A Papua New Guinean academic says the new security deals with the United States will militarise his country and anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.

In May, PNG’s Defence Minister Win Barki Daki and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed the Defence Cooperation Agreement and the Shiprider Agreement.

Last week they were presented to PNG MPs for ratification and made public.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Michael Kabuni talks defence treaties
• READ MORE: Other PNG-US defence pact reports

The defence cooperation agreement talks of reaffirming a strong defence relationship based on a shared commitment to peace and stability and common approaches to addressing regional defence and security issues.

Money that Marape ‘wouldn’t turn down’
University of PNG political scientist Michael Kabuni said there was certainly a need for PNG to improve security at the border to stop, for instance, the country being used as a transit point for drugs such as methamphetamine and cocaine.

“Papua New Guinea hasn’t had an ability or capacity to manage its borders. So we really don’t know what goes on on the fringes of PNG’s marine borders.”

But Kabuni, who is completing his doctorate at the Australian National University, said whenever the US signs these sorts of deals with developing countries, the result is inevitably a heavy militarisation.

“I think the politicians, especially PNG politicians, are either too naïve, or the benefits are too much for them to ignore. So the deal between Papua New Guinea and the United States comes with more than US$400 million support. This is money that [Prime Minister] James Marape wouldn’t turn down,” he said.

The remote northern island of Manus, most recently the site of Australia’s controversial refugee detention camp, is set to assume far greater prominence in the region with the US eyeing both the naval base and the airport.

US fighter jets now (21.06.23) at Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby.

Walen Parange pic.twitter.com/EVrOV7CWZ3

— Bobby Jr (@tambijr_4rmPNG) June 21, 2023

Kabuni said Manus was an important base during World War II and remains key strategic real estate for both China and the United States.

“So there is talk that, apart from the US and Australia building a naval base on Manus, China is building a commercial one. But when China gets involved in building wharves, though it appears to be a wharf for commercial ships to park, it’s built with the equipment to hold military naval ships,” he said.

Six military locations
Papua New Guineans now know the US is set to have military facilities at six locations around the country.

These are Nadzab Airport in Lae, the seaport in Lae, the Lombrum Naval Base and Momote Airport on Manus Island, as well as Port Moresby’s seaport and Jackson’s International Airport.

According to the text of the treaty the American military forces and their contractors will have the ability to largely operate in a cocoon, with little interaction with the rest of PNG, not paying taxes on anything they bring in, including personal items.

Prime Minister James Marape has said the Americans will not be setting up military bases, but this document gives them the option to do this.

Marape said more specific information on the arrangements would come later.

Antony Blinken said the defence pact was drafted by both nations as ‘equal and sovereign partners’ and stressed that the US will be transparent.

Critics of the deal have accused the government of undermining PNG’s sovereignty but Marape told Parliament that “we have allowed our military to be eroded in the last 48 years, [but] sovereignty is defined by the robustness and strength of your military”.

The Shiprider Agreement has been touted as a solution to PNG’s problems of patrolling its huge exclusive economic zone of nearly 3 million sq km.

Another feature of the agreements is that US resources could be directed toward overcoming the violence that has plagued PNG elections for many years, with possibly the worst occurrence in last year’s national poll.

But Michael Kabuni said the solution to these issues will not be through strengthening police or the military but by such things as improving funding and support for organisations like the Electoral Commission to allow for accurate rolls to be completed well ahead of voting.

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

The United Nations Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution aimed at assisting the Marshall Islands to get justice in the aftermath of the United States nuclear testing.

“We have suffered the cancer of the nuclear legacy for far too long and we need to find a way forward to a better future for our people,” says Samuel Lanwi, deputy permanent representative of the Marshall Islands to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.

The Marshallese people are still struggling with the health and environmental consequences of nuclear tests, including higher cancer rates.

• READ MORE: Other reports on nuclear tests legacy in Marshall Islands

Many people displaced due to the tests are still unable to return home.

The US conducted 67 US nuclear tests from 1946-1958 and a settlement was reached in 1986 with the United States, a Compact of Free Association, which fell short of addressing the extensive environmental and health damage that resulted from the tests.

The U.S government asserts the bilateral agreement settled “all claims, past, present and future”, including nuclear compensation.

Today at #HRC51, res. L.24/Rev.1 on RMI’s nuclear legacy was adopted by consensus. 64 years after the last nuclear test, RMI will receive UN assistance in upholding the rights of the Marshallese people that still bear the scars of this dark chapter of our past. #Nuclearlegacy pic.twitter.com/u15GKcAX6l

— Marshall Islands Permanent Mission in Geneva (@RMIGeneva) October 7, 2022

The new text tabled by five Pacific Island states called on the UN rights chief to submit a report in September 2024 on the challenges to the enjoyment of human rights by the Marshallese people, stemming from the nuclear legacy.

It called on the UN rights chief to submit a report in September 2024 on the challenges to the enjoyment of human rights by the Marshallese people stemming from the nuclear legacy.

The US as well as other nuclear weapons states such as Britain, India and Pakistan expressed concern about some aspects of the text but did not ask for a vote on the motion.

Japan did not speak at the meeting.

Observers say some nuclear states fear the initiative for the Marshall Islands could open the door to other countries bringing similar issues to the rights body.

A concrete dome on Runit Island containing radioactive waste is of concern, especially about rising sea levels as a result of climate change, according to the countries that drafted the resolution.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. Reporting also by Kyodo News/Pacnews.

The last 10 days has seen the entire media focus (aside from the ubiquitous concern for the All Black prospects in a rugby test and then the fate of coach Ian Foster) has been on allegations of bullying by new opposition National MP Sam Uffindell and bullying of first term Labour government MP Gaurav Sharma.

Sam Uffindell’s future is still up in the air while Dr Sharma’s political career has resembled a meteorite — a brief, bright burn.

Meanwhile, over this time we were visited by US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who was on a whirlwind visit through the Pacific which the US has just rediscovered after finding China has been courting our Pacific neighbours.

• READ MORE: US would have conversations with New Zealand if time comes for others to join AUKUS — top diplomat
• Other John Minto articles

Sherman was here to remind us the US fought in the Pacific 75 years ago, that it is ready to fight here again (on the side of “democracy” and “freedom” of course) and probably assessing when best for the US to launch a destabilising campaign against Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, who has had the audacity, from the US point of view, to sign a development agreement with China.

There is a host of good, hard questions that should have been put to Sherman by our journalists but alas there is nothing of substance anywhere.

Here for example is RNZ’s Morning Report interview with Sherman.

Calling it a “soft” interview doesn’t describe it well — “cringing embarrassment” would be better.

Full of talking points
Sherman was full of US talking points such as the importance of the “[US] rules-based international order developed after World War II” and “no country should decide the political future of another country or bend that country to their political will”.

Just read that last Sherman quote again. She is aiming at China but probably three quarters of humanity have experienced precisely that interference at the hands, guns, banks and bombs of the US since World War II — democracies included.

RNZ let it all go unchallenged. The US is already on the record as saying they will “not sit by” and allow China to get a foothold in the Solomon Islands or the Pacific.

Why wasn’t Sherman interrogated on this? Why weren’t hard questions asked? The danger signs for our corner of the world are everywhere — but invisible to RNZ.

Instead the hard questions were saved for the hapless thug Uffindell and those responsible for Dr Sharma’s meteoric career.

Aotearoa New Zealand got closest to an independent foreign policy in the mid-1980s but there seems no journalistic memory. Instead of asking about US intentions in the Pacific and suggesting that New Zealanders don’t want to see superpower rivalry on our doorstep, RNZ simply asks what are the prospects of New Zealand joining the AUKUS alliance (Australia, the UK and the US who are joining forces to arm Australia with nuclear submarines to counter China)

Meanwhile, Aotearoa New Zealand moves insidiously closer to the US military.

Here in Christchurch, protests will accompany the Rocket Lab presence at the 2022 Aerospace Summit.

In case anyone hasn’t caught up with developments, Rocket Lab is now majority owned by the US military and has launched numerous rockets for direct military purposes.

The protest will have some hard questions for Peter Beck — don’t expect them from the news media.

John Minto is a political activist and commentator. This article was first published by The Daily Blog and is republished with the author’s permission.

Sixty years ago today — on 15 August 1962 — the fate of a newly born nation-state West Papua was stolen by men in New York. The infamous event is known as “The New Agreement”, a deal between the Netherlands and Indonesia over West Papua’s sovereignty.

A different fate had been intended for the people of West Papua in early 1961 when they elected their national Council from whom the Dutch were asking guidance for the transfer of administration back to Papuan hands.

Shockingly, the threat of colonialism came from America several months later when a journalist advocating liberty denounced a secret Washington proposal to betray America’s Pacific War ally Papua to an Asian colonial power.

• READ MORE: Other West Papua self-determination reports

The Council’s response was to present to the Dutch a flag and manifesto of independence asking all the peoples of West Papua to unite as one people under their new Morning Star flag.

On 1 December 1961, the Dutch raised the Morning Star flag, and for more than 60 years the people have united as one raising their Morning Star flag.

But declassified American records reveal horrific deceptions. A group inside the White House had begun secret negotiations with the Republic of Indonesia around a proposal for an illegal use of the International Trusteeship System, or to quote the US, “a special United Nations trusteeship of West New Guinea” that irrespective of Papua’s objections would then ask Indonesia to assume control.

The “special” nature of the US proposal had the opposite intent than that of the international law. The International Trusteeship System, Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter is meant protect a people’s right of independence and have the UN prepare annual reports about their welfare and progress towards independence for each territory the United Nations has become responsible for, including those invaded and subjugated by UN troops.

West Papua is both.

Instead of protection and annual reports, the United Nations by omission of duty is enabling Indonesian impunity for military campaigns of terror and administrative suspension of all human rights.

West Papuans have suffered hundreds of thousands of extrajudicial deaths, disappearances and looting of many hundreds of billions of dollars throughout the UN appointed administration by Indonesia.

Weekly stories of horror hidden from international news media by an ongoing Indonesian declaration that Papua is a quarantine zone requiring special permission for NGOs and journalists to enter.

It is beyond time that the UN took steps to put right the wrongs of the past. #selfdetermination pic.twitter.com/vsWBO0wXpo

— Free West Papua (@FreeWestPapua) August 7, 2022

Fiscal and geopolitical deceptions
Every principle written into the UN’s charter, the Rules of Procedure of the Trusteeship Council, and even Indonesia’s own New York Agreement have been violated by the ongoing Indonesian conduct, international mining and United Nations omission of lawful conduct.

These events proceeded against the backdrop of a global movement calling for decolonialisation that rippled across Asia, Africa and the Pacific, with the West and the Communist bloc supporting or opposing one another to gain influence in these movements.

The newly independent nation of Indonesia, which had been under Dutch rule for more than 300 years, declared independence on 17 August 1945. Sukarno was the man of this era, leading the outburst of a long-awaited human desire for freedom and equality.

In the same era, wars broke out in Korea and Vietnam; the world endured the Cuban missile crisis as forces of the West and the Communist bloc continued to clash and reshape the destiny of these new nation-states.

Leading up to the final recognition of their new republic in December 1949, Indonesians experienced another brutal, protracted war with the Dutch. The Netherlands side wanted to reclaim their past colonial glory, and the Indonesian side wanted to removed Dutch occupation and authority from their nation.

Indonesia’s founding fathers, Sukarno and Suharto, were significant men of their era, with ambitions to match — ambitions that led to the massacre of millions of alleged Indonesian Chinese communists in the mid-1960s; the same ambition that placed the Papuan people on the path they are on now, carved by blood, tears, trauma, war, killing, rape, exploitation, betrayal, and being cheated at every turn by the world’s highest institutions.

Many nations around the world had to face difficult choices, with emerging leaders of all types avoiding the cause of their own imagined nation-state. This was a most turbulent era of development and globalisation.

Arguably, most conflicts around the world today stem from unresolved grievances brought about by this turbulence and divisive historical events.

West Papua’s extended conflicts for the last 60 years are a direct result of being mishandled by Western forces who sought to take Papua’s independence for themselves.

As of today, Indonesians (and those unaware of West Papua’s legal status under international law) think that this is a domestic issue, a narrative which Jakarta elites insist on propagandising to the world.

The truth is that West Papua remains an unresolved issue with international implications. More specifically, the UN still has the responsibility to correct their sixty-year-old mistake.

The UN breached its own charter
At least in principle, all 111 articles of the UN Charter are aimed at promoting peace, dignity, and equality. One of the key elements of the charter (in relation to decolonisation) is its declaration that colonial territories would be considered non-self-governing territories. The United Nations’ responsibility was to provide a “full measure of self-government” to those nations colonised by foreign powers. West Papua’s story as a new nation began within these international frameworks.

West Papua was already listed under the UN’s decolonisation system as a non-self-governing territory before 1962 and the Dutch were preparing Papuans for full independence in accordance with the UN charter guidelines. The public has been deceived by trivialising this agreement and downplaying it as simply two powers — Netherlands and Indonesia — fighting over West Papuan territory.

The UN, as a caretaker of this trust, had a responsibility to provide a measure for Papuans to achieve independence. The UN instead handed (abandoned) this trust to Indonesia, who then abused that international trust by invading West Papua in May 1963. This scandalous historical error has brought unprecedented cataclysm to Papuans to date.

The Indonesian perspective
Most Indonesians have been fooled by their government to think that West Papua’s fate was decided during a referendum, known as “Pepera” or “Act of Free Choice” in 1969, which Papuans now refer to as the “Act of No Choice”. Indonesians assume that Indonesian occupancy is good for West Papua, but this is not true: they are unaware that Indonesia is illegally occupying West Papua and their government is in breach of many international laws.

It seems that the Western powers have no issue turning a blind eye when one of their endorsed global players are breaking their laws.

During the period of July to September 1969, the Act of Free Choice was carried out by the Indonesian government. The UN was there but did not act or speak against it. This referendum was one of the items stipulated in the New York Agreement seven years earlier.

About 2025 Papuan elders among the one million Papuans who were handpicked at gunpoint and forced to say “yes” to remain with Indonesia. The UN acted as a bystander, unwilling to interfere with the tyranny taking place before them.

What we seem to forget is the fact that before the referendum in 1969, Indonesia had already launched a large-scale martial and administrative operation throughout West Papua, instilling fear and setting the stage for the rubber stamp referendum to proceed.

What happened in 1969 was a tragedy and a farce of human autonomy. The UN and international community betrayed West Papua on the world’s stage.

The New York Agreement
Andrew Johnson and Julian King, Australian researchers who specialised in this case, have argued that West Papua is still a non-self-governing territory, and that Indonesia has no legal or moral right to claim sovereignty over West Papua. These researchers insist that West Papua is still a non-self-governing territory, and Indonesia is only there temporarily as an administrator — they have no legal basis to introduce any law or policy towards West Papua.

In their ground-breaking seminal work West Papua Exposed: An Abandoned Non-Self-Governing or Trust Territory, Johnson and King conclude that:

Either as a Non-Self-Governing Territory or a Trust Territory, the legal rights of the people of West Papua have been denied with every UN Member responsible and legally bound to uphold the Charter in order to correct this breach of international law.

No Papuan was invited or included during the agreement. This act itself speaks volumes – the complete denial of Papuans’ intrinsic worth as human beings to have any input into their fate is the basis for all kinds of violence, abuse, torture and mistreatment towards Papuan people.

This is the first violation and the most egregious because the Indonesian government’s draconian policies towards Papuans have consistently exhibited and reinforced this prejudiced behaviour over the past 60 years. Indonesians do not treat Papuans as equal human beings, therefore, what Papuans think, desire and feel doesn’t matter.

It was the right move for the UN to accept West Papua as a Trust Territory. However, the UN abandoned this sacred trust to Indonesia a year later, even though Indonesia’s behaviour prior to, during, and after this agreement had already been in breach of many UN charters and principles.

For example, Chapters 11 (XI), 12 (XII), and 13 (XIII) of the UN Charter governing decolonisation and Papua’s right to self-determination, as specified in the New York Agreement’s Articles 18 (XVII), 19 (XIX), 20 (XX), 21 (XXI), and 22 (XXII) have not been followed.

Additionally, the UN’s failure to uphold its principles and its silence on its disastrous mistake constitutes a serious breach of international law.

Secret documents
Declassified documents from the United States, Australia, and the United Nations reveal irrefutable evidence of what went wrong behind the scenes prior to, during, and after the Netherlands-Indonesia agreement.

The idea of exploiting the UN Trusteeship system to transfer the sovereignty of West Papua to Indonesia was already proposed in 1959 by the US embassy in Jakarta.

Now-declassified document titled “A proposal for Settlement of the West New Guinea Dispute”, dated on May 26, 1959, stated:

Our position of neutrality has served its purpose. It is time we developed a formula to remove this major irritant to Indonesian relations with the West.

In the US minds, the formula was exploiting the UN’s mechanisms to give West Papua sovereignty to Indonesia.

A year later on 3 March 1961, the US embassy wrote:

Unless New Guinea question can be promptly removed as source of Soviet strength and US weakness, as incipient cause of war and as platform for variety of unhealthful isms within Indonesia, our best efforts in any other direction will fail to achieve our objectives here.

According to King and Johnson, the 1962 New York Agreement story has been a deception for 60 years; the agreement was not drafted after the Indonesian invasion in 1962. The agreement was proposed by an American lawyer in May 1959, modified in 1960, proposed to Indonesia in March 1961, and executed in 1962.

West Papua is not sold or traded under the Agreement. It is an agreement between UN members to share the responsibility for the welfare of West Papuan people (trusteeship), and it asks the UN to be the “administrator” (occupying force) in 1962. When the United Nations backed the agreement, Pakistani troops were appointed to administer West Papua in 1962, followed by Indonesian troops in 1963.

As it turns out, armies of secret dealers in UN uniforms were behind the scenes setting agendas, proposing solutions, and implementing them without consequences.

It appears then that the New York Agreement itself, the terms of reference upon which the UN General Assembly voted on the agreement, the UN’s role from 1962 to 1963, the final Act of Free Choice in 1969, and the UN General Assembly vote on the Act of Free Choice’s outcome were all facades — a treacherous performance fit for a tragic drama.

A carefully orchestrated plan was devised to sacrifice West Papua to Indonesia by manipulating the UN’s system by the United States — the leader of the free democratic world and the tyrant flexing its vast military power.

The fight to reclaim stolen sovereignty lives on
Papua played an important role in reshaping geopolitical arrangements between the West and the communist bloc, and it will continue to do so if this issue remains unresolved.

The future in which West Papua will play a critical role has arrived. The US and its allies will have to face China or any other power or ideological forces that are challenging the liberal world order.

The responses, criticisms, or reactions arising from nations around the world — whether it be on the issues of covid-19, the Ukraine war, Taiwan, Solomon Islands-China security deals, or any other global issue — suggest that the grand narrative of the West as the saviour of mankind pushed by the US is being questioned and rejected.

Another new grand narrative is now emerging, and that is China.

West Papua at a crossroads
What role will West Papua play in the current geopolitical tussle between the West and China is impossible to predict. This is something that must be dealt with by regional and international communities. West Papua’s issues do not dominate the headlines like Ukraine, Solomon Islands, or Taiwan, but they have their own significance in reshaping regional and global geopolitical arrangements.

The world of Papuans 60 years ago was different from now. More than half of a country abused, tortured and mistreated under Indonesia occupation is driving Papuans to become a minority in their own homeland. It has also strengthened their will to live and fight, and most Papuan youth are equipped with knowledge of the crimes against their people and what they can do to bring about justice and facilitate change.

Papuan resistance groups are increasingly becoming anti-Western, believing that the West is exploiting them while supplying arms to the Indonesian military. West Papuan students across Indonesia often wear revolutionary hats or t-shirts displaying socialist and communist revolutionary leaders such as Fidel Castro, Lenin, Che Guevara, and Ho-Chi Mi — they are well-versed in Leftist literatures.

The attitude of the general population in West Papua is also changing. Where previous generations have had a strong connection with the West due to shared experiences of World War II and influence by Western missionaries, young people are now questioning everything about the current state of affairs and asking why they are in this predicament.

Papua’s governor also praised Russia for its generous sponsorship of Papuans to study in the country. The Governor is currently building Russian and Papuan museums to strengthen this relationship and honour Russian anthropologist Nicholai Nicholaievich Mikluho Maklai, who advocated for the rights of New Guinea People 150 years ago.

The West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB)
The armed wing of the Free Papua Movement (OPM), the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB), has also been changing its armed resistance strategy against Indonesian occupation.

They are shooting and killing anyone they consider a traitor or an invader, an attitude never seen before. It is dangerous because of not only their drastic approach, but the retaliation from heavily armed Indonesian security forces, who are aggressively shooting, burning, rampaging, and bombing anyone they consider to be OPM.

The TPNPB and Indonesian security forces have been at war for many years, and Jakarta has responded with heavy handed security measures by sending thousands of soldiers to hunt down the alleged perpetrators.

Recently, this has intensified, resulting in the displacement of thousands of Indigenous Papuans.

West Papua civilians could be subjected to an unprecedented mass atrocity if (or when) this situation escalates. According to a report published by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, structural factors behind conflict in the region are showing signs of events that could trigger mass atrocities against civilians.

As reported by the UCA News, Gadjah Mada University researchers in Yogyakarta reported 348 violent acts in Papua between 2010 and March of this year. There were at least 464 deaths, including 320 civilians, and 1654 injuries, mostly civilians.

There are far more human tragedies unfolding in West Papua each day than what this figure represents. Unfortunately, Jakarta has blocked independent journalists from entering the region, making it difficult to verify these claims.

International voices for human rights investigation
In March 2022, UN experts from the Office of the Human Rights High Commissioner published a report highlighting serious violations and abuses against Papuans.

In addition, Jakarta has not granted a request for a visit by the UN High Commissioner to the region made by the UN Human Rights Council.

Despite the Tuvalu resolution of the Pacific Island Forum in 2019 and another resolution from African Caribbean and Pacific nations requesting Jakarta for a UN visit, the request has not yet yielded results.

On August 3, ABC Radio Australia hosted Benny Wenda, the UK-based exiled West Papua independence leader, to discuss the current situation in his homeland.

According to Wenda, the plight of West Papua to determine its own fate is clouded by the current geopolitical intrigues between the West and China. The status of West Papua is an unresolved international issue that has been swept under the carpet.

Even though the 52nd Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) meeting of heads of state and government held in Suva, Fiji from 11 to 14 July 2022 left West Papua out of the forum’s agenda, Wenda expressed optimism that West Papua would not be forgotten at the next meeting.

Indonesia and West Papua at a crossroads again
Although West Papua has been buried deep within diplomacy for 60 years, it remains the most important issue affecting Jakarta’s relations with China and the US, as well as the way big powers deal with the independent Indigenous nation states across Oceania.

Above all, geopolitical war via chequebook diplomacy, media, or forming military and trade alliances and deals in the Pacific has become a real issue that we all must face.

The peaceful blue Pacific (Oceania), which Australia and New Zealand consider their “backyard” could become a new Middle East.

In response to this fear, the White House invited Pacific leaders to dinner later this year with Joe Biden.

At the outset, West Papua issues might seem insignificant, irrelevant, or forgotten to the world, but in reality, it is one of the most significant issues influencing how Jakarta’s engage with the world and how the world engages with Jakarta.

Once again, Jakarta is caught in the middle between great powers, and they do not have the same leverage to play the same games as their ancestors did so many years ago. Jakarta elites need to recognise that they stole something so precious that belonged to Papuan people, and this must be returned to the rightful owner.

The only appropriate and adequate justice left for Papuans is to be given back their sovereignty. This is the only way for Papua to heal and have decades of violence against them reconciled.

Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

• Other Yamin Kogoya articles

Senior government and military leaders from the United States, New Zealand, Australia and Japan are in Honiara to mark the 80th anniversary of the World War II Battle of Guadalcanal.

Minister of Defence Peeni Henare is leading the New Zealand delegation along with Secretary of Defence Andrew Bridgman and the Commander of the Joint Forces Rear Admiral James Gilmour.

The New Zealand High Commissioner to Solomon Islands, Jonathan Schwass, said New Zealanders from the army, air force and navy “served with distinction in the Solomon Islands between 1942 and 1945”.

• READ MORE: Solomon Islanders in World War II: An indigenous perspective
• LISTEN: RNZ Pacific Waves audio flashback from the 75th anniversary

“As WWII starts to slip beyond living memory, it is important that we continue to honour people of all nationalities who served and who died here,” he said.

Schwass said the remembrance ceremonies being organised this weekend showed that they were not forgotten.

A series of commemoration events start today.

Schwass said they were a reminder that the ties between New Zealand and Solomon Islands went back far into the past.

Solomon Scouts and CoastWatchers Trust chair Sir Bruce Saunders said filming the stories of those who served the US Marine Forces when they landed on Guadalcanal on 7 August 1942 was under way.

He said Solomon Islands students did not know their own history and he hoped to change that.

More than 25,000 soldiers died in the battle including dozens of Solomon Islanders.

Sir Bruce said the stories of their grandfathers and their role in saving their country needed to be passed down.

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

Climate change remains the single greatest existential threat facing the Blue Pacific, as leaders concluded the biggest diplomatic regional meeting in Suva last week with a plea for the world to take urgent action to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

While renewed commitments by Australia to reduce its carbon footprint by 43 percent come 2030 and a legislated net zero emission by 2050 were welcomed initiatives, Pacific leaders reiterated calls for rapid, deep and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, adding the region was facing a climate emergency that threatened the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of its people and ecosystems, backed by the latest science and the daily lived realities in Pacific communities.

PIF chairman and Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama said the need was for “more ambitious climate commitments” — actions that would require the world to align its efforts to achieving the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree temperature threshold.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Islands Forum reports
• Wansolwara News reports

“We simply cannot settle for anything less than the survival of every Pacific Island country –– and that requires that all high emitting economies implement science-based plans to decisively reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-degree temperature threshold,” he told journalists at the PIF Secretariat.

“That requires that we halve global emissions by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. Most urgently, it requires that we end our fossil fuel addiction, including coal,” he said.

“That is our ask of Australia. That is our ask of New Zealand, the USA, India, the European Union, China and every other high-emitting country.

“It is also what Fiji asks of ourselves, though our emissions are negligible.”

Crisis felt in Fiji, Pacific
Bainimarama said the world faced a global energy crisis that was felt in the Pacific and Fiji.

While he understood the political realities that existed, planetary realities must take precedence.

“It will take courage and surely extract some political capital. But if Pacific Island countries can respond to and rebuild after some of the worst storms to ever make landfall in history, advanced economies can surely make the transition to renewables.

“The benefits will be remarkable. Our region has the potential to become a clean energy superpower if we summon the will to make it happen. That path is no doubt the surest way to an open, resilient, independent, and prosperous Blue Pacific.”

Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General Henry Puna told Wansolwara ahead of PIF51 that issues such as climate change, oceans, economic development, technology and connectivity as well as people-centered development were key priorities on the talanoa agenda for leaders from PIF’s 18-member countries, including Australia and New Zealand.

These priorities and the way forward to achieving it are incorporated in the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, a collective ambitious long-term plan to address global and regional geopolitical and development challenges in light of existing and emerging vulnerabilities and constraints.

Cook Islands is expected to host the next PIF Leaders and related meetings in 2023, the Kingdom of Tonga in 2024 and Solomon Islands in 2025.

Geraldine Panapasa is editor-in-chief of the University of the South Pacific journalism programme newspaper and website Wansolwara. The USP team is a partner of Asia Pacific Report.

When it comes to the world’s two biggest emitters, we are caught between a secretive autocracy and an oversharing corrupted democracy.

Most media attention is focused on the latter. The United States this week raised hopes of a compromise climate spending bill and quashed it again before you could say “Joe Manchin is a bad-faith actor”.

Having somebody to blame does not make it any easier to address a system rigged in favour of fossil fuel interests.

• READ MORE: As Xi Jinping seeks more power, the world’s window into China’s climate action narrows
• Other climate crisis reports

At Climate Home, we bypassed that news cycle (come back to us when you’ve achieved something, America!) and took a longer look at the former.

Because the fact that so little climate journalism comes out of China at a certain point becomes newsworthy in itself. And once Chloé Farand started asking around, we knew this story’s time had come.

It has never been easy for journalists and civil society to operate in Xi Jinping’s China. As he looks to secure a third term as president over the coming months, it is harder than ever.

Beijing’s zero-covid policy is, most sources said, no longer just about public health, but a tool of control at a politically sensitive time. Conferences are cancelled indefinitely and travel restricted. Officials up and down the hierarchy are afraid to speak to the media.

Out of six China-based climate reporters who spoke to Climate Home for the article, four had left or were preparing to leave the country.

This is a problem. Not just for the international community, which has an interest in holding China to account for its emissions performance, but for China. In the vacuum, misinformation and Sinophobia flourish.

From the slivers of news that do emerge, we can see that Chinese experts have much to teach the rest of the world. Ok, so they might want to keep their advantage in mass producing solar panels, but when it comes to smart deployment policy, they have every incentive to share tips.

Perhaps they could give US climate campaigners, who are in despair right now, some fresh ideas.

• Other Climate Home News reports

United States Vice-President Kamala Harris has assured Pacific Islands Forum Leaders meeting in the Fiji capital Suva that Washington will “significantly deepen” its engagement in the region.

Harris joined the regional leaders today to announce half a dozen new commitments to signal America’s renewed commitment to the region.

The commitments included the establishment of embassies in Kiribati and Tonga, tripling the funding for economic development and ocean resilience, and the appointment of the first-ever US envoy to the Pacific Islands Forum.

• READ MORE: Climate crisis top Pacific agenda item and it’s a security issue, says Ardern
• $10m climate funding to support Pacific seed crops
• More Pacific Islands Forum summit leaders pull out as crisis grows
• Pacific Islands Forum ‘on course’ as China issue casts shadow
• Kiribati exit from Pacific forum ‘out of order’, says founding president
• Other Pacific Islands Forum reports

She said the US recognised that it had not provided the “diplomatic attention and support” to Pacific nations in recent years.

But she said that would now change.

“We will significantly deepen our engagement in the Pacific Islands. We will embark on a new chapter in our partnership, a chapter with increased American presence, where we commit to work with you in the short and long term to take on the most pressing issues that you face,” she said.

“The United States is a proud Pacific nation and has an enduring commitment to the Pacific islands which is why President Joe Biden and I seek to strengthen our partnership with you.

‘Support that you deserve’
“We recognise that in recent years the Pacific Islands may not have received the diplomatic attention and support that you deserve. So, today, I am here to tell you directly, we are going to change that.

“In this region and around the world, the United States believes it is important to strengthen the international rules based order. To defend it, to promote it and to build on it.

“These international rules and norms have brought peace and stability to the Pacific for more than 75 years.

“Principles that importantly state that the sovereignty and terriotorial integrity of all states must be respected. Principles that allow all states big and small to conduct their affairs free from aggression or coercion.

“At a time when we see bad actors trying to undermine the rules-based order we must stand united. We must remind ourselves that upholding a system of laws, institutions, and common understandings … well, this is how we ensure stability and indeed prosperity around the world.

“We will continue to work with all of you and all of our partners and allies to craft new rules and norms for future frontiers grounded in our shared values of openness, transparency and fairness.

“All of us convened we recognise there is so much we can do together. We have a strong foundation and we will build on this and embark in a new chapter – all in the spirit of partnership, friendship and respect.”

Tripled funding
Harris also said the US planned to triple funding for economic development and ocean resilience for Pacific islands.

She said a request would go to the US Congress for US$600 million.

“Sixty million dollars per year for the next 10 years. These funds will help strengthen climate resilience, invest in marine planning and conservation and combat illegal unreported and unregulated fishing and enhance maritime security.”

The forum Secretary-General Henry Puna welcomed the commitment from the United States, saying it was a good sign of friendship.

“That was very refreshing and also very reassuring that the Americans are fully committed to re-engaging with the Pacific in a meaningful and substantive way.”

Fiji’s Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has commended the United States for its renewed intentions.

US policies welcomed
Bainimarama said he and fellow leaders welcomed policies such as appointing a designated US envoy to the forum.

“I think it’s clear to see that the US is certainly looking more like the Pacific partner that we have traditionally held it to be. We look forward to deeper engagement to support our development and build our capacity at the regional and national level,” he said.

Last year, President Joe Biden was the first US president to address the forum Leaders, which was followed up by a visit to Fiji by Secretary of State Antony Blinken to launch the America’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

Harris said Washington planned to build on this foundation in the months and years ahead.

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

If you’re as confused as most people by the exact circumstances surrounding the continuing presence in Fiji of the Russian super yacht Amadea, join the club. Here’s our modest attempt to cut through the fog.

Twelve days ago — on April 14 — the CJ Patel Fiji Sun newspaper trumpeted an exclusive with Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qilihio, reporting that the Amadea had been seized. It had not. In fact, it still hasn’t been formally seized.

What happened last week is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) obtained a restraining order from the High Court to prevent the Amadea from leaving Fiji. Until that order was granted, there was every possibility in the intervening period of the vessel leaving.

• READ MORE: Other Amadea reports on Asia Pacific Report

In fact, lawyers for the owners were arguing that there was no legal justification to detain the Amadea any longer after they had reportedly paid an amount in fines for customs infringements.

It was only when the High Court granted the restraining order that leaving was no longer a legal option.

Indeed, all along there has been a suspicion that the vessel might try to make a run for it. It has a significant armoury and the security forces would have already factored in their ability to prevent a determined attempt to leave.

This application was lodged by the Office of the DPP on a warrant issued by the United States government. The papers are from Washington DC and passed through the Attorney-General’s Office before carriage of the matter was given to the DPP under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

A second case
Now there is a second case that has been brought before the High Court for the Amadea to be seized. Yes, taken from the owners altogether in line with the American-led sanctions that have been imposed on the nautical playthings and other toys of Russian oligarchs and Vladimir Putin’s cronies the world over.

The High Court will hand down its judgment next Tuesday (May 3), which is expected to be in Washington’s favour.

And sometime after that, the Amadea will presumably become the property of the US government and sail off into the sunset under the command of Uncle Sam in the direction of the US.

It has been an astonishing saga. The original, mostly European crew, had orders to sail from the Mexican port of Mazanillo across the entire Pacific to the Russian port of Vladivosok via Lautoka, where the Amadea has been refuelled and resupplied.

Their services have evidently been terminated and an entirely Russian crew has been on standby to take over when it finally gets permission to sail. Alas for them, their journey to Fiji will have been in vain.

Incredibly, there is still doubt about the vessel’s true ownership. The whole world has been told that it belongs to the Russian oligarch, Suleiman Kerimov, but there is still evidently no conclusive proof — the vessel’s ownership evidently buried in a labyrinth of multiple shelf companies in places like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.

For the purposes of the High Court case in Suva, the owner is officially stated as being Millemarin Investment Limited. Is it Suleiman Kerimov?

No evidence about Kerimov
Millemarin Investment’s local lawyer, Feizal Hannif, told the court there was no evidence that it is. He said the vessel’s beneficial owner was in fact one Eduard Khudaynatov. But counsel for the DPP, Jayneeta Prasad, argued that the ownership of the vessel was not an issue. It was subject to a US warrant and the ownership issue was for the American courts to decide.

So fortunately unravelling all of this is not Fiji’s problem. But what was Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho doing 12 days ago telling the Fiji Sun that the Amadea had been seized when we won’t know that for certain until next Tuesday, nearly three weeks after the Sun “scoop”?

And is there going to be any attempt to set the official record straight?

Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. Republished with permission.

As a child, Efika Kora remembers watching planes glide over her remote village in the Pacific.

Transfixed, she imagined that one day she would be the one flying them.

Now, just two semesters away from completing a diploma of aviation at an Adelaide school, the 24-year-old has been told by Indonesian authorities she must return to her home country.

• READ MORE: Open letter to NZ immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and other reports
• Abandoned West Papuan students in NZ welcome immigration news
• Other Papuan scholarship reports

It came as a complete shock to Kora, who is among a group of more than 140 Indigenous West Papuan students in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States who had their Papuan government scholarships terminated without warning.

It means they would have to return home part way through their degrees or diplomas, a situation that has been described as highly unusual.

“To be honest, I cried,” Kora said.

“In a way, [it’s] like your right to education has been stripped away from you.”

16 students ordered home
In Australia, 16 students have been told to return home.

A letter to the Indonesian embassy in Canberra, dated February 8, from the Papuan provincial government said the students were to be repatriated because they had not finished their studies on time.

The letter said they had to return to West Papua by February 15, but it wasn’t until a month later — on March 8 — that the students were first told about the letter in a meeting with the Indonesian embassy.

“I was very, very shocked. And my mind just went blank,” Kora said.

The Indonesian Embassy and the Papuan provincial government have not responded to the ABC’s questions, including about the delay in relaying the message.

Students told ‘you have to take turns’
When the students asked for more details, they were told by the Indonesian Embassy that the five-year duration of their scholarships had now lapsed.

The ABC has seen text messages from an embassy official to one of the students, saying the decision was final.

“There will be no extension of the scholarship because there are still many Papuan students who also need scholarships. So you have to take turns,” one message read.

Kora said she wasn’t aware of a five-year limit to her scholarship.

“We never had like a written letter [saying] our scholarship will be going for five years,” she said.

She said she was told, verbally, she had been awarded the scholarship in 2015, and began her aviation diploma in 2018 after completing language studies.

A number of students have told the ABC they were also not given a formal offer letter or contract stipulating the conditions and duration of their scholarship.

Some students signed contract
Some students said they signed a contract in 2019 — well after their scholarships had commenced — which outlined durations for certain degrees, but Kora said she didn’t sign this document.

Business student Jaliron Kogoya said he also didn’t sign any such agreements.

A sponsorship letter from the Papuan government, issued in 2020, guarantees funding for his degree at the University of South Australia until July this year.

He has also been cut off.

“They just tell us to go home and then there is no hope for us,” Kogoya said.

The University of South Australia said it had been working closely with the students and the Papuan government since they began studying at the university two years ago.

“We are continuing to provide a range of supports to the students at this challenging time,” a spokeswoman said.

About 84 students in the United States and Canada, plus 41 in New Zealand, have also been told by the Papuan government that their scholarships had ended and they must return home.

Programme plagued with administrative issues
While the Papuan government scholarship aims to boost education for Indigenous students, the programme has been plagued with administrative problems.

Several students told the ABC their living allowances, worth $1500 per month, and tuition fees, were sometimes paid late, meaning they could not enrol in university courses and struggled to pay rent.

Kora said late payments held back her academic progression.

Her aviation degree takes approximately four semesters to complete, but Kora said there were certain aspects of her training that she could not do because of unpaid fees.

The ABC has seen invoices from her aviation school, Hartwig Air, that were due in 2018 but were not paid until two years later.

Fees for her current semester, worth $24,500, were paid more than three months late, in October last year.

Kora said there were moments when she felt like giving up.

‘What’s the point?’
“What’s the point of even studying if these things are delaying my studies?” she said.

Kora believes she may have been able to graduate sooner if her fees had been paid on time.

Hartwig Air would not comment on her situation.

But an academic report issued by the school in February this year said Kora was “progressing well with her flying” and getting good results on most of her exams.

Kora said it did not make sense to send her home now because her fees for the current semester had already been paid.

“It’s a waste of investment,” she said.

“If we’re not bringing any qualifications back home, it’s a shame not just for us, but also for the government in a way.”

Students turn to food banks, churches
In the United States, Daniel Game has faced similar struggles.

He was awarded a Papuan government scholarship in 2017.

Game said he was told the scholarship would last five years but did not receive a formal offer letter or contract at the time.

After completing a general science degree, he was accepted into Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Oregon, to begin studying aeronautical science in 2019.

It is a prestigious institution and he was proud to get in.

But, when it came time to enrol, he couldn’t because the government did not issue a sponsorship letter to guarantee his funding.

Game sent multiple emails and made calls to the government’s human resources department requesting the document.

The letter never came
He said he was told the letter would be issued, but that never happened.

During this time, Game continued to receive a living allowance from the Papuan government and was told his scholarship was still valid.

In 2020, Game paid for his own flight back to West Papua in the middle of the pandemic to try to resolve the issue in person.

When he visited the department office, his sponsorship letter was issued immediately.

The ordeal set Game’s studies back more than 18 months.

His sponsorship letter, seen by the ABC, guarantees his funding until July 2023 but now he’s also been told to return home.

“Most of us, we spend our time and energy and work really hard … it’s not fair,” Game said.

Staying in the US
With just a few months until he’s due to graduate, Game has decided to stay in the US.

His family are funding his university tuition, but without a living allowance, Game said he was struggling to make ends meet.

“It’s really hard, especially being in the US,” he said.

“For food, I usually go out searching local churches and food pantries where I’ll be able to get free stuff.”

‘It doesn’t make sense’

Back in Australia, students are also in financial strife.

Kora has started picking fruit and vegetables on local farms to make ends meet since her living allowance was cut off in November last year.

Tried to find part-time jobs
“We tried to find part-time jobs here and there to just cover us for our rent,” she said.

She and other students are hoping to stay in Australia and finish their degrees.

From a low-income family, Kora cannot rely on her parents, so she is calling on Australian universities and the federal government for support.

“I just want to make my family proud back home to know that actually, someone like me, can be something,” she said.

The Australian West Papua Association of South Australia has launched a fundraising campaign to pay some students’ university fees and rent.

Kylie Agnew, a psychologist and association member, said she was concerned for their wellbeing.

“Not being able to finish your studies, returning to a place with very low job prospects … there’s a lot of stress that the students are under,” she said.

Perplexing decision
Jim Elmslie is co-convenor of the West Papua Project at the University of Wollongong, which advocates for peace and justice in West Papua.

He said the decision to send students home so close to finishing their degrees was perplexing.

“After having expended probably in excess of $100,000, or maybe considerably more, in paying multiple years’ university fees and living allowances … it doesn’t make sense,” Dr Elmslie said.

In a text message to one student in Australia, an Indonesian Embassy official said the students could seek alternative funding for their studies, but they were “no longer the responsibility” of the Papuan provincial government.

The text message also said the students would receive help to transfer to relevant degrees at universities in Indonesia when they returned home.

But Dr Elmslie said the alternatives were not ideal.

“If you start a degree course in Australia, to me, it’s much better … to finish that degree course,” he said.

“And then you have a substantial academic qualification.”

President of the Council of International Students Australia Oscar Ong said the situation was highly unusual.

He said that, while some international students weren’t able to graduate within the duration of their scholarship, for so many to be recalled at once was unprecedented.

Legislative change and redistribution of funding
The Papuan provincial government did not respond to the ABC’s detailed questions about the scholarship program.

Local media reports suggest the issue may be linked to a redistribution of funding.

The scholarship programme was set up by the Papuan provincial government, with money from the Indonesian central government under a Special Autonomy Law.

Passed in 2001, the bill granted special autonomy to the West Papua region, following a violent and decades-long fight for independence.

The old law expired in November and new legislation was passed, with an overall boost in finance to the region but with certain funds, including support for education, going towards districts and cities instead of provincial governments.

That revised law has sparked protests in West Papua, with critics claiming it is an extension of colonial rule that denies Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination.

An Interior Ministry official from the Indonesian government is quoted in local media as saying there needed to be a joint conversation between the Papuan provincial government and the region’s districts and cities about the future of scholarship funding.

The ABC has been unable to independently verify whether the students’ scholarship terminations are linked to this legislative change.

Additional reporting for Pacific Beat by Hellena Souisa and Erwin Renaldi. Republished with permission.

The discovery of many civilian bodies lying dead in the Ukrainian city of Bucha this week has brought out more Western rhetoric of horror, disgust, anger and fury at the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has renewed calls for more sanctions against Russia, more weapons to the Ukrainians and calls for Putin to be put on trial as a war criminal.

That’s a strong response to war and those responsible for starting a military invasion of a sovereign state.

Let’s shift the focus to Iraq in 2003 for a moment.

• READ MORE: Bucha killings: ‘The world cannot be tricked anymore’

On the marches to protest against the US-UK-Australian-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 one of the chants used was “Never forget Fallujah!”.

So, for those that were too young to know, or now too old to remember, here are a few well-referenced paragraphs from Wikipedia about what happened when the US invaders attacked that city as part of an invasion of another sovereign state, Iraq.

The United States bombardment of Fallujah began in April 2003, one month after the beginning of the invasion of Iraq. In April 2003, United States forces fired on a group of demonstrators who were protesting against the US presence. US forces alleged they were fired at first, but Human Rights Watch, who visited the site of the protests, concluded that physical evidence did not corroborate US allegations and confirmed the residents’ accusations that the US forces fired indiscriminately at the crowd with no provocation.

Seventeen people were killed and 70 were wounded.

Further killings
In a later incident, US soldiers fired on protesters again; Fallujah’s mayor, Taha Bedaiwi al-Alwani, said that two people were killed and 14 wounded. Iraqi insurgents were able to claim the city a year later, before they were ousted by a siege and two assaults by US forces.

These events caused widespread destruction and a humanitarian crisis in the city and surrounding areas. As of 2004, the city was largely ruined, with 60 percent of buildings damaged or destroyed, and the population at 30–50 percent of pre-war levels.

At least one US battalion had orders to shoot any male of military age on the streets after dark, armed or not. In violation of the Geneva Convention, the city’s main hospital was closed by Marines, negating its use, and a US sniper was placed on top of the hospital’s water tower.

On November 13, 2004, a US Marine with 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, was videotaped killing a wounded combatant in a mosque. The incident, which came under investigation, created controversy throughout the world.

The man was shot at close range after he and several other wounded insurgents had previously been left behind overnight in the mosque by the US Marines. The Marine shooting the man had been mildly injured by insurgents in the same mosque the day before.

On November 16, 2004, a Red Cross official told Inter Press Service that “at least 800 civilians” had been killed in Fallujah and indicated that “they had received several reports from refugees that the military had dropped cluster bombs in Fallujah, and used a phosphorus weapon that caused severe burns.”

On 17 May 2011, AFP reported that 21 bodies, in black bodybags marked with letters and numbers in Roman script, had been recovered from a mass grave in al-Maadhidi cemetery in the centre of the city.

Blindfolded, legs tied
Fallujah police chief Brigadier General Mahmud al-Essawi said that they had been blindfolded, their legs had been tied and they had suffered gunshot wounds. The Mayor, Adnan Husseini said that the manner of their killing, as well as the body bags, indicated that US forces had been responsible.

Both al-Essawi and Husseini agreed that the dead had been killed in 2004. The US Military declined to comment.

There were no sanctions against the US, UK and Australia, there were no US soldiers, military leaders or politicians held to account. There were no arms sent to help the Iraqis facing overwhelming odds in their fight against the US and its allies.

There were no moves to charge George Bush (US President), Tony Blair (UK Prime Minister) or John Howard (Australian Prime Minister) for war crimes before the International Criminal Court.

Yes Vladimir Putin should be on trial at the International Criminal Court, but before he appears we should have seen George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard face the same charges first.

We should never forget Bucha — but we must never forget Fallujah either. The people of both cities deserve justice at the ICC. Let’s do all we can to hold them to account.

Incidentally, US President Joe Biden was pushing hard for the invasion of Iraq back in 2003. His hypocrisy now in condemning Putin is the stuff of legends.

Republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

New Zealand’s condemnation of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections reflects a “hardening stance” towards China, says a leading defence analyst.

Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta last week joined her Five Eyes counterparts to express “grave concern” over the erosion of democratic elements of the new electoral system.

“Actions that undermine Hong Kong’s rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy are threatening our shared wish to see Hong Kong succeed,” the joint statement reads.

• READ MORE: G7 condemns ‘erosion’ of democracy in Hong Kong election

Pro-Beijing candidates swept the seats under the new “patriots-only” rules that saw a record-low voting turnout of 30.2 percent; almost half of the previous legislative poll in 2016.

New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States are now urging the People’s Republic of China to respect protected rights and fundamental freedoms of Hong Kong.

Director of 36th Parallel Assessments Dr Paul Buchanan said this reflected New Zealand’s cooling relationship with China as it increasingly aligned itself with its traditional partners.

“It’s very clear something has shifted in the logic of the security community and foreign policy community in Wellington. I tend to believe it is Chinese behaviour rather than pressure from our allies, but it may be a combination of both,” he said.

Increasing Chinese pressure
New Zealand’s relationship with China has come under increasing pressure this year after it raised concerns about Chinese state-funded hacking and the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Mahuta has previously said New Zealand would be “uncomfortable” with the remit of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance being expanded to include diplomatic matters.

Dr Buchanan said it was not clear if last week’s joint statement on the Hong Kong elections was consistent with this stated independent foreign policy, or a sign New Zealand had abandoned this to better align itself with its traditional partners.

“That’s an open question to me, because I can see that the government can maintain independence and say, ‘simply on the issue of Hong Kong and China we side with our traditional partners, but on any range of other issues, we don’t necessarily fall in line with them’,” he said.

“On the other hand, maybe the government has made a decision that the threat from the Chinese is of such a magnitude it’s time to pick a side, get off straddling the fence and choose the side of our traditional partners because the Chinese values are inimical to the New Zealand way of life.”

Dr Buchanan said a “hardening stance” towards China was in line with the contents of a new defence report that recently identified ‘China’s rise’ and its power struggle with the United States as one of the pre-eminent security risks in the Indo-Pacific.

“This may be more reflective of the security officials’ concerns about China and that may not be shared by the entirety of the current government.

General consensus
“Although, the fact that the foreign minister signed off on this latest Five Eyes statement regarding Hong Kong would indicate that there is a general consensus within the New Zealand foreign policy and security establishment that China is a threat.”

In response to the joint Five Eyes statement on Hong Kong, the Chinese Embassy issued a statement telling the members to stop interfering with Hong Kong and China’s affairs.

Of particular concern, Dr Buchanan said, was China’s explicit assertion in this response it was led by China’s Constitution and the Basic Law, not the Sino-British Joint Declaration, in its administration of Hong Kong.

“The Chinese now have said that the joint declaration signed in 1997, no longer applies and all that applies in Hong Kong is Chinese law.

“So they’ve violated their commitment to that principle and that’s symptomatic of an increasingly-hardened approach to everything, quite frankly, of a policy matter under Xi Jinping.”

Dr Buchanan said New Zealand, whose biggest trading partner is China, was positioned as the most vulnerable of the Five Eyes partners to any potential economic retaliation from China.

“It would be pretty easy to see that if the Chinese are going to retaliate against anybody in the Anglophone world, it would more than likely be us because it’ll cost them very little, people have to change their dietary habits among the Chinese middle class, but it will have a dramatic effect on us because a third of our GDP is tied up with bilateral trade with China.

“But the government has clearly signalled that it’s seeking to diversify. It has now signalled that on the diplomatic and security front, it sees the Chinese increasingly as a malign actor, and so whatever is coming on the horizon, this government at least appears prepared to weather the storm.”

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

An editorial in the Chinese English-language mouthpiece Global Times has accused Australia — and the United States — of “conniv[ing] with and even encourag[ing] the unrest” in the Solomon Islands after three days of rioting last week destroyed much of Chinatown in the capital Honiara.

“Even though [100] Australian troops and police were sent to keep order in the Solomon Islands,” said the tabloid newspaper at the weekend.

“What is right and what is not is obvious. Hence, aren’t [Prime Minister Scott] Morrison’s remarks of ‘not indicat[ing] any position’ actually a support for the evil doings?“

• READ MORE: Protests rock Solomon Islands: Here’s what’s behind the unrest
• Solomon Islands riots push nation into slippery slide of self-implosion
• Other Solomon Islands crisis reports

The editorial was headlined “Australia has fomented riots in Solomon Island”.

The Global Times is published under the umbrella of the Chinese Communist Party’s official flagship publication People’s Daily and is viewed by critics as often publishing disinformation.

“Defending against China’s influence into the South Pacific has been an outstanding geopolitical consideration of the US and Australia, which has been welcomed and longed [for] by the Taiwan authorities, because four of the remaining 15 countries that keep ‘diplomatic ties’ with Taiwan are in the South Pacific — and the future to consolidate such ties is uncertain.”

The editorial said:

Rioters ‘stormed Parliament’
“The capital city of the Solomon Islands has been under riots for days. The rioters have stormed the Parliament, set fire to a police station, and attacked Chinatown and other businesses there.

“Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare on Friday blamed foreign interference for instigating the anti-government protests over his government’s decision to cut ‘diplomatic ties’ with the island of Taiwan and establish diplomatic ties with the Chinese mainland. Though, he didn’t specify who is among the ‘other powers’ that fomented the violence.

“Sogavare emphasised that the choice to establish diplomatic ties with Beijing conforms to the trend of the times and international laws.

“The Solomon Islands is a country with nearly 690,000 people in the South Pacific region. After Sogavare assumed office in 2019, his administration made a choice to set up diplomatic ties with Beijing. However, the island of Malaita [in] the country, where most of the rioters are reportedly from, has maintained its relations with the island of Taiwan.

“The New York Times said the Solomon Islands has been in a ‘heightened political tug of war’, citing a former Australian diplomat stationed in the Solomon Islands saying that the US has been providing Malaita with direct foreign aid. Such analysis is representative of the US and Australia.

“Defending against China’s influence into the South Pacific has been an outstanding geopolitical consideration of the US and Australia, which has been welcomed and longed by the Taiwan authorities, because four of the remaining 15 countries that keep ‘diplomatic ties’ with Taiwan are in the South Pacific — and the future to consolidate such ties is uncertain.

“The South Pacific countries and the Chinese mainland have a strong capacity to cooperate under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative. Over the years, many small nations have, on their own, chosen to have closer ties with Beijing.

‘Dollar diplomacy, coercion’
“The measures taken to prevent these small countries from establishing diplomatic ties with China have included ‘dollar diplomacy’, coercion, and inciting unrest within these countries to topple local governments.

“Australia has been offered a hand to maintain security in the Solomon Islands. Recently, Canberra has again deployed more than 100 police and defense force personnel to the country. Against this backdrop, it is not hard to imagine how easy it will be for an external force to wreak havoc there.

“Australia, the US, or the Taiwan authorities haven’t admitted to being behind the ‘foreign interference’ condemned by Sogavare. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted that Australia’s ‘presence there does not indicate any position on the internal issues of the Solomon Islands’. Canberra even alleged the move was in response to a request from Sogavare.

“Nonetheless, the Associated Press cited observers as saying that ‘Australia intervened quickly to avoid Chinese security forces moving in to restore order’. More importantly, neither Canberra nor Washington has condemned the riots in the Solomon Islands so far, despite the fact that the unrest has violated the basic spirit of democracy and the rule of law.

“Media coverage of the riots in the US and Australia was ‘matter-of-fact’ and highlighted the rioters’ political opposition to diplomatic relations with China.

“It is clear that Australia’s overall attitude, and that of the US, is to connive with and even encourage the unrest, even though the Australian troops and police were sent to keep order in the Solomon Islands. What is right and what is not is obvious. Hence, aren’t Morrison’s remarks of ‘not indicate any position’ actually a support for the evil doings?

“The government of the Solomon Islands and their people know what is really going on there. It is also not hard for the outside world to know. Prime Minister Sogavare noted there were other powers fomenting the riots, shouldn’t the international community believe the words of this legitimate leader of the Solomon Islands?”

And the PNG Honiara community out on the streets today for a cleanup session Pictures by Rodney Arofasei pic.twitter.com/HnRS3Pji6o

— Georgina Kekea (@ginakekea) November 28, 2021

When I arrived at my office at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji on the morning of 12 September 2001 (9/11, NY Time), I was oblivious to reality.

I had dragged myself home to bed a few hours earlier at 2am as usual, after another long day working on our students’ Wansolwara Online website providing coverage of the Fiji general election.

One day after being sworn in as the country’s fifth real (elected) prime minister, it seemed that Laisenia Qarase was playing another dirty trick on Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour Party, which had earned the constitutional right to be included in the multi-party government supposed to lead the country back to democracy.

• READ MORE: 9/11 killed it, but 20 years on global justice movement is poised for revival
• ‘Fortress USA’: How 9/11 produced a military industrial juggernaut
• Jason Brown: 9/11 and a mango dawn – and here’s to the end of being Pacific pawns
• Other 9/11 reports

Stepping into my office, I encountered a colleague. He looked wild-eyed and said: “It’s the end of the world.”

Naively, I replied, thinking of the 1987 military coups,  “Yes, how can legality and constitutionality be cast aside so blatantly yet again?”

“No, not Fiji politics,” he said. “That’s nothing. I mean New York. Terrorists have destroyed the financial heart of the Western world.”

It was a chilling moment, comparable to how I had felt as a 17-year-old forestry science trainee in a logging camp at Kaingaroa Forest the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated — 22 November 1963.

Wansolwara newsroom
Over the next few hours, it seemed that half the Laucala campus descended on our Wansolwara newsroom to watch the latest BBC, TVNZ one and Fiji TV One coverage of the shocking and devastating tragedy.

While a handful of student journalists struggled to provide coverage of local angles — such as the tightening of security around the US Embassy in Suva and shock among the Laucala intelligentsia — most students remained glued to the TV, stunned into immobility by the suicide jetliner terrorists.

Inevitably, global jingoism and xenophobia followed, the assaults on Sikhs merely because they an “Arab look”, the attacks on mosques — in Fiji copies of the Koran were burned — and the abuse directed towards Afghan refugees were par for the course.

Freedom of speech in the United States also quickly became a casualty of this new “war on terrorism”. Columnists were fired for their critical views, television host Bill Maher was denounced by the White House, Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau dropped his “featherweight Bush” cartoons and so-called “unpatriotic” songs were dropped from radio playlists. Wrote Maureen Dowd of The New York Times:

Even as the White House preaches tolerance toward Muslims and Sikhs, it is practising intolerance, signalling that anyone who challenges the leaders of embattled America is cynical, political and – isn’t this the subtext? – unpatriotic.

But while much of the West lined up as political parrots alongside the United States, ready to exact a terrible vengeance, contrasting perspectives were apparent in many developing nations.

In the Pacific, for example, while people empathised with the survivors of the terrible toll — 2977 people were killed (including the 125 at the Pentagon), 19 hijackers committed murder-suicide, and more than 6000 people injured — there was often a more critical view of the consequences of American foreign policy and a sense of dread about the future.

Twin Towers reflections
Less than a week after the Twin Towers tragedy, I asked my final-year students to compile some notes recalling the circumstances of when they heard the news of the four aircraft slamming into the World Trade Centre Twin Towers and the Pentagon (one plane was taken over by the passengers and it dived into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania) and their responses.

One, a mature age student from Fiji who had worked for several years as a radio journalist, said:

I was in bed and woke up about 2.30am. I have a habit of having the BBC running on radio and, half-asleep, I caught the news being broadcast. I pulled myself out of bed and tuned into BBC on Sky TV. The second plane had just hit the second tower, and I ended staying up the rest of the night to watch the unfolding events.

On his impressions, he warned about scapegoats and the media:

The relevance to us here in the Pacific is that terrorists can strike anywhere to get revenge. This conflict could evolve into war, and wars affect everyone. Americans already think Osama bin Laden is the terrorist. Where is the evidence? Americans are looking to get someone quickly, and the media is leading the way.

Another student wrote:

Good, they [US] paid dearly for trying to intervene in Muslim countries … Bin Laden is portrayed as the culprit even though it is not clear who did it. The media is portraying the whole Muslim world as responsible, but actually this is not the case.

A practical joke?
Recalled one:

I was sleeping and my mother woke me up at 6.30am to tell me the news. I was shocked and, still sleepy, I thought my mother was doing one of her practical jokes to get me out of bed … If there is World War Three, it will have a big impact on the Pacific.

America still has some form of control over various Pacific Island countries, and once again it will recruit Pacific Islanders. Pacific Islands are relatively weak and still trying to be developed. Another hiccup could send our economies to the dogs.

Yet another:

I was at home having breakfast, listening to the news on Bula 100FM. My first reaction was disbelief, horror … Ethically, there is a need to remember the people involved and the amount of bloodshed and death. It would be necessary to censor material that would be emotionally upsetting.

One student was

really surprised to see TVNZ instead of the usual Chinese CCTV. The sound was mute so I couldn’t really get what was being said. I was about to turn it off when they showed the South Tower of the World Trade Centre collapse. I thought it was a short piece from the movie Independence Day.

Sad, it may seem, but the first thing I thought about as a journalist was that reporters will have a field day … Phrases such as “historical day the world over” and “America under siege” popped up in my head as possible headlines.

I got out my notebook and began writing down the number of people estimated to have died, the extent of the damage, an excerpts from President Bush’s speech. Practically anything that involves the US also affects many people throughout the world.

Inevitably, some commentators began drawing parallels between the terrorism in New York in mid-September 2001 at one end of the continuum of hate and rogue businessman and George Speight’s brief terrorist rule in Fiji during mid-2000 at the other end.

Terrorism as a political tool
Politics associate professor Scott MacWilliam, for example, highlighted how terrorism becomes a political tool deployed by a nation state to support its foreign and domestic policy objectives. He pointed out that many of the fundamentalist groups which now carried out terrorism were “nurtured, trained, financed and incorporated” into the Western security apparatus.

One might ask what had this terrible urban graveyard created by fanaticism got to do with the South Pacific. In a sense, there is a disturbing relationship.

Politics in the region, especially at that time, was increasingly being determined by terrorism, particularly in Melanesia, and much of it by the state. And with this situation comes a greater demand on the region’s media and journalists, for more training and professionalism.

At the time of  the 9/11 tragedy, Dr David Robie was head of journalism at the University of the South Pacific. This article has been extracted from a keynote speech that he made at the inaugural conference of the Pacific Islands Media Association (PIMA), “Navigating the Future”, at Auckland University of Technology on 5-6 October 2001. The full address was published by Pacific Journalism Review, No. 8.

While the covid-19 pandemic’s relentless cyclone continues across the globe wreaking havoc on economies and social systems, this book sheds light on the adversarial reporting culture of the media, and how it impacts on racism and politicisation driving the coverage.

It explores the global response to the covid-19 pandemic, and the role of national and international media, and governments, in the initial coverage of the developing crisis.

With specific chapters written mostly by scholars living in these countries, Covid-19, Racism and Politicization: Media in the Midst of a Pandemic examines how the media in Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, New Zealand, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and the United States have responded to the pandemic, and highlights issues specific to these countries, such as racism, Sinophobia, media bias, stigmatisation of victims and conspiracy theories.

This book explores how the covid-19 coverage developed over the year 2020, with special focus given to the first six months of the year when the reporting trends were established.

The introductory chapter points out that the media deserve scrutiny for their role in the day-to-day coverage that often focused on adversarial issues and not on solutions to help address the biggest global health crisis the world has seen for more than a century.

In chapter 2, co-editor Dr Kalinga Seneviratne, former head of research at the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre (AMIC) takes a comprehensive look at how the blame game developed in the international media with a heavy dose of Sinophobia, and how between March and June 2020 a global propaganda war developed.

He documents how conspiracy theories from both the US and China developed after the virus started spreading in the US and points out some interesting episodes that happened in the US in 2019 that may have vital relevance for the investigation of the origins of the virus.

Attacks on WHO
The attacks on the World Health Organisation (WHO), particularly by the former Trump administration, are well documented with a timeline of how WHO worked on investigating the virus in its early stages with information provided from China.

The chapter also discusses the racism that underpinned the propaganda war, especially from the West, which led to the Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s controversial call for an “independent” inquiry into the origins of the pandemic that riled China.

“The covid-19 pandemic has exposed the inadequacies and inequalities of the globalised world. In an information-saturated society, it has also laid bare many political economy issues especially credibility of news, dangers of misinformation, problems of politicisation, lack of media literacy, and misdirected government policy priorities,” argues co-editor Sundeep Muppidi, professor of communications at the University of Hartford in the US.

“This book explores the implications of some of these issues, and the government response, in different societies around the world in the initial periods of the pandemic.”

In chapter 3, Muppidi examines specifically the US media coverage of covid-19 and he explores the “othering” of the blame related to failures and non-performances from politicians, governments and media networks themselves.

Yun Xiao and Radika Mittal, writing about a study they have done on the coverage in The New York Times during the early months of the covid-19 pandemic, argue that unsubstantiated criticism of governance measures, lack of nuance and absence of alternative narratives is indicative of a media ideology that strengthens and embeds the process of “othering”.

Ankuran Dutta and Anupa Goswani from Gauhati University in Assam, India, analyse the coverage of the covid-19 crisis in five Indian newspapers using 10 key words. They argue that the Indian media coverage could be seen as what constitutes “Sinophobia” with some mainstream media even calling it the “Wuhan Virus”.

Historical background
They trace the historical background to India’s anti-China nationalism, and show how it has been reflected in the covid-19 coverage, especially after India became one of the world’s hotspots.

“This Sinophobia hasn’t much impacted on the government policy; rather it has tightened its nationalist sentiments promoting Indian vaccines over the Chinese.” They say the Indian media’s Sinophobia has abated after the delta variant hit India.

“The narrative concerning covid-19 has taken a sharp turn bringing out the loopholes of the government’s inability to sustain its vigilance against the virus,” he notes, adding, ‘considering the global phobia concerning the delta variant put India in a tight spot and India has to defend itself from its newfound identity of being the primary source of this seemingly untameable variant.”

Zhang Xiaoying from the Beijing Foreign Studies University and Martin Albrow from the University of Wales explain what they call the “Moral Foundation of the Cooperative Spirit” in chapter 4.

Drawing on Chinese philosophical traditions—Confucianism, Daoism and Mohism—they argue that the “cooperative spirit” enshrined in these philosophies is reflected in the Chinese media’s coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in its early stages. Taking examples from the Chinese media—Xinhua, China Daily, Global Times and CGTN—they emphasise that the Chinese media has promoted international cooperation rather than indulge in blame games or politicising the issue.

This chapter provides a good insight into Chinese thinking when it comes to journalism.

Chapters on Sri Lanka and New Zealand examine how positive coverage in the local media of the governments’ initially successful handling of the covid-19 pandemic has contributed to emphatic election victories for the ruling parties.

Hit on NZ media industry
David Robie, founding director of Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre, explains in his chapter how New Zealand’s magazine sector was devastated by the pandemic lockdowns and economic downturn, although enterprising buy-outs and start-ups contributed to a recovery.

He points out that a year later, in April 2021, Media Minister Kris Faafoi, himself a former journalist, announced a NZ$50 million plan to help the media industry deal with its huge drop in income, because, as he says, Facebook and Google were instrumental in drawing advertising revenue away from local media players.

The chapter from Bangladesh offers a depressing picture of the social issues that came up as the virus spread, such as the stigmatisation and rejection of returning migrant worker who have for years provided for families back home, and how old people were abandoned by their families when they were suspected of having contacted the virus.

The chapter gives a clear illustration of how the adversarial reporting culture of the media impacts negatively on the community and its social fabrics.

But, the chapter’s author, Shameem Reza, communications lecturer at Dhaka University, says that when the second outbreak started in March 2021, he observed a shift in the media coverage of covid-19 pandemic.

Now, the stories are more about harassment and discrimination, such as migrant workers facing hurdles to access vaccine; uncertainty over confirming air tickets and flights for their return; and facing risk of losing jobs and becoming unemployed. Thus, now the media coverage particularly includes ordinary peoples’ suffering.

Reza believes that the initial stigmatisation of victims, had influenced social media coverage of harassment, and “changed agendas in the public sphere”.

Lack of skills, knowledge
The authors argue in the chapter on the Philippines that the covid-19 coverage exposed the “lack of skills and knowledge in reporting on health issues”. Said a senior newspaper editor, “in the past, whenever there were training opportunities on science or health reporting, we’d send the young reporters to give them the chance to go out of the newsroom. Now we know we should have sent editors and senior reporters.”

In the concluding chapter, Seneviratne and Muppidi discuss various social and economic issues that should be the focus of the coverage as the world recovers from the covid-19 pandemic that reflects the inequalities around the world. These include not only vaccine rollouts, but also the vulnerability of migrant labour and their rights, the plight of casual labour in the so-called “gig economy”, priority for investments on health services, the power of Big Tech and many others.

This book is an attempt to raise the voices of the “Global South” in discussing the media’s role in the coverage of the covid-19 crisis, explain Seneviratne and Muppidi, pointing out that there cannot be a return to the “normal” when that is full of inequalities that have been exposed by the pandemic.

“There are many issues that the media should be mindful of in reporting the inevitable recovery from the covid-19 pandemic in 2021 and beyond.”

Krishan Dutta is a freelance journalist writing for IDN – News (In-Depth News). An earlier version of this review was first published by IDN-News under the title “New book explores how adversarial reporting culture drives politicised covid-19 coverage and this version is republished from Pacific Journalism Review.

• Covid-19, Racism and Politicization: Media in the Midst of a Pandemic, edited by Kalinga Seneviratne and Sundeep R. Muppidi. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2021. 230 pages. ISBN: 9781527570894

For many New Zealanders, He Puapua came shrouded in controversy from the moment it became public knowledge earlier this year.

Released only when opposition parties learned of its existence, the report on “realising” the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was labelled a “separatist” plan by National Party leader Judith Collins.

“Quite clearly there is a plan,” Collins said, “it is being implemented, and we are going to call it out.”

• READ MORE: New authority could transform Māori health, but only if it’s a leader, not a partner
• The Crown is Māori too – citizenship, sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi
• The road to reconciliation starts with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Included, but still marginalised: Indigenous voices still missing in media stories on Indigenous affairs

But He Puapua is not a plan and it’s not government policy. It’s a collection of ideas drafted by people who are not members of the government. To understand its real significance we need to examine how and why it was commissioned in the first place.

‘It meant nothing’: Collins denies UN indigenous rights pact signed by National in 2010 led to He Puapua https://t.co/AZefDQPCJx

— Newshub Politics (@NewshubPolitics) July 5, 2021

Self-determination for all
He Puapua’s origins can be traced back to 2007 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, confirming the human rights affirmed in all previous international declarations, covenants and agreements belonged to Indigenous peoples as much as anybody else.

It confirmed the right to self-determination belongs to everybody. Thus, in Aotearoa New Zealand, Pakeha have the right to self-determination, and so do Māori.

At the time, 143 UN member states voted for the declaration, including the major European colonial powers of Britain, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

‘Helen Clark got it right’: Seymour calls for Parliament to discard Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples https://t.co/Q9WopK9RNa

— Newshub Politics (@NewshubPolitics) July 4, 2021

There were 11 abstentions, but four states voted against — Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. They were especially concerned about the scope of Article 28(2) which deals with compensation for confiscated or other dishonestly acquired land:

Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

New Zealand was worried this article would justify returning much more Māori land than was already occurring under te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) settlements.

Future aspirations
However, the phrase “other appropriate redress” is open to less restrictive interpretation. In 2010, the National-led government decided the declaration did not threaten freehold private property rights. Then Prime Minister John Key argued:

While the declaration is non-binding, it both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations. My objective is to build better relationships between Māori and the Crown, and I believe that supporting the declaration is a small but significant step in that direction.

Australia, Canada and the United States also changed their positions. In 2019, New Zealand’s Labour-led government established a working group to advise on developing a plan for achieving the aims of the UN declaration. These aims are not just concerned with land rights, but also with things like health, education, economic growth, broadcasting, criminal justice and political participation.

Not government policy
He Puapua, the group’s report, was provided to the government in 2019. However, the government didn’t accept a recommendation that the report be promptly released for public discussion.

According to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, this was due to the risk it could be “misconstrued” as government policy.

Nevertheless, it has now been released and the government appears to have accepted the recommendation that Māori should be actively involved in drafting a plan.

Collins also objected to the report’s description of this involvement as “co-design”. What she can’t say, however, is that including people in policy making is separatist. Inclusion is an essential democratic practice.

He Puapua also uses co-design to describe Māori involvement in the delivery of social services and the protection of the natural environment. This involvement isn’t new, but He Puapua says it should be strengthened.

And while there may be arguments against this kind of inclusivity (for example, co-design is a weaker authority than the rangatiratanga affirmed in te Tiriti), calling it separatist is an error of fact.

Securing rangatiratanga
Rangatiratanga describes an independent political authority and is consistent with international human rights norms. It has gradually influenced public administration in New Zealand under successive governments over more than 40 years.

He Puapua says there are human rights arguments for strengthening and securing rangatiratanga.

In fact, the UN declaration may help clarify how independent authority might work in practice, especially in the context of the Crown’s right to govern — which the declaration also affirms.

It’s time for the B.C. NDP to get serious about UNDRIP, Indigenous leaders say https://t.co/2qT98Qu9Ye

— CBC Indigenous (@CBCIndigenous) October 27, 2020

Separatism versus sameness
He Puapua’s potentially most controversial idea involves creating “a senate or upper house in Parliament that could scrutinise legislation for compliance with te Tiriti and/or the Declaration”.

There are reasons to think this won’t get far. The government has already rejected it, and the idea was raised in just one paragraph of a 106-page report. But its inclusive intent shows why “separatism versus sameness” is the wrong way to frame the debate.

What it means to ensure all, and not just some, people may exercise the right to self-determination requires deeper thought. In that sense, He Puapua might usefully be read in conjunction with British Columbia’s draft action plan on the UN declaration.

Released only last month for public consultation, the plan coincided with the Canadian federal parliament passing legislation committing to implement the declaration. The British Columbian plan addressed four themes:

• self-determination and inherent right of self-government
• title and rights of Indigenous peoples
• ending Indigenous-specific racism and discrimination
• social, cultural and economic well-being.

He Puapua in practice
Some of the plan’s specific measures are not relevant to New Zealand and some may be contested. But its important general principles draw out some of the basic attributes of liberal inclusivity.

Those include ensuring people can live according to their own values, manage their own resources, participate in public life free of racism and discrimination, and define for themselves what it means to enjoy social, cultural and economic well-being.

British Columbia’s far-reaching proposals can inform New Zealand’s debate about what He Puapua’s proposals might mean in practice.

As I try to show in my book ‘We Are All Here to Stay’: citizenship, sovereignty and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there are ways state authority can be arranged to reject the colonial assumption that some people are less worthy of the right to self-determination than others.

This requires radical inclusivity.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

An American columnist and high tech expert has apologised to the people of New Zealand over the “scary” experience of authoritarian presidential rule over the past four years and appealed for a “second chance”.

Dick Brass, a former vice-president of Microsoft and Oracle for almost two decades and an ex-New York Daily News editor, says it will take a while to restore trust in the American system after Donald Trump who has been defeated by Joe Biden in a closely fought election. Trump is due to leave office in January.

“I think the absolute low point for me came the night after the election. In a tweet that will live in infamy, our President [Trump] ‘claimed’ for himself states that had barely begun to count their votes,” Brass wrote in his New Zealand Herald column today.

• READ MORE: Al Jazeera live updates – Biden plans for office as Trump refuses to concede
• Ardern seeks Biden leadership on climate change, global issues

“This was pretty shocking, because even populist demagogues like Putin and Erdogan pretend to wait for the results.”

Brass quoted from Trump’s tweet:

“’We have claimed, for Electoral Vote purposes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania … the State of Georgia, and the State of North Carolina. … Additionally, we hereby claim the State of Michigan.’ Hereby claim? I hereby claim this land for Spain!”

Brass summed up his response to Trump.

‘Just dumb bluff?’ – it was
“Was he for real? Had militias been mobilised? Or was it just a dumb bluff from a beaten man? Well yes, turns out it was.

“As the numbers inexorably turned against Trump, even Rupert Murdoch began to distance himself. First Fox called Arizona for Biden, undermining Trump’s hope to seriously play his phoney rigged election ‘claim’.

We have claimed, for Electoral Vote purposes, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (which won’t allow legal observers) the State of Georgia, and the State of North Carolina, each one of which has a BIG Trump lead. Additionally, we hereby claim the State of Michigan if, in fact,…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 4, 2020

“Yesterday, all of Murdoch’s various organs agreed that with Pennsylvania, Biden had won.”

Brass said it must have been a hard four years for New Zealanders as well as Americans.

“We elected a cruel and rude man who called for a Muslim ban [in the US] and talked about
“America First” as though we no longer cared about anyone else. To prove it, he renounced decades of commitments.

“We pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord just as climate disaster loomed. We pulled out of the World Health Organisation as covid raged.

“We started trade wars. We acted like we couldn’t be trusted.

Hiding ‘covid bungling’
In August, Brass wrote, Trump had tried to “hide his covid bungling … by pretending New Zealand was having a ‘big surge’ of new cases. You had nine that day. We had 42,000. On Saturday we had 132,000. You had two.”

Brass also referred to past differences such as New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance.

“Like in 1985, when we refused to honour your sovereign right to a nuclear-free country and insisted on our right to park a nuclear-armed destroyer in one of your ports.”

In a amusing footnote, he wrote that the destroyer was sunk as target practice in 2000.

“Authoritarianism is often much easier to see from abroad,” wrote Brass.

“At home, it looks like a mixture of patriotism and new-found national purpose. The ravings of a mad king seem entertaining, powerful or just different.”

Last week, Brass had penned a Herald column predicting that Trump would not survive the covid “Army of the Dead”.

Brass lamented the “236,000 covid dead here, rising to perhaps 400,000, depending on what Trump now finally does post-election”, but concluded:

“He has been defeated and America has been given a second chance. That’s not nothing.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says it is important for New Zealand to have tight connections with the US on big global issues – including trade, covid and climate change – and she will be pursuing a strong relationship with President-elect Joe Biden.

Joe Biden has become President-elect after a teeth-gritting election.

The result was called yesterday after Biden overtook President Donald Trump in the state of Pennsylvania, winning the state gave Biden 290 Electoral College seats – 20 more than the margin he needed for victory.

• READ MORE: President-elect Biden launches transition – to appoint coronavirus working group
• Biden faces climate policy frustration
• Other Asia Pacific Reports on the US elections

President-elect Biden visited New Zealand in 2016 in his role as Vice-President.

Jacinda Ardern told RNZ Morning Report there was no question personal connections made a difference to a relationship.

“But I’ll be wanting to make sure that on behalf of New Zealand that we are maintaining good strong relationships, particularly in our [Pacific] region which has been quite contested over a number of years, and working together on issues that matter to the whole global community; trade, covid, climate change.”

The strength of the relationship is important regardless of whether bilateral discussion take place over the phone or in person, she said.

“I will be pursuing a strong relationship there because it matters to us, it’s important for us to have the ability on big issues to really have those tight connections when we need them…”

Ardern said the leadership of the World Trade Organisation was important to New Zealand but there had been dispute over certain appointments which had held things up for New Zealand exporters.

“We need to have those strong relationships and engagements there,” she said.

“Trade issues will certainly be high on our agenda.”

New Zealand will be encouraging the US to take leadership on the international commitment to climate change, she said.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

The first-ever covid-positive case in quarantine at Kwajalein and the arrival of the first group of 27 Marshall Islanders being repatriated last week has triggered a series of responses, actions and concerns.

Confirmation last week of one active covid “border” case at the Kwajalein missile range put residents and political leaders in the Marshall Islands on edge.

A second American tested positive, but follow up antibody testing showed it was a “historical/recovered” case as the person had covid in July, and was no longer contagious.

• READ MORE: Covid at Kwajalein army base sparks Majuro worry, protocol changes – by Giff Johnson

Both Americans who tested positive, a 35-year-old female and a 46-year-old male, are in managed quarantine at the Army base.

Ten months into the covid-19 pandemic, the active case ends the Marshall Islands tenure as one of a handful of nations with no covid cases.

In addition, two Marshallese in the first group of 27 being repatriated initially tested positive their day of arrival last Saturday. But follow up antibody tests clarified that these were also “historical/recovered” cases, which Ministry of Health officials said were no longer contagious.

Among recent developments:

• In line with the one active case of covid that was diagnosed through testing of a male American USAG-KA worker in quarantine, the RMI National Disaster Committee changed the condition level of RMI from yellow to blue, signifying a border case had been identified. Authorities said this case was contained and there was no spread.

• Nitijela members at Friday’s Committee of the Whole, Majuro Mayor Ladie Jack and Ebon Mayor Marie Milne all called on the Army to send the two Americans back to the US. The RMI government sent a letter to the US late last week with the same request. The US reportedly rejected the request.

• The regular USAG-KA Tuesday repatriation flight this week was postponed, the first week since June 9 that the Army will not be bringing in a group of workers for quarantine. It was delayed at the request of RMI to make the protocols stricter for USAG-KA so they are in line with the RMI government protocols, particularly for quarantine in Hawai’i.

• Mayor Jack called on the National Disaster Committee to halt flights between Majuro and Kwajalein, and take other precautions to prevent possible spread of covid to Majuro.

• Mayor Jack also threatened to file suit in the High Court through a process known as a “writ of mandamus” — which requests the court to issue an order directing a government office to do its job — to halt travel between the two atolls.

• The full NDC met with the Majuro Mayor and Council Tuesday night. Chief Secretary Kino Kabua said the meeting helped to fill in a lack of information about the situation at Kwajalein, and resulted in a delay to the Mayor’s plan to file suit. Kabua said the meeting led to improved understanding of the situation with the Mayor and Council.

• To meet the Majuro elected leaders’ concern part way, the Chief Secretary agreed to put a temporary hold on flights bring passengers to Majuro from Kwajalein through Friday, when a follow up “town hall” meeting is scheduled at Majuro City Hall to meet with traditional leaders and landowners on the Kwajalein situation. AMI can still operate flights to Kwajalein, but cannot bring passengers into Majuro.

• The Chief Secretary’s office issued numerous public statements since late last week to update the public on the situation with the arrival of last week’s USAG-KA group and the first Marshallese group last Saturday. Among the points emphasised was about “historical/recovered” cases:

“A historical/recovered Covid case is not infectious. It just means they have already had the disease and are no longer a threat to the community. We determine this by giving an antibody test which shows whether or not a person has had the virus in their past. Many people contract Covid and don’t know they have had it. This will be a common occurrence as long as repatriation efforts continue.”

• On Wednesday, Mayor Jack raised concerns about Colonel Bartel flying into Majuro this past Monday for several afternoon meetings and for a planned follow up visit this Friday. He said these visits should be subject to protocols, particularly in line with the government’s directive to AMI to temporarily halt bringing passengers to Majuro from Kwajalein.

The Pacific Media Centre republishes Marshall Islands Journal articles with permission.

The other day I wrote a post on my blog which invited people to: “Take care of others by taking care of yourself.”

It was attacked by so many trolls, haters and conspiracy theorists that when I returned to my page later that evening I estimated it would take me about an hour to go through the 170+ comments to separate the thoughful ones from the mean-spirited.

Because I refuse to allow people to hijack my page and spread misinformation I decided the quickest way was to delete the whole post and republish it.

• READ MORE: Al Jazeera coronavirus live updates –  Facebook removes Trump post saying covid-19 is ‘like flu’, Twitter hides similar post
• White House grinds to a halt as Trump’s press chief joins covid-infected list

So my apologies to the 500+ people who registered that you “liked ” this post and wrote thoughful comments.

TAKE TWO:

When I first wrote in support of the approach New Zealand’s public health officials and our government were taking towards dealing with the covid -19 pandemic, there were a number of people who commented that I was perpetrating a hoax, promoting fear, or even that I was somehow promoting a totalitarian state and other such conspiracy nonsense.

The news last week that President Trump, who has consistently downplayed the seriousness of the pandemic, is now infected with covid-19 ( along with his First Lady) – and he has left hospital while still suffering – should be a reminder to us all to reject stupidity and remain vigilant in our fight against this virus.

No one is immune.

If we want to keep our friends and whanau safe and give our economy the best chance to recover, then it is important to follow the advice of our public health officials.

Keep up regular hand washing and sanitising, maintain social distancing whenever possible, wear a mask in public places, recording visits to assist rapid contact tracing, border controls and compulsory self-isolation.

Because, in the absence of a vaccine, these are still our best strategies to deal with this pandemic.

Take care of others by taking care of yourself.

Bryan Bruce is an independent filmmaker and journalist. The Pacific Media Centre is publishing a series of occasional commentaries by him during the NZ election campaign.

• Trump, still battling covid-19, leaves hospital for White House
• US president leaves hospital for White House
• Michelle Obama brands Trump a ‘racist’
  

By RNZ News

US President Donald Trump has again called New Zealand’s coronavirus cluster a “big outbreak” after two days ago describing it as “a big surge”.

At a White House media conference today he said: “New Zealand, by the way, had a big outbreak – and other countries that were held up to try and make us look not as good as we should look because we’ve done an incredible job.

“They’re having a lot of outbreaks but they’ve been able to put them out and we’ll put them out.”

READ MORE: Al Jazeera coronavirus live updates – US death toll tops 170,000 people

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Tuesday she couldn’t see any real comparison with America’s tens of thousands of daily cases.

New Zealand reported five new cases today, while the US had close to 40,000 yesterday.

“Obviously, every country is experiencing its own fight with Covid-19, it is a tricky virus but not one where I would compare New Zealand’s current status to the United States,” she said.

The US President’s comments fail to reflect that overall New Zealand has counted 1643 covid-19 cases and 22 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic. The US has documented more than 5.4 million covid-19 cases – more than entire population of New Zealand – and more than 171,000 deaths, according to data from Johns Hopkins University.

The mortality rate in New Zealand amounts to 0.45 deaths per 100,000 people, while in the US the rate reaches 52 deaths per 100,000 people.

Is your cap fitted? No: pic.twitter.com/MmRN5PMOaH

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 19, 2020

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

• All RNZ coverage of covid-19
• If you have symptoms of the coronavirus, call the NZ Covid-19 Healthline on 0800 358 5453 (+64 9 358 5453 for international SIMs) or call your GP – don’t show up at a medical centre.

The governor of Papua New Guinea’s Manus Province has hinted that he could obstruct Australia’s bid to build a naval port on Manus Island.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced on November 1 that his country would fund the development of a deepwater base at the old Lombrum Naval Base used during the Second World War.

The move is seen as a counter to China’s aspirations to develop the site.

READ MORE: Scott Waide: How China is several moves ahead in Port Moresby

Manus Governor Charlie Benjamin told Reuters news agency that he had not been consulted on the development and that it would have to benefit the local residents.

“I have my people living on the island and we are the ones affected,” Benjamin said.

“The government might have the right but if we decide to put our foot down, there will be problems.”

The Manus governor has previously been critical of central government’s lack of consultation over the Australian-run refugee detention centres based on the island.

Military outpost
Manus is PNG’s northernmost and smallest province with 50,000 people and an Australian-funded navy base there could provide a military outpost for Canberra in the Pacific.

Prime Minister Morrison has said Australian vessels would be regular visitors.

RNZ Pacific’s Johnny Blades reports from APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) that the United States will join Australia in expanding the Lombrum Naval Base on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island.

US vice-president Mike Pence made the announcement at the APEC leader’s summit in Port Moresby yesterday.

Pence, who is representing his country at APEC in the absence of President Donald Trump, used his speech to assert US partnership with Pacific Islands and other allies in the wider region.

Without elaborating on details, he confirmed the US would partner with PNG and Australia on a joint naval base on Manus, reported Blades.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Papua New Guinea’s freedoms of speech, expression and access to information were challenged yesterday when Chinese officials barred both local and non-Chinese media from attending meetings at three Asia-Pacific Economy Cooperation (APEC) venues.

It began in Parliament when Chinese President Xi Jinping was giving an address after being welcomed by a guard of honour. 

EMTV journalist Theckla Gunga, who was assigned to cover the Chinese President’s visit, reported that just after 11am, Chinese officials accompanying their president ordered the microphones to be removed from the speaker where they had been placed to record the speeches.

READ MORE Chinese President Xi’s early PNG arrival upstages APEC rivals

“Chinese officials who are organising the official opening of the Chinese-funded six lane road have refused to give audio feeds to media personnel,” she said in a WhatsApp message.

“Microphones belonging to both local and international media have been removed,” said Gunga.

The officials, however, allowed Chinese state-owned broadcaster CCTV to record President’s Xi speech.

Gunga and other journalists spent about 10 minutes arguing with the Chinese officials but were still refused.

‘No media, no media’
One hour later, EMTV Online reporter Merylyn Diau-Katam faced another group of Chinese officials at the gate of a Chinese government-funded school.

“Before the President arrived a bus full of Chinese media personnel were driven into the gate on a bus,” she said.

“And when we wanted to go in, we were told our names were not on the list even though we had APEC accreditation passes,” Diau-Katam.

“No media. No media, a Chinese official said,” she said.

Diau-Katam was not the only one refused entry. In the group was a photographer from Japanese public broadcaster, NHK and other media. A PNG government official also spent several minutes arguing with the Chinese security to let him in.

At 5pm yesterday, Chinese officials again booted out local and international media from a meeting between the Chinese President and Pacific Island country leaders.

EMTV anchor and senior journalist, Meriba Tulo, was among others told to “get out” of the meeting while Chinese media were allowed into the room.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) was also told to leave. They spoke to Post-Courier’s senior journalist, Gorethy Kenneth. She said Chinese officials from Beijing were initially angry with the presence of international media.

“I said: ‘We are here to cover the meeting, our names have been submitted.’ And they said: ‘No, all of you get out,'” Kenneth said.

Scott Waide’s blog columns are frequently published by Asia Pacific Report with permission. He is also EMTV deputy news editor based in Lae.

• PNG journalists boycott APEC leaders’ arrival
• ‘All of you get out” – China boots out media
• Other APEC stories

The demonstration came at the end of a three-day visit to Indonesia this week that was part of Mattis’s Southeast Asian tour.

His next stop is Vietnam, where authorities will have trouble following this act, writes Adam K. Raymond.

After several days of meetings, Mattis was apparently ready for the show yesterday.

“The snakes! Did you see them tire them out and then grab them? The way they were whipping them around — a snake gets tired very quickly,” the man known as “Mad Dog” told reporters.

‘Mission Impossible’
The press traveling with the retired US Marine Corps general was only expecting a hostage rescue drill, Reuters reports, but the Indonesians delivered much more:

Wearing a hood to blind him, one knife-wielding Indonesian soldier slashed away at a cucumber sticking out of his colleague’s mouth, coming just inches from striking his nose with the long blade. …

At the end of the demonstration, to the tune of the movie “Mission Impossible,” the Indonesian forces carried out a hostage rescue operation, deploying stealthily from helicopters – with police dogs. The dogs intercepted the gunman.

“Even the dogs coming out of those helicopters knew what to do,” Mattis said after the show.

A Washington Post video clip of the Indonesian special forces event.

Pacific Media Centre News Desk

The Pacific Islands Forum remains committed to the Paris Agreement on climate change and has commended all countries reaffirming their support.

The Forum announced this in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s notice of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

“Being some of the most vulnerable states globally and at the forefront of the adverse impacts of climate change, island countries are now more determined and committed to taking serious action to address climate change and remain steadfast on our obligations under the Paris Agreement,” says Forum Chair Peter Christian, who is also President of the Federated States of Micronesia.

Pacific Islands countries collectively contribute a mere 0.003 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions although the region is at the frontline of a deteriorating environment and the “devastating manifestations” of climate change over the past three years, a Forum statement said.

President Christian reaffirmed that the Paris Agreement offered the best global platform of unity among nations to address the causes of climate change and the way forward.

“The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement is not surprising as President Trump had made known his intentions to jettison United States’ environment for the sake of his economy,” President Christian said.

“We who are most vulnerable must become more committed to the principal that the Paris Agreement is still our best avenue to finding solutions to slow down and eventually stop the damage to climate and environment.

“Global leadership on climate change is at a critical juncture.

“The Pacific Islands Forum will continue to support Forum Member Fiji’s COP 23 Presidency and will continue working with others who are committed to the Paris Agreement to address the greatest emergency for our planet to date.”

• Trump’s pullout from Paris climate pact ‘threatens lives’ of Pacific people

Iran has condemned a United States strike on a Syrian air base and Indonesia expressed concern while Britain, Australia and New Zealand have given their support, with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull describing it as a “proportionate and calibrated response” to the use of chemical weapons.

US President Donald Trump ordered missile strikes on Thursday against a Syrian airfield from which a deadly chemical weapons attack was launched, declaring he acted in America’s “vital national security interest”.

In a sharp escalation of the US military role in Syria, two US warships fired dozens of cruise missiles from the eastern Mediterranean Sea at the air base controlled by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in response to the poison gas attack in a rebel-held area on Tuesday, US officials said.

Iran denounced the strike, the Students News Agency ISNA quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying.

“Iran strongly condemns any such unilateral strikes… Such measures will strengthen terrorists in Syria … and will complicate the situation in Syria and the region,” ISNA quoted Bahram Qasemi as saying.

Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, said it was “very concerned” about the missile strikes.

Chemical weapons rejected
“Actions undertaken without prior consent of the United Nations Security Council are not in line with international laws, in particular the peaceful settlement of disputes in line with UN charter,” said a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Armanatha Nasir, during a weekly press briefing.

The spokesperson added that Indonesia condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

“Indonesia is a party to the convention on chemical weapons. Of course, Indonesia rejects the use of chemical weapons by anybody for whatever purpose,” said Armanatha.

In Wellingon, reports Dr Vernon Small of Fairfax Media, New Zealand Prime Minister Bill English backed the US military action with “understanding”, providing it was “proportionate”.

Ministers in New Zealand were given about two hours notice of the United States’ missile attack on the Syrian air base at al-Shayrat on Thursday, taken in response to a nerve gas attack on civilians.

English said the “horrific attacks” using chemical weapons were against all international law.

The United Nations Association of Canada called a halt to the bombing and offered a raft of protest actions.

Tomahawk attack
The Trump administration launched 60 Cruise Tomahawk missiles from its offshore Mediterranean warships in the attack on Syria’s al-Shayrat military airfield near Homs, Syria’s third largest city.

The US strikes obliterated substantial portions of Syria’s military capacity there.

Trump’s action came a day after Democrat Hillary Clinton urged the US bombing of Syria.

Neither Trump nor any other US government agency presented a shed of proof that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used sarin nerve gas in its bombing of ISIS, Al Qaida or any other “rebel” groups in Syria’s Idlib province, said the UNAC statement.

President Assad denied using sarin gas while “Russia’s Defense Ministry”, according to the The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingsdom, has stated that the chemicals were released when a Syrian aircraft bombed a “rebel” arm storage facility.

• ‘Stop the bombing’ protest action
• ‘The dead were wherever you looked’

By Walden Bello in Manila

Fascism, someone wrote, comes in different forms to different societies so that people expecting fascism to develop in the “classic way” fail to recognise it even when it is already upon them. In 2016, fascism came to the Philippines in the form of Rodrigo Duterte, but this event continues to elude a large part of the citizenry, some owing to fierce loyalty to the president, some out of fear of what the political and ethical consequences would be of admitting that naked force is now the ruling principle in Philippine politics.

Why Duterte fits the ‘F’ word
At a panel I was part of in last August, one month after Duterte ascended to the presidency, there was considerable hesitation in using what panelists euphemistically called the “F” word to characterise the new Executive. There is an understandable reluctance to use the term fascist, undoubtedly because the word has been applied very loosely to all kinds of movements and leaders that depart, in some fashion, from liberal democratic practices, such as their propensity to resort to the use of force to achieve their political objectives.

However, there would probably be considerably less objection to the use of the word to describe Duterte if we see as central to the definition of a fascist leader a) a charismatic individual with strong inclinations toward authoritarian rule who b) derives his or her strength from a heated multiclass mass base, c) is engaged in or supports the systematic and massive violation of basic human, civil, and political rights, and d) proposes a political project that contradicts the fundamental values and aims of liberal democracy or social democracy.

If one were to accept these elements provisionally as the key characteristics of a fascist leader, then Duterte would easily fit the bill.

A fascist original
Having said that, one must nevertheless acknowledge that Duterte is a fascist personality that is an original.

His charisma is not the demiurgic sort like Hitler’s, nor does it derive so much from an emotional personal identification with the people and nation as in the case with some populists. Duterte’s charisma would probably be best described as “carino brutal,” a volatile mix of will to power, a commanding personality, and gangster charm that fulfills his followers’ deep-seated yearning for a father figure who will finally end the national chaos.

Duterte is not a reactionary seeking to restore a mythical past. He is not a conservative dedicated to defending the status quo. His project is oriented towards an authoritarian future.

He is best described, using Arno Mayer’s term, as a counterrevolutionary. Unlike some of his predecessors, like Hitler and Mussolini, however, he is not waging a counterrevolution against the left or socialism.

In Duterte’s case, the target, one can infer from his discourse and his actions, is liberal democracy, the dominant ideology and political system of our time. In this sense, he is both a local expression as well as a pioneer of an ongoing global phenomenon: the rebellion against liberal democratic values and liberal democratic discourse that Francis Fukuyama had declared as the “end of history” in the early 1990s.

Counterrevolutionaries are not always clear about what their next moves are, but they often have an instinctive sense of what would bring them closer to power. Ideological purity is not high on their agenda, with them putting the premium on the emotional power of their message rather on its ideological coherence. The low priority accorded to ideological coherence is also extended to political alliances.

Duterte’s mobilisation of a multiclass base and his ruling with the support of virtually all of the elite is unexceptional. However, one of the things that makes him a fascist original is that he has brought the dominant section of the left into his ruling coalition, something that would have been unthinkable with most previous fascist leaders.

But perhaps Duterte’s distinctive contribution to fascism as a political phenomenon is in the area of political methodology. The stylised paradigm of fascism coming to power has the fascist leader or party begin with violations of civil rights, followed by the power grab, then indiscriminate repression.

Duterte turns this “Marcosian model” of “creeping fascism” around. He begins with impunity on a massive scale, that is, the extrajudicial killing of thousands of alleged drug users and pushers, and leaves the violations of civil liberties and the grab for absolute power as mopping up operations in a political landscape devoid of significant organized opposition.

A product of EDSA
Duterte’s ascendancy cannot be understood without taking into consideration the debacle of the EDSA liberal democratic republic that was born in the uprising of 1986. In fact, EDSA’s failure was a condition for Duterte’s success.

What destroyed the EDSA project and paved the way for Duterte was the deadly combination of elite monopoly of the electoral system and neoliberal economic policies and the priority placed on foreign debt repayment imposed by Washington. By 2016, there was a yawning gap between the EDSA Republic’s promise of popular empowerment and wealth redistribution and the reality of massive poverty, scandalous inequality, and pervasive corruption.

And the EDSA Republic’s discourse of democracy, human rights, and rule of law had become a suffocating straitjacket for a majority of Filipinos who simply could not relate to it owing to the overpowering reality of their powerlessness.

Duterte’s discourse – a mixture of outright death threats, basag-ulero language, and frenzied railing coupled with disdainful humor directed at the elite, whom he called “coños” – was a potent formula that proved exhilarating to his audience who felt themselves liberated from the stifling hypocrisy of the EDSA discourse.

Fascism in power
Probably no fascist personality since Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 has used the mandate of a plurality at the polls to reshape the political arena more swiftly and decisively than Duterte in 2016. Even before he formally assumed office, the extrajudicial killings began; the elite opposition disintegrated, with some 98 percent of the so-called “Yellow Party,” the Liberals, joining the Duterte Coalition; and Duterte achieved total control of both houses of Congress.

The Supreme Court, shying away from a confrontation, chose not to challenge the President’s decision to have the former dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, buried in the Libingan ng mg Bayani.

A traditional bulwark of defence of human rights, the Catholic Church, exercised self-censorship, afraid that in a confrontation with a popular president who threatened to expose bishops and priests with mistresses and clerical child abusers, it was going to be a sure loser.

A novice in foreign policy, Duterte was able to combine personal resentment with acute political instinct to radically reshape the Philippines’ relationship with the big powers, notably the United States. What surprised many though was that there was very little protest in the Philippines at Duterte’s geopolitical reorientation given the stereotype of Filipinos being “little brown brothers.”

What protest there was came mainly from traditional anti-American quarters which evinced scepticism about the President’s avowed intentions.

Here, Duterte again showed himself to be a masterful instinctive politician. As many have observed, coexisting with admiration for the US and US institutions exhibited by ordinary Filipinos is a strong undercurrent of resentment at the colonial subjugation of the country by the US, the unequal treaties that Washington has foisted on the country, and the overwhelming impact of the “American way of life” on local culture.

One need not delve into the complex psychology of Hegel’s master-servant dialectic to understand that the undercurrent of the US-Philippine relationship has been the “struggle for recognition” of the dominated party.

Duterte has been able to tap into this emotional underside of Filipinos in a way that the left has never been able to with its anti-imperialist programme.

The anti-American comments from Duterte supporters that filled cyberspace were just as fierce as their attacks on critics of his war on drugs. Like many of his authoritarian predecessors elsewhere, Duterte has been able to splice nationalism and authoritarianism in a very effective fashion, though many progressives have seen this as mainly motivated by opportunism.

What surprises are in store for us?
So what other surprises should we expect from this fascist original?

Perhaps the best way to approach the question of what is likely to come is to ask the following: What are the chinks in Duterte’s armour? How would they affect the pursuit of Duterte’s programme? What are the prospects for the opposition?

There are chinks in the Duterte armour, and one of them is the health and age of the President. Duterte has been candid about his medical problems and his dependence on the drug fentanyl, reportedly a strongly addictive substance that is 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine and has the same effects as heroin. The age factor is not unimportant, considering that the President is turning 72. Hitler became chancellor at 44 and Mussolini became prime minister at 39. For the successful pursuit of an ambitious political project, one’s energy level is not unimportant.

More problematic is the issue of institutionalising the movement. The force driving Duterte’s electoral insurgency has not yet been converted into a mass movement. Duterte’s key advisers have recognised this, their analysis being that the reason Joseph Estrada was ousted in 2001 was because he was not able to fall back on an organised mass movement to protect him. Jun Evasco, the secretary of the cabinet and a long-time Duterte aide, is the key person the President is relying on to fill the breach by forming the Kilusang Pagbabago (Movement for Reform) that was launched in August 2016.

Evasco’s vision is apparently a mass organization along the lines of those of the National Democratic Front, where he cut his political teeth. This won’t be easy since, as some analysts have pointed out, he would have to contend with competing projects from Duterte’s political allies, like the Pimentels, the Marcoses, and the Arroyos, who would prefer an old-style political formation that brings together elite personalities. Needless to say, a political formation along the lines of the latter would be the kiss of death for Duterte’s electoral insurgency.

A bigger hurdle would be failure to deliver on political and social reforms. Practically all of the key political and economic elites have declared allegiance to Duterte, so that one finds it difficult to see how he can deliver on his political and economic reform agenda without alienating key supporters.

The Marcoses, who still have their ill-gotten wealth stashed abroad, the Arroyos, who have been implicated in so many shady deals, and so many other elites, many of whom have cases pending before the Ombudsman, are not likely to be disciplined for corruption, especially given their very close links to Duterte.

Nor will the Visayan Bloc, that has come in full force behind Duterte, agree to a law that will extend the very incomplete agrarian reform program. Nor will the big monopolists like Manuel Pangilinan and Ramon Ang, who have pledged fealty to him, submit without resistance to being divested of their corporate holdings.

This is not to say that Duterte is a puppet of the elites. Having a power base of his own that he can easily turn on friend or foe, he is beholden to no one. Indeed, one can argue that most of the elite have joined him mainly for their own protection, like small merchants paying protection money to the mafia.

The issue, rather, is how serious he is about social reform and how willing he is to alienate his supporters among the elite.

The same goes for economic reform. Ending contractualisation (or ENDO, for “End of Contract”), one of the President’s most prominent promises, is currently bogged down in efforts to arrive at a “win-win” solution for management and labor, and all the major labor federations are fast losing hope the administration will deliver on this.

As for macroeconomic policy, any departure from neoliberal principles on the part of orthodox technocrats like Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno and National Economic and Development Authority Director General Ernesto Pernia is far-fetched.

Again, the question lies in how convinced Duterte is that neoliberalism is a dead end and how willing he is to incur the technocratic and bureaucratic displeasure and loss of confidence on the part of foreign investors that would be elicited by adopting a different economic paradigm.

Social and economic reform is Duterte’s Achilles heel, and the President himself is aware that popularity is a commodity that can disappear quickly in the absence of meaningful reforms. Dissatisfaction is fertile ground for the build-up of opposition. This spells danger for the country in the medium term.

Even if he is able to quickly create a mass-based party, Duterte, to stay securely in power, would find that he would need to resort to the repressive apparatuses of the state to quell discontent and opposition. This may not be too difficult a course to follow.

As noted earlier, having led a bloody campaign that has already claimed more than 7000 lives, the suspension of civil liberties and the imposition of permanent emergency rule would be in the nature of “mopping up” operations for Duterte. It would be a walk in the park.

The opposition
Does the opposition matter? The elite opposition is extremely weak at this point, with most of the Liberal Party having joined the Duterte bandwagon out of opportunism or fear. An opposition led by Vice-President Leni Robredo, who resigned from Duterte’s cabinet after being told not to attend meetings, is not likely to be viable.

While undoubtedly possessing integrity, Robredo has shown poor judgment, receptiveness to bad advice, and little demonstrated capacity for national leadership, and is, in the view even of some of her supporters, largely a political creation of Liberal Party operatives who wanted to convert the name of her deceased husband, former Department of the Interior and Local Government head Jesse Robredo, into political capital.

Moreover, her continuing strong ties to the double-faced Liberal Party and the former administration lend her to becoming easily discredited among both Duterte supporters and opponents.

The Left in crisis
This brings up the Left.

Duterte’s coming to power created a crisis for the Left. For one sector of the Left, Akbayan, the social democratic Left that had allied itself uncritically with the Aquino administration, Duterte’s ascendancy meant their marginalisation from power along with the Liberal Party, for which they had, with their leadership’s eyes wide open, become the grassroots organising arm.

For the traditional, or what some called the “extreme left,” Duterte posed a problem of another kind. While the National Democratic Front and Communist Party had not supported Duterte’s candidacy, they accepted Duterte’s offer of three cabinet or Cabinet-level positions, as secretaries of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Department of Social Welfare and Development and chair of the National Anti-Poverty Commission.

They also accepted the president’s offer to initiate negotiations to arrive at a final peace agreement.

For Duterte, the entry of personalities associated with the Communist Party into his Cabinet provided a left gloss to his regime, a proof that he was progressive, “a socialist, but only up to my armpits,” as he put it colourfully during his victory speech in Davao City on 4 June 2016.

It soon became clear that Duterte had the better part of the bargain. As the regime’s central policy of killing drug users and pushers without due process escalated, the Left’s role in the Cabinet became increasingly difficult to justify.

This dilemma was compounded by the fact that no new land reform law was passed that would allow agrarian reform to continue, there was little movement in the administration’s promise to end contractualisation, and macroeconomic policy continued along neoliberal lines.

The Left, however, found it hard to shelve the peace negotiations, from which they had already made some gains, and to part from heading up government agencies that gave them unparalleled governmental resources to expand their mass base.

Duterte had again displayed his acute political instincts. Knowing that the traditional Left was at ebb in its fortunes, he gambled that they would accept his offer of Cabinet positions. And having accepted these and agreeing to open up peace negotiations from which it could get many more concessions than it would have gotten under previous administrations, the Left, he knew, would find it extremely difficult to part from the positions of power it had gained.

The price, the leaders of the Left realised, would be high, and this was their association with a bloodthirsty regime. The Communist Party and its mass organisations tried to alleviate the contradiction by issuing statements condemning Duterte’s bloody policies.

But this only made their dilemma keener, since people would ask, why then do you continue to provide legitimacy to this administration by staying on in the Cabinet? Unlike Hitler and Mussolini, Duterte brought the Left into his regime, but in doing so, he has been able to sandbag it and subordinate it as a political force.

So far, that is.

Whether he is fully conscious of it or not, Duterte’s ascendancy has severely shaken all significant political institutions and political players in the country, from right to left.

Civil society mobilises
Where opposition to Duterte has developed over the last six months has been from civil society. A leading force is I Defend, a broad grouping of over 50 people’s organisations and non-governmental organisations that has waged an unremitting struggle against the extra-judicial killings. Another is the coalition against the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

While Malacañang has painted these formations as “dilawan,” or yellow, the reality is that most of their partisans are progressives that are as opposed to a “yellow restoration” as they are to Duterte’s policies, as well as newer and younger forces drawn from the post-EDSA and millennial generations that have become alarmed at Duterte’s fascist turn.

This growing opposition does not seek a reprise of 1986, perhaps heeding Marx’s warning that “history first unfolds as tragedy, then repeats itself as comedy.” It is increasingly realising that the fight for human rights and due process must be joined to a revolutionary program of participatory politics and economic democracy – to socialism, in the view of many – if it is to turn the fascist tide. There is no going back to EDSA.

What the opposition still has to internalise though is that opposing fascism in power will not be, to borrow a saying from Mao, “a dinner party,” that it will indeed be exceedingly difficult and demand great sacrifices.

Moreover, there is no guarantee of success in the short or medium term. Fascism in power can be extraordinarily long-lived. The Franco regime in Spain lasted 39 years, while Salazar’s Estado Novo in neighbouring Portugal went on for 42 years.

Like the anti-Marcos resistance four decades back, the only certainty members of the anti-fascist front can count on is that they’re doing the right thing. And that, for some, is a certainty worth dying for.

• Walden Bello made the only recorded resignation out of principle in the history of the Congress of the Republic of the Philippines in 2015 owing to what he saw as the Aquino administration’s double standards in dealing with corruption, failure to deliver economic and social reform, and subservience to the United States. An anti-dictatorship activist, he was principal author of Development Debacle: The World Bank in the Philippines, which exposed the Marcos-World Bank alliance in forging the export-oriented capitalist development model. A retired professor of sociology at the University of the Philippines, he is currently senior research fellow at Kyoto University and professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

This article by Walden Bello is an abbreviated adaptation of a much longer piece to be published in the Philippine Sociological Review and is published by Asia Pacific Report with the permission of the author. Other Walden Bello articles on Rappler.

By Cristiano Lima

President Donald Trump has criticised a deal by the Obama administration to take in spurned refugees from Australia, tweeting that he planned to study the “dumb deal”.

“Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia,” Trump said on Twitter. “Why? I will study this dumb deal!”

The “illegal immigrants” Trump references are predominantly Muslim refugees who are seeking asylum and have been resettled in island camps on the Pacific nations of Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea.

The Manus Island camp was declared illegal by PNG’s Supreme Court last year.

Former President Barack Obama’s administration agreed to take in an unspecified number of the refugees — which have been variously reported to total from 1600 to 3000 in number — after they were refused by Australia.

The tweet came after Trump reportedly spoke with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull over the phone on Saturday.

The Washington Post reported earlier Wednesday that during the conversation Trump described the refugee agreement as “the worst deal ever” and accused Turnbull of seeking to export the “next Boston bombers,” a reference to Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the two Kyrgyzstan-born American citizens behind the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings that killed three and injured over 260 people.

The report also claimed Trump abruptly ended their conversation after telling the Australian prime minister that of all the conversations he had had with world leaders that day, “This is the worst call by far.”

In a follow-up by the Associated Press, the prime minister declined to comment on the report.

“It’s better that these things — these conversations — are conducted candidly, frankly, privately,” Turnbull said.

The Australian leader also reiterated that that the relationship between Australia and the U.S. remained “very strong”.

Cristiano Lima is a journalist for Politico Magazine published under the slogan “Powerful journalism – powerful audience”.

• PNG Supreme Court rules detention of asylum seekers on Manus Island illegal

Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, deplores the immigration policy issued by newly inaugurated United States President Donald Trump, says Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla.

The policy bans citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen from entering the United States.

However, Kalla said Indonesia would not issue any statements against the policy at the moment, as it did not have any direct impact on the country.

ANALYSIS: By David Robie

Just having missed the shootings by a US veteran at Florida’s Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport last Friday by less than a couple of hours after returning from a Caribbean vacation, I have been following the aftermath with intense interest.

From the safety of Little Havana in Miami, I have monitored the Spanish and English-language press (almost 60 percent of the population are Hispanic speakers) and live local television reports on the Fort Lauderdale massacre.

What has struck me most is that several key issues have barely been covered in the media soul-searching, topmost being the bizarre gun culture itself.

A professor commenting on CNN about another issue – the fate of the so-called Obamacare “universal” health law after Donald Trump is inaugurated next week – compared the US culture unflatteringly with the European citizens’ sense of “commonwealth” described his countryfolk as “still cowboys”.

This sentiment was reflected in at least one letter in the press. Writing in a letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times, Barbara Rosen noted with irony:

Once again, there’s carnage.

I travel the world to countries where people have no guns but have universal health coverage. How do I explain to them that in my country we let people have semiautomatic weapons but we take away their health coverage?

So proud.

Key issues
Key issues barely covered in US media reportage include:

·       What is it about the militarist culture that leads young soldiers to fundamentally question the morality of their actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere and drive them to carry our vengeful acts against their fellow citizens?

·       Why was there hardly any public social mourning for the airport victims (5 killed, several of them bound for holiday cruises at Port Everglades; 8 wounded)? Are Americans so used to these senseless killings that it has become something of a “norm”?

·       Is there a serious flaw in basic security design at US airports?

I’ll start with the last question first. Having just personally experienced massive airport security getting into the United States for a start (beginning with first seeking a visa waiver first a couple of months earlier, a tedious process that still lead to family fellow travellers missing the first connecting flight from Los Angeles because “Homeland Security” couldn’t find passport numbers in their system) just before Christmas, this is worth a closer look.

As another traveller noted in the LA Times: “What is striking, and unreported, is that this relatively small and contained crime scene (the shooter did not even try to move around or escape), located in the open public [baggage] area outside of the security area for the terminal at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, morphed into an airport-wide shutdown because of a serious flaw in basic security checkpoint design.

Traveller Mike Post added that the exit lanes from the terminal gates that led to the baggage claim areas had no physical barriers and only limited unarmed security:

Terrified passengers fleeing the baggage area can simply turn around and run back through the exit corridor, ignoring all those ominous warnings, and in seconds destroy hours’ worth of security screening as they surge back into the gate area, rendering the entire terminal and airfield unsecure and at risk.

This type of event was foreseeable. Such a lack of foresight and imagination by our airport security professionals is inexcusable.

When we left Florida, after travelling four hours by bus to Orlando International Airport to start our homeward journey (we had connecting flights to Fort Dallas, Texas, and Los Angeles to Auckland with American Airlines — Qantas flag booking), two of our five suitcases for four people had their padlocks cut open by Homeland Security. A notice from Transport Security Administration was deposited inside the bags by the time we left LA for Auckland. It said:

To protect you and your fellow passengers, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is required by law to inspect all checked baggage. As part of this process, some bags are opened and physically inspected. Your bag was among those selected for physical inspection.

During the inspection, your bag and its contents may have been searched for prohibited items. At the completion of the inspection, the contents were returned to your bag.

If the TSA security officer was unable to open your bag for inspection because it was locked, the officer may have been forced to break the logs on your bag.

TSA ‘apology’
The TSA notice apologised for the action but said the agency was “not liable” for damage.

The lack of public mourning over the Fort Lauderdale deaths was quite extraordinary for us, having recently visited Nice’s Promenade des Anglais Rotunda where on public display is “the outpouring of community love” for the victims of Tunisian truck driver who went on a shooting rampage on Bastille Day last year.

USA Today reported that four days after the 26-year-old accused Alaska-based gunman Esteban Santiago – decorated for his combat service in Iraq — opened fire inside Fort Lauderdale Airport, no vigils or public memorials had been held for victims.

Previous mass shootings have stirred emotions from people in the communities in which the tragedies took place…

While people hurt in the shooting are being supported by their families and friends, there has been a lack of visible response from the general Broward County community.

In addition to a lack of memorials, no official GoFundMe accounts have been created. A single bouquet of pink flowers was left on a bench outside the baggage claim area of Terminal 2. Less than an hour later, it was gone.

‘Routine part of life’
The newspaper also quoted the head of the department of psychiatry and behavioural sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Dr Charles B. Nemeroff, saying US citizens had become “inert” to this sort of tragedy, “as if it is almost a routine part of life” in America.

Rarely did I see reports raising the basic issue about the US gun culture and how urgent it is to change the Second Amendment about the American citizens’ constitutional right to “bear arms”.

According to The Guardian, no other developed country in the world has “anywhere near the same rate of gun violence as the USA. The US has nearly six times the gun homicide rate of Canada, more than seven times that of Sweden, and nearly 16 times German’s rate, according to United Nations data compiled by The Guardian.

The gun deaths are also a major reason why the United States has a far higher suicide rate (including non-gun deaths) than other developed nations.

There are more than 310 million civilian guns in the United States, almost equivalent to one for every man, woman and child in the country with a population of 324 million.

• Accused airport shooter Esteban Santiago is told his maximum sentence is death

Professor David Robie is editor of Asia Pacific Report. This article was first published on his Café Pacific blog.

Homeland Security official website