sea case.

Collectively, these six cases comprise actions taken on behalf of the international community with the overarching purpose of strengthening the international legal order.

They demonstrate faith in and support for that legal order in the face of internal and external challenges, and constitute an important counter-narrative to the prevailing view that the international legal order is no longer robust.

Instituting proceedings does not guarantee a positive outcome. But it is worth noting that less than three years after the ICJ issued an advisory opinion condemning the United Kingdom’s continued occupation of the Chagos Archipelago, the UK is quietly negotiating with Mauritius for the return of the islands.

New Zealand’s support for the global legal order in 2024
The international legal order underpins New Zealand’s security and prosperity. New Zealand has a strong and internationally recognised track record of positive intervention in judicial proceedings in support of that order.

In 2012 New Zealand intervened in the case brought by Australia against Japan for whaling in the Antarctic. Following our contributions to cases before the ICJ and ITLOS in 2023, we are well placed to continue that intervention in future judicial proceedings.

Calls have already been made for New Zealand to intervene in South Africa v Israel. Contributing to this case and to The Gambia v Myanmar proceeding provides an important opportunity for New Zealand to make a proactive and substantive contribution to strengthening the international legal order.

Dr Karen Scott is professor in Law, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Sogavare hails ‘new approach’ on West Papua – Wale calls PM ‘Judas’

APR editor — Thu, 28 Sep 2023 00:27:54 +0000

By Charley Piringi in Honiara

The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) has adopted a “fresh approach” in addressing the longstanding and sensitive West Papuan issue, claims Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.

Upon his return yesterday from the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York last week, he clarified to local media about why he had left out the West Papuan issue from his discussions at the UN.

“We have agreed during our last MSG meeting in Port Vila not to pursue independence for West Papua,” he said.

“Pursuing independence at the MSG level has historically led to unnecessary human rights violations against the people of West Papua, as it becomes closely linked to the independence movement.”

His statement drew criticism from Opposition Leader Matthew Wale over the “about face” over West Papua, likening Sogavare to the betrayal of “Judas the Iscariot”.

Sogavare highlighted that MSG’s new strategy was involving the initiation of a dialogue with the Indonesian government.

The focus was on treating the people of West Papua as part of Melanesia and urging the government of Indonesia to respect them accordingly.

‘Domestic matter’
“The issue of independence and self-determination is a domestic matter that West Papua needs to address internally,” he said.

“The United Nations (C-24) has established a process allowing them the right to determine their self-determination.”

The United Nations C-24, known as the Special Committee on Decolonisation, was established in 1961 to address decolonisation issues.

This committee, a subsidiary of the UN General Assembly, is dedicated to matters related to granting independence to colonised countries and peoples.

Prime Minister Sogavare’s statements underscore the MSG’s commitment to a diplomatic approach and dialogue with Indonesia, aiming for a respectful and inclusive resolution to the West Papuan issue.

Solomon Islands opposition leader Matthew Wale … “We are Melanesians and we should always stand hand in hand with our brothers and sisters in West Papua.” SBM Online

However, Opposition leader Wale expressed his disappointment with Sogavare’s statement on the right to self determination at the UN.

Sogavare had stated that Solomon Islands reaffirmed the right to self-determination as enshrined under the UN Charter.

New Caledonia, Polynesia highlighted
But while New Caledonia and French Polynesia were highlighted, Wale said it was sad that the plight of West Papua had not been included.

The opposition leader said both the FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) and West Papuans were Melanesian peoples and both desired independence.

He said West Papua had been under very oppressive “schematic and systematic Indonesian colonial rule” — far worse than anything New Caledonia had suffered.

“We are Melanesians and we should always stand hand in hand with our brothers and sisters in West Papua,” he said.

Wale said diplomacy and geopolitics should never cloud “solidarity with our Melanesian people of West Papua”.

The opposition leader said it was sad that Sogavare, who had used to be a strong supporter of the West Papuan cause, had changed face.

‘Changed face’
“The Prime Minister was once a strong supporter of West Papua, a very vocal leader against the human rights atrocities, even at the UNGA and international forums in the past.

“For sure, he has been bought for 30 pieces of silver and has clearly changed face,” Wale said.

He also reiterated his call to MSG leaders to rethink their stand on West Papua.

“The Prime Minister should have maintained Solomon Islands stand on West Papua like he used to,” Wale said.

“Sogavare is no different to Judas the Iscariot.”

Charley Piringi is editor of In-Depth Solomons. Republished with permission.

Pacific climate warrior says ‘name who we’re fighting – the fossil fuel industry’

APR editor — Mon, 25 Sep 2023 12:56:37 +0000

By Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific journalist

Pacific youth climate champion Suluafi Brianna Fruean has likened her first time in the United Nations building to primary school.

“It was my first time being in the [UN] General Assembly space,” Suluafi said.

“I sat there and I was watching everyone and it kind of reminded me of a mock UN we did when I was in primary school.”

LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Big countries ‘lack ambition’ over climate crisis

But not in a jovial sense, she was seriously reflecting on the lessons she was taught as a child by her teachers.

“The three main lessons they always told us; be kind to your classmates, your neighbours, clean up after yourself, and be careful with your words.”

The lesson that was front of mind though was the importance of words — a lesson she hoped was dancing in the minds of the world leaders taking the floor.

And at the Climate Ambition Summit last week, the word “ambition” was underscored.

Climate ambition missing
“Yet [climate ambition is] not something we saw from everyone, including the US Head of State who was not present,” Suluafi said.

However, nations that did demonstrate ambition were Chile and Tuvalu, who named the “culprit” of the climate crisis — fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal.

Suluafi said it was critical those words are spoken in these spaces.

“How can we talk about the fight against climate change if we are not naming who we are fighting?”

“Words are important. It is words that literally can mean the sinking or the surviving of our islands.”

Suluafi wants to put to bed a “big misconception” perpetuated by the Western world.

“Pacific Islanders don’t want to move,” she stressed.

“The Western world will tell us that climate change is an opportunity for us to come and live in the West.

“We don’t want to live here!”

‘Go down with our islands’
For years [Pacific] elders have said that they “will go down with our islands”, she said.

Suluafi went on to say Pacific people live in reciprocity with the land.

“We are the land.

“Let’s call a spade a spade. Let’s call the fossil fuel industry out and let’s save my islands.”

“How can we talk about the fight against climate change if we’re not naming who we’re fighting? “– climate activists at #UNGA78 #Vanuatu presser read into weekend energy of NYC 75,000-strong climate march and absence of major emitters speaking at #climateambitionsummit #COP28 pic.twitter.com/v1t3bzh0tL

— Pacific Islands Forum (@ForumSEC) September 20, 2023

Message to polluters
As Australia bids to host COP31, she requests that they take it upon themselves to be “ambitious” with climate initiatives.

“They should not be given the hosting right if they are not actually going to be ambitious enough to represent our region,” Suluafi said.

She believes they have a real opportunity to champion the Pacific Ocean and region but need to be ambitious.

To demonstrate they are being ambitious, Australia will need to at the very least make solid commitments to climate financing, she said.

“What are the commitments that they will make to financing those most vulnerable to climate change including those in their very ocean, their neighbours in the Pacific?”

Phasing out fossil fuels will be another important step.

She said Australia, the UK and the US fail to name fossil fuels as the “culprit” and that needs to change now. Because of their inaction those nations were not invited to speak at the Climate Ambitions Summit last week.

“Because Australia and the US were examples of countries that have not been moving at the same speed as which they have been talking,” Suluafi said.

She said even the US, who was in the Climate Ambition Summit room, was not allowed to speak.

“The UN wanted to give the voices to those who have been ambitious to be able to speak at the Climate Ambition Summit.”

Lifting up the next generation
Suluafi believes having young people in the room at important meetings held at the UN is vital.

According to her, something she noticed while at the UNGA meeting was most of the people were paid to be there.

“It is their job to be here from nine to five or whenever the conference starts,” she said.

“And then you look around at the young people, the civil society, the volunteers, the indigenous people who have made their way into the room who are there because of passion and because of heart.

“We need more heart in these rooms.”

Suluafi commends the UN for inviting young ambitious climate warriors, even if she did not make it into the room this time.

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

Panel discussion following the UN Climate Ambition Summit in New York 2023. Image: Oil Change International/RNZ Pacific

Dealing with a ‘bloody messy’ world – the urgent foreign policy challenges facing NZ

APR editor — Sat, 05 Nov 2022 05:51:53 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato

Since Jacinda Ardern described the state of world affairs as “bloody messy” earlier this year there have been few, if any, signs of improvement. Ukraine, China, nuclear proliferation and the lasting impacts of a global pandemic all present urgent, unresolved challenges.

For a small country in an increasingly lawless world this is both dangerous and confronting.

Without the military or economic scale to influence events directly, New Zealand relies on its voice and ability to persuade.

But by placing its faith in a rules-based order and United Nations processes, New Zealand also has to work with — and sometimes around — highly imperfect systems. In some areas of international law and policy the machinery is failing. It’s unclear what the next best step might be.

Given these uncertainties, then, where has New Zealand done well on the international stage, and where might it need to find a louder voice or more constructive proposals?

Confronting Russia
Strength and clarity have been most evident in New Zealand’s response to the Russian attack on Ukraine. There has been no hint of joining the abstainers or waverers at crucial UN votes condemning Russia’s actions.

While it can be argued New Zealand could do more in terms of sanctions and support for the Ukrainian military, the government has made good use of the available international forums.

Joining the International Court of Justice case against “Russia’s spurious attempt to justify its invasion under international law” and supporting the International Criminal Court investigation into possible war crimes in Ukraine are both excellent initiatives.

Unfortunately, similar avenues have been blocked when it comes to other critical issues New Zealand has a vested interest in seeing resolved properly.

UN vote to ignore human rights abuses in China leaves west in dead end https://t.co/mTWo4ETubU

— The Guardian (@guardian) October 7, 2022

China and human rights
This has been especially apparent in the debate about human rights abuses in China, and allegations of genocide made by some countries over the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

New Zealand and some other countries correctly avoided using the word “genocide”, which has a precise legal meaning best applied by UN experts, not domestic politicians. Instead, the government called on China to provide meaningful and unfettered access to UN and other independent observers.

While not perfect, the visit went ahead. The eventual report by outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet concluded that China had committed serious human rights violations, which could amount to crimes against humanity.

This should have forced the international community to act. Instead, 19 countries voted with China to block a debate at the UN Human Rights Council (17 wanted the debate, 11 abstained). The upshot was that China succeeded in driving the issue into a diplomatic dead-end.

Allowing an organisation designed to protect victims to be controlled by alleged perpetrators isn’t something New Zealand should accept. The government should make it a diplomatic priority to become a member of the council, and it should use every opportunity to speak out and keep the issue in the global spotlight.

Ardern’s Russia warning: New nuclear age dawns – countries want to start and win new nuclear war https://t.co/ft03c2FAI5 pic.twitter.com/DRoA4IDRFN

— nzherald (@nzherald) September 23, 2022

Arms control
Elsewhere, New Zealand’s foreign policy can arguably be found wanting — most evidently, perhaps, in the area of nuclear arms regulation.

Advocating for the complete prohibition of all nuclear weapons, as the prime minister did at the UN in September, might be inspiring and also good domestic politics, but it doesn’t make the world safer.

With the risk of nuclear conflagration at its highest since the Cuban missile crisis, a better immediate goal would be improving the regulation, rather than prohibition, of nuclear weapons. This would entail convincing nuclear states to take their weapons off “hair-trigger alert”.

The other goals should be the adoption of a no-first-use policy by all nuclear powers (only China has made such a commitment so far), and a push for regional arms control in the Indo-Pacific to rein in India, Pakistan and China.

Pandemic preparedness
Finally, there is the danger of vital law and policy not just failing, but not even being born. This is the case with the World Health Organisation’s so-called “pandemic treaty”, designed to better prevent, prepare for and respond to the next global pandemic.

New Zealand set out some admirable goals in its submission in April, but these have been watered down or are missing from the first working draft of the proposed agreement.

This shouldn’t be accepted lightly given the lessons of the past two-and-a-half years. Transparency by governments, a precautionary approach and the meaningful involvement of non-state actors will be essential.

Similarly, improved oversight of the 59 laboratories spread across 23 countries that work with the most dangerous pathogens is critical. Currently, only a quarter of these labs score highly on safety. The proposed treaty does little to demand the kind of biosecurity protocols and robust regulatory systems required to better protect present and future generations.

As with the other urgent and difficult issues mentioned here, New Zealand’s future is directly connected to what happens elsewhere in the world. The challenge now is to keep adapting to this changing global order while being an effective voice for reason and the rule of law.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

France’s refusal to engage over Tahiti decolonisation ‘increasingly untenable’

APR editor — Mon, 17 Oct 2022 22:56:28 +0000

RNZ Pacific

French Polynesia’s pro-independence Tavini Huiraatira party says France’s refusal to engage in any UN-supervised decolonisation process is becoming increasingly untenable.

In 2013, the UN General Assembly re-inscribed the French territory on its decolonisation list, but Paris has rejected the decision and keeps boycotting the annual decolonisation committee’s debate on French Polynesia.

While France cooperates with the UN on the decolonisation of New Caledonia, the French government has ignored calls by Tavini to invite the UN to assess the territory’s situation.

READ MORE: Other reports on Tahiti’s decolonisation

The Tahitian flag . . . usually flown alongside the French flag at official buildings. Image: RNZ Pacific/123rf

On return from New York last week, the Tavini delegates said they will raise the continued French inaction in the French National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Commission.

The territory’s Assembly members in Paris are Tavini politicians, who won all three seats in the June election.

One of them, Moetai Brotherson, said he spoke to the French ambassador outside the committee venue to tell him that France’s “empty chair policy isn’t a good look”.

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

Marshall Islands calls off talks after no US response on nuclear legacy plan

APR editor — Sat, 24 Sep 2022 23:52:36 +0000

By Giff Johnson, editor of the Marshall Islands Journal and RNZ Pacific correspondent

On the eve of the US Pacific Islands Summit in Washington, a key ally in the region called off a scheduled negotiating session for a treaty Washington views as an essential hedge against China in the region.

The Marshall Islands and the United States negotiators were scheduled for the third round of talks this weekend to renew some expiring provisions of a Compact of Free Association when leaders in Majuro called it off, saying the lack of response from Washington on the country’s US nuclear weapons testing legacy meant there was no reason to meet.

Marshall Islands leaders have repeatedly said the continuing legacy of health, environmental and economic problems from 67 US nuclear tests from 1946-1958 must be satisfactorily addressed before they will agree to a new economic package with the US.

Washington sees the Compact treaties with the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which stretch across an ocean area larger than the continental US, as key to countering the expansion of China in the region.

“The unique security relationships established by the Compacts of Free Association have magnified the US power projection in the Indo-Pacific region, structured US defense planning and force posture, and contributed to essential defense capabilities,” said a new study released September 20 in Washington, DC by the United States Institute of Peace, “China’s Influence on the Freely Associated States of the Northern Pacific.”

China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).

The freely associated states stretch across an ocean area in the north Pacific that is larger than the continental United States and are seen by Washington as a key strategic asset. Image: United States Institute of Peace/RNZ

China’s blue water ambitions
China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).

“The value of the buffer created by US strategic denial over FAS territorial seas is poised to increase as China seeks to make good on its blue water navy ambitions and to deepen its security relationships with Pacific nations,” said the report whose primary authors were Admiral (Ret.) Philip Davidson, Brigadier-General (Ret.) and David Stilwell, former US Congressman from Guam Dr Robert Underwood.

The Runit Dome was constructed on Marshall Islands Enewetak Atoll in 1979 to temporarily store radioactive waste produced from nuclear testing by the US military during the 1950s and 1960s. Image: RNZ

“As Washington seeks to limit the scope of Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific in concert with regional partners, the US-FAS relationship functions as a key vehicle for reinforcing regional norms and democratic values.”

US and Marshall Islands negotiators have both said they hope for a speedy conclusion to the talks as the existing 20-year funding package expires on September 30, 2023. But the nuclear test legacy is the line in the sand for the Marshall Islands.

“The entire Compact Negotiation Committee agreed — don’t go,” said Parliament Speaker Kenneth Kedi, who represents Rongelap Atoll, which was contaminated with nuclear test fallout by the 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll and other weapons tests.

“It is not prudent to spend over $100,000 for our delegation to travel to Washington with no written response to our proposal. We are negotiating in good faith. We submitted our proposal in writing.” But he said on Friday, “there has been no answer or counter proposal from the US.”

US and Marshall Islands officials had been aiming to sign a “memorandum of understanding” at the summit as an indication of progress in the discussions, but that now appears off the table.

US Pacific summit
Marshall Islands President David Kabua, who is currently in the US following a speech to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday last week, is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.

Kabua, while affirming in his speech at the UN that the Marshall Islands has a “strong partnership” with the US, added: “It is vital that the legacy and contemporary challenges of nuclear testing be better addressed” (during negotiations on the Compact of Free Association). “The exposure of our people and land has created impacts that have lasted – and will last – for generations.”

The Marshall Islands submitted a proposed nuclear settlement agreement to US negotiators during the second round of talks in July. The US has not responded, Kedi and other negotiating committee members said Friday in Majuro.

In response to questions about the postponement of the planned negotiating session, the State Department released a brief statement through its embassy in Majuro.

“With respect to the Compact Negotiations, which are ongoing, both sides continue to work diligently towards an agreement,” the statement said. “Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations, Ambassador Joe Yun, is expected to meet with President Kabua while he is in Washington to continue to advance the discussions.”

While the Marshall Islands decision to cancel its negotiating group’s attendance at a scheduled session in Washington is a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to fast-track approval of the security and economic agreement for this strategic North Pacific area, island leaders continue to describe themselves as part of the “US family.”

“The cancellation of the talks indicates the seriousness of this issue for the Marshall Islands,” said National Nuclear Commission Chairman Alson Kelen. “This is the best time for us to stand up for our rights.”

‘Fair and just’ nuclear settlement
For decades, the Pacific Island Forum countries that will be represented at this week’s leader’s summit in Washington have stood behind the Marshall Islands in its quest for a fair and just nuclear settlement, said Kelen, who helped negotiators develop their plan submitted recently to the US government for addressing lingering problems of the 67 nuclear tests.

“We live with the problem (from the nuclear tests),” said Kelen, a displaced Bikini Islander. “We know the big picture: bombs tested, people relocated from their islands, people exposed to nuclear fallout, and people studied. We can’t change that. What we can do now is work on the details for this today for the funding needed to mitigate the problems from the nuclear legacy.”

Kedi said he was tired of US attempts to argue over legal issues from the original Compact of Free Association’s nuclear test settlement that was approved 40 years ago before the Marshall Islands was an independent nation.

That agreement, which provided a now-exhausted $150 million nuclear compensation fund, was called “manifestly inadequate” by the country’s Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which over a two-decade period determined the value of claims to be over $3 billion.

“Bottom line, the nuclear issue needs to be addressed,” Kedi said.

“We need to come up with a dignified solution as family members. I’ve made it clear, once these key issues are addressed, we are ready to sign the Compact tomorrow.”

President Kabua is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.

Meanwhile, the members of his Compact negotiating team are in Majuro waiting for a response from the US government to their proposal to address the nuclear legacy.

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

NZ should show real solidarity with the Pacific by embracing climate action

APR editor — Sat, 30 Jul 2022 06:44:40 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Prue Taylor in Auckland

From 1949 to 1996 more than 300 nuclear devices were detonated in the Pacific. In the mid-1990s a generation of political leaders had the foresight, wisdom and courage to support a civil society initiative that led to an International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

The resultant 1996 decision became a legal landmark.

Today we face another threat just as grave – the climate crisis. The risks and threats to peace and security posed by the climate emergency are as real and as avoidable as those posed by nuclear weapons.

And while here in New Zealand we’re only just seeing the first fires from the climate crisis today, the Pacific has been experiencing the impacts of climate destruction for decades.

Top of the agenda at this month’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Fiji was, of course, climate change. Specifically, states have been asked to support an initiative to take climate change directly to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ will be asked for an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of states. Although non-binding, an advisory opinion from the court can trigger positive legal change.

Pacific youth are putting their faith in the ICJ — just like New Zealand did with its nuclear-free moment — to demonstrate what responsibility for future generations actually means. They are asking our government to help, but will New Zealand remember its history and answer the call of a new generation?

Youth inspired Vanuatu
Pacific youth inspired the Vanuatu government to lead a formal state process involving a United Nations General Assembly resolution.

They chose well. Vanuatu has dedicated significant political and diplomatic effort to the initiative. Caribbean states are on board too.

But to get it across the line, New Zealand’s active support and leadership is critical. A unified position in the Pacific (including Australia) will greatly bolster international support. This week’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting is the place to get it.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is well aware that climate change is the No 1 issue for the Pacific, in both socio-ecological and geopolitical contexts. Thus far, the government has accepted an advisory opinion on climate change as a “constructive proposal” with potential for creating “significant legal development” and has said it is willing to “engage” with partners.

While this is a good start, it is now time (as a matter of urgency) for New Zealand to significantly step up its support for the ICJ move. It can do this now by actively and openly backing the Vanuatu government and others to build a coalition of supportive states in the region and internationally.

Better still, why not become a co-sponsor of the UN General Assembly resolution?

This is exactly what Ardern’s government is now being called upon to do. An open letter from prominent New Zealanders, including Māori and Pasifika leaders from academia, civil society, such as Oxfam Aotearoa, and scientific and spiritual communities urges the government to take leadership.

Reminds government on kaitiakitanga
The letter reminds the government of its commitment to the values of intergenerational justice and kaitiakitanga, both for the peoples of the Pacific and Aotearoa New Zealand. Critically, it reminds today’s leaders of New Zealand’s history.

The Power of the People.

The democratic deficit in international policy and law is well known. Youth do not have a seat at the table, and they know it. Their futures are negotiated behind closed doors where intergenerational justice is a political slogan at best.

I have personally seen the injustice of this many times at international treaty negotiations on climate change and the oceans.

In the face of this hard reality, the world’s youth still show up and speak up with passion and commitment. They remain committed to being constructive.

Pacific youth see an ICJ advisory opinion on climate change in exactly these terms. However, they need the help of our political leaders at the table, and they need it right now, to acknowledge climate change as real and immediate.

To deny them this vital legal opportunity is both immoral and brutal.

So will New Zealand show real solidarity with youth and peoples of the Pacific?

Will it honour its own history and reputation as an independent leader on global issues critical to the future of humanity and all life?

Or will this legacy be sacrificed on the altar of expediency and short-term national interests?

If youth are to keep their faith in us, then we must act urgently and decisively in their best interests.

Prue Taylor is a senior lecturer in environmental and planning law at the University of Auckland. This article first appeared on Stuff and is republished here with the author’s permission.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – the big picture with Manning and Buchanan

admin — Thu, 10 Mar 2022 07:37:11 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning at Evening Report

In this A View From Afar podcast, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning deep dive into the big picture that hangs over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That big picture has many aspects to it, and as such any resolution to the atrocities being committed in Ukraine will likely be weighed against what is a challenge to the international law and rules-based order.

In a previous episode in this series, Dr Buchanan and Manning examined how the world was transitioning into a democracies versus authoritarian bipolarity.

WATCH: A View From Afar on YouTube

This episode continues in that theme, but digs down into how descendent powers, or nations, tend to create or become entrenched in wars, and how Russia, in 2022, fits this pattern.

And, there are comparisons to global Western powers too.

But this episode goes further. It examines how transitional international moments, conflict as a systems regulator, can move to counter Russia.

In 2022, the United Nations Security Council, due to the P5 nations having veto powers, appears no longer fit for purpose.

A UN-led multilateral response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unlikely.

Frustrated by Russia
The UN General Assembly appears frustrated by Russia’s refusal to acknowledge the combined insistence of the UNGA that it cease its war against Ukraine.

Against this backdrop, NATO, at this juncture, cannot directly defend Ukrainians as Ukraine was not able to become a NATO member state before Russia invaded its territory.

Sometimes rules and law provide security and stability in the world. And sometimes, as seen in 2022, it permits conflict to burn on.

As discussed, the global rules-based order is fast changing in 2022. And as such, this underscores a need to re-set the international system.

But what can be done to stop people from being killed in this unprovoked war – a war that in many ways illustrates a wider war between democracies and authoritarians, as the world transitions toward a new bipolarity?

And, if a global order reset is needed, what would that reset look like?

These are huge challenges that require sensible analysis.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was nominated as a top defence security podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.
Follow A View from Afar via affiliate syndicators.

Bainimarama: Pacific faces tough climate, disease challenges – world leaders need to rise up

APR editor — Tue, 28 Sep 2021 23:17:00 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama in Suva

Fiji Islands Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is the current Chair of the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum. Addressing the UN General Assembly virtually on September 25, he called on the global community to embrace Fiji’s vision of a “better, greener, bluer and safer future for humanity”.

The United Nations report to the UN General Assembly this year is titled “Our multilateral challenges: UN 2:0”, a Common Agenda the blueprint for a future that is better, greener, and safer—and I would humbly add, “bluer”.

We want that future for Fiji. We want islands inhabited by citizens who stand with nature and not against it. We want sustainable economic growth that is powered by clean energy and protected from the impacts of climate change.

We want robust and resilient health systems, and we want good jobs and income supported by a green and blue economy. To succeed, our vision must become the vision of humanity, because our fate is the world’s fate.

The world’s present course leads nowhere near the future we want for ourselves. A deadly pathogen is burning through humanity like a bushfire—and inequity is fanning the flames. This year alone, climate-driven floods, heatwaves, fires, and cyclones have killed hundreds and inflicted unsustainable economic damage.

We humans are the cause, but we are refusing to become the solution.

The UN Secretary General’s recommendations in “Our Common Agenda” are spot on. We must meet this moment with a new UN—a new energy, new resources, and new bonds of trust with the people this institution serves.

A new UN that empowers those on the margins of society—particularly women and girls—and brings them into the centre of global decision-making.

Two pandemics
In the past year, it has become clearer that we face two pandemics—one that is ending for the wealthy nations and one that is worsening across much of the developing world. That widening chasm can be measured in lives lost and in years of economic progress undone.

Across the Global South, what the world once branded as “sustainable development” is unravelling before our eyes. Hundreds of millions of jobs have been lost, hundreds of millions of people cannot access adequate food, and an entire generation has had their education disrupted.

The wounds of this crisis will cripple us for years if left untreated.

Leaders who cannot summon the courage to unveil these commitments and policy packages at COP26 should not bother booking a flight to Glasgow. Instead, they—and the selfish interests they stand for—should face consequences that match the severity of what they are unleashing on our planet.

— Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama

Fiji’s experience shows how an equitable recovery can begin. It starts by getting jabs in arms, fast. After one full year with zero local covid cases, the insidious delta variant crept into our country and sparked a deadly second outbreak.

After a slow start while we scrambled to acquire enough vaccines, we are winning the battle.

Over 98 percent of adults across our 110 populated islands have [had] one jab of the vaccine, and more than 67 percent are fully vaccinated. We thank India, Australia, New Zealand and the United States for helping us secure the doses we needed.

Our mission now is to recover the more than 100,000 jobs lost to the pandemic and to recoup a 50 percent loss in government revenues. Soon, Fiji will reopen to tourism and to regional and international business.

Victory over the virus
We will look to accelerate investment trends, like increased digitisation, that will modernise our economy and help it recover.

But Fiji’s victory over the virus will be short-lived unless the global community can accelerate vaccinations everywhere. It is appalling that wealthier countries are already considering third doses or boosters for their citizens while millions of people—including frontline healthcare workers—in the developing world cannot access a single dose.

Globally, thousands of lives are still being lost every day to the virus. The majority represent our collective failure to make vaccines available to developing countries.

Vaccine nationalism must end. The G7, G20, and multilateral financial institutions have failed to stop it. Only the UN can fill this void of leadership.

I join other leaders in calling on the UN to convene an urgent special meeting of leaders to agree to a time bound, costed, and detailed plan for the full vaccination of developing countries.

Vaccine inequity is a symptom of a much larger injustice, one that is inherent to the international economic system. This injustice is the unequal distribution of finance, or access to finance, that can fuel a recovery.

While wealthy nations have propped up their economies by printing and investing trillions at near zero interest rates, developing nations—particularly small states—have had to borrow at punitive rates to simply keep our people alive, fed, and healthy.

Cash transfer programme
Through the pandemic, my government rolled out the largest cash transfer programme in our history—providing hundreds of millions of dollars in unemployment benefits to nearly one-third of Fiji’s adult population.

We even expanded some of our social protection programmes, including pensions for the elderly, and financial support for the differently abled and other vulnerable communities.

The alternative was mass destitution, which we would not accept. But to pay for it, we had to take on debt, precipitated by massive reduction in government revenue.

We need a more innovative framework for development finance that recognises the unique needs of SIDS (Small Island Developing States). And we must adopt a more sophisticated framework of assessing debt sustainability that incorporates the urgency of building resilience and breaks free of the norms of the 20th century.

This pandemic has been a painful lesson about where unilateral action can lead and where our multilateral institutions are unwilling to go. We must find new frontiers of co-operation if we stand any chance of averting future pandemics—or staving off the worst of climate change.

If small states are to build back greener, bluer, and better, we will need an equal voice about and vote on decisions that determine our future. Small states need our interests heard, understood, and acted upon.

Despite all the talk we hear of saving the planet, the world’s collective commitments are paltry. Akin to spitting into the strengthening winds of climate-fuelled super-storms.

Frequent devastation
The climate is on track for 2.7 degrees Celsius of global warming, which would ensure the loss of entire low-lying nations in the Pacific and huge chunks of global coastlines. It guarantees frequent devastation from floods, cyclones, coastal inundations, and wildfires.

It spells climate-driven conflict, mass migration, and the collapse of food systems and ecosystems. It is appalling. It is unimaginable. But it is where we are headed.

Since March 2020, Fiji has experienced three cyclones—two of which approached category five intensity. Fijians are strong people. We endured much, and we will endure more still. But I am tired of applauding my people’s resilience. True resilience is not just defined by a nation’s grit but by our access to financial resources.

Today, SIDS are able to access less than 2 per cent of the available climate finance. To build a truly resilient Fiji, we need access to fast-deploying targeted grants, long-term concessionary financing and financial tools and instruments established through public-private collaboration and partnership.

The Fijian economy depends on a healthy ocean and so we are taking bold strides to reverse its current decline. We have committed to 100 percent sustainable management of EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) and 30 per cent declared as marine protected areas by 2030.

We are expanding investments in sustainable aquaculture, seaweed farming, and high-value processed fish.

But we cannot do this alone. We look to the global system to stop illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. We look to UN member states to agree to a new treaty to preserve marine in waters beyond national jurisdictions.

Pacific mission in Glasgow
In one month, we meet in Scotland for a hugely consequential COP. The Pacific’s mission in Glasgow is clear: we must keep the 1.5 target alive.

This demands drastic emissions cuts by 2030 that put large nations on a path towards net-zero emissions before 2050.

Leaders who cannot summon the courage to unveil these commitments and policy packages at COP26 should not bother booking a flight to Glasgow. Instead, they—and the selfish interests they stand for—should face consequences that match the severity of what they are unleashing on our planet.

We do not tolerate war between states. So, how can we tolerate war waged against the planet, on the life it sustains, and on future generations? That is the firm red line Pacific nations will draw in Glasgow. We are demanding net-zero emissions and accepting zero excuses.

At COP26, the global north must finally deliver on US$100 billion a year in climate finance and agree to a pathway to increase financing commitments to at least $750 billion a year from 2025 forward.

If we can spend trillions on missiles, drones, and submarines, we can fund climate action. It is criminal that vulnerable Pacific Small Island Developing States can access a mere 0.05 percent of the climate finance currently available to protect ourselves from an existential crisis we did not cause.

These are the challenges we face, and we must find the courage to face them squarely. The consequences of not doing so are simply unthinkable.

Published in partnership with IDN-InDepthNews.

‘Gagged’ West Papuan envoy to raise self-determination issue again at UN

APR editor — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 06:08:45 +0000

Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

A West Papuan envoy who was gagged while addressing the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues two years ago is due to speak again today.

For six years, John Anari, leader of the West Papua Liberation Organisation (WPLO) and an “ambassador” of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), has been appealing to the forum to push for the Indonesian-ruled Melanesian region to be put on the UN Trusteeship Council.

He is speaking for the two groups combined as the West Papua Indigenous Organisation (WPIO), or Organisasi Pribumi Papua Barat.

West Papuan envoy John Anari’s petitioning letter to the UN Secretary-General. Image: APR screenshot

“I believe West Papua has been a UN Trust Territory since 1962 when the
General Assembly authorised [the] United Nations and Indonesia’s administration of West Papua,” he is expected to say in his short declaration.

“I believe there is a moral and legal obligation for news of the authorisation, General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII), to be placed on the agenda of the United Nations Trusteeship Council so that the Council can then ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its advisory opinion on the proper status of West Papua in relation to the Charter of the United Nations.

West Papuan envoy John Anari and the Morning Star in Times Square, New York. Image: FB screenshot

“To restore United Nations awareness of the sovereign and human rights of our people, for
six years I have been asking this Permanent Forum [UNPFII] to advise the Economic and Social Council that it can and should place the missing agenda item on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council.

“Not only has this forum failed to relay our request, two years ago the moderator attempted to stop my reiteration of our request. This year I am also petitioning the Secretary-General to put news of the United Nations subjugation of West Papua on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council.

“If this forum will not relay our request, I ask you to explain to the international news media why this forum has not told the Economic and Social Council about General Assembly resolution 1752 under which West Papua is still suffering foreign administration and looting.”

The petition has been presented to the Secretary-General, António Guterres.

FOOTNOTE: Andrew Johnson writes: “GAGGED Again ! ! ! John was allowed to introduce himself and the second he began saying what the United Nations does NOT want the public to hear, his feed was silenced!

No doubt the UNPFII will claim it was a lucky gremlin, but John’s video feed was up and working and only went silent as he called attention to the United Nations own responsibility for the on-going oppression, deaths, and looting of West Papua for these past 59 years!”

Watch the speech on UNWeb at the UN Permanent Forum