The reported plea bargain between WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the United States government brings to a close one of the darkest periods in the history of media freedom, says the union for Australian journalists.

While the details of the deal are still to be confirmed, MEAA welcomed the release of Assange, a Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance member, after five years of relentless campaigning by journalists, unions, and press freedom advocates around the world.

MEAA remains concerned what the deal will mean for media freedom around the world.

• READ MORE: The Free Julian Assange RSF campaign file

The work of WikiLeaks at the centre of this case — which exposed war crimes and other wrongdoing by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan — was strong, public interest journalism.

MEAA fears the deal will embolden the US and other governments around the world to continue to pursue and prosecute journalists who disclose to the public information they would rather keep suppressed.

MEAA media federal president Karen Percy welcomed the news that Julian Assange has already been released from Belmarsh Prison, where he has been held as his case has wound its way through UK courts.

“We wish Julian all the best as he is reunited with his wife, young sons and other relatives who have fought tirelessly for his freedom,” she said.

‘Relentless battle against this injustice’
“We commend Julian for his courage over this long period, and his legal team and supporters for their relentless battle against this injustice.

“We’ve been extremely concerned about the impact on his physical and mental wellbeing during Julian’s long period of imprisonment and respect the decision to bring an end to the ordeal for all involved.

Julian Assange boards flight at London Stansted Airport at 5PM (BST) Monday June 24th. This is for everyone who worked for his freedom: thank you.#FreedJulianAssange pic.twitter.com/Pqp5pBAhSQ

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 25, 2024

“The deal reported today does not in any way mean that the struggle for media freedom has been futile; quite the opposite, it places governments on notice that a global movement will be mobilised whenever they blatantly threaten journalism in a similar way.

Percy said the espionage charges laid against Assange were a “grotesque overreach by the US government” and an attack on journalism and media freedom.

“The pursuit of Julian Assange has set a dangerous precedent that will have a potential chilling effect on investigative journalism,” she said.

“The stories published by WikiLeaks and other outlets more than a decade ago were clearly in the public interest. The charges by the US sought to curtail free speech, criminalise journalism and send a clear message to future whistleblowers and publishers that they too will be punished.”

Percy said was clearly in the public interest and it had “always been an outrage” that the US government sought to prosecute him for espionage for reporting that was published in collaboration with some of the world’s leading media organisations.

Julian Assange has been an MEAA member since 2007 and in 2011 WikiLeaks won the Outstanding Contribution to Journalism Walkley award, one of Australia’s most coveted journalism awards.

The Biden administration has officially re-designated Ansarallah – the dominant force in Yemen also known as the Houthis – as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity.

The White House claims the designation is an appropriate response to the group’s attacks on US military vessels and commercial ships in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, saying those attacks “fit the textbook definition of terrorism”.

Ansarallah claims its actions “adhere to the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” since it is only enforcing a blockade geared toward ceasing the ongoing Israeli destruction of Gaza.

• READ MORE: US redesignates Yemen’s Houthis as ‘global terrorists’

One of the most heinous acts committed by the Trump administration was its designation of Ansarallah as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) and as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), both of which imposed sanctions that critics warned would plunge Yemen’s aid-dependent population into even greater levels of starvation than they were already experiencing by restricting the aid that would be allowed in.

One of the Biden administration’s only decent foreign policy decisions has been the reversal of that sadistic move, and now that reversal is being partially rolled back, though thankfully only with the SDGT listing and not the more deadly and consequential FTO designation.

US Re-Designates Houthis as ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorists’
The designation will hamper aid deliveries and could complicate a peace deal between the Saudis and Houthis
by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave #Yemen #Houthis #SaudiArabia #RedSea #Gaza https://t.co/6bXDM0MdiU pic.twitter.com/K8mj2itz2f

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) January 17, 2024

In a new article for Antiwar about this latest development, Dave Decamp explains that as much as the Biden White House goes to great lengths insisting that it’s going to issue exemptions to ensure that its sanctions don’t harm the already struggling Yemeni people,

“history has shown that sanctions scare away international companies and banks from doing business with the targeted nations or entities and cause shortages of medicine, food, and other basic goods.”

DeCamp also notes that US and British airstrikes on Yemen have already forced some aid groups to suspend services to the country.

Still trying to recover
So the US empire is going to be imposing sanctions on a nation that is still trying to recover from the devastation caused by the US-backed Saudi blockade that contributed to hundreds of thousands of deaths between 2015 and 2022. All in response to the de facto government of that very same country imposing its own blockade with the goal of preventing a genocide.

That’s right: when Yemen sets up a blockade to try and stop an active genocide, that’s terrorism, but when the US empire imposes a blockade to secure its geostrategic interests in the Middle East, why that’s just the rules-based international order in action.

Today, in response to these continuing threats and attacks, the United States announced the designation of Ansarallah, also known as the Houthis, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist – Jake Sullivan, U.S. National Security Advisorhttps://t.co/D5d8MylujK pic.twitter.com/pSFUzCR7qk

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) January 17, 2024

It just says so much about how the US empire sees itself that it can impose blockades and starvation sanctions at will upon nations like Yemen, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Syria and North Korea for refusing to bow to its dictates, but when Yemen imposes a blockade for infinitely more worthy and noble reasons it gets branded an act of terrorism.

The managers of the globe-spanning empire loosely centralised around Washington literally believe the world is theirs to rule as they will, and that anyone who opposes its rulings is an outlaw.

Based on power
“What this shows us is that the “rules-based international order” the US and its allies claim to uphold is not based on rules at all; it’s based on power, which is the ability to control and impose your will on other people.

The “rules” apply only to the enemies of the empire because they are not rules at all: they are narratives used to justify efforts to bend the global population to its will.

We are ruled by murderous tyrants. By nuclear-armed thugs who would rather starve civilians to protect the continuation of an active genocide than allow peace to get a word in edgewise.

Our world can never know health as long as these monsters remain in charge.

Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

“Phil Mehrtens is the nicest guy, he genuinely is — no one ever had anything bad to say about him,” says a colleague of the New Zealand pilot taken hostage last week by members of the West Papuan National Liberation Army (TPN-PB) in the mountainous Nduga Regency.

How such a nice guy became a pawn in the decades-long conflict between West Papua and the Indonesian government is a tragic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But it is also a symbolic and desperate attempt to attract international attention towards the West Papuan crisis.

• READ MORE: How the world failed West Papua in its campaign for independence
• Fight for freedom: new research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua
• West Papua is on the verge of another bloody crackdown
• Other Asia Pacific Report backgrounders on West Papua

A joint military and police mission has so far failed to find or rescue Mehrtens, and forcing negotiations with Jakarta is a prime strategy of TPN-PB.

As spokesperson Sebby Sambom told Australian media this week:

“The military and police have killed too many Papuans. From our end, we also killed [people]. So it is better that we sit at the negotiation table […] Our new target are all foreigners: the US, EU, Australians and New Zealanders because they supported Indonesia to kill Papuans for 60 years.

“Colonialism in Papua must be abolished.”

Sambom is referring to the international complicity and silence since Indonesia annexed the former Dutch colony as it prepared for political independence in the 1960s.

Mehrtens has become the latest foreign victim of the resulting protracted and violent struggle by West Papuans for independence.

Authorities have deployed a joint team to evacuate a foreign pilot after they were allegedly taken hostage by separatist fighters in the Papuan highlands on Tuesday. #jakpost https://t.co/nqyXZc082D

— The Jakarta Post (@jakpost) February 9, 2023

Violence and betrayal
The history of the conflict can be traced back to 1962, when the US facilitated what became known as the New York Agreement, which handed West Papua over to the United Nations and then to Indonesia.

In 1969, the UN oversaw a farcical independence referendum that effectively allowed the permanent annexation of West Papua by Indonesia. Since that time, West Papuans have been subjected to violent human rights abuses, environmental and cultural dispossession, and mass killings under Indonesian rule and mass immigration policies.

New Zealand and Australia continue to support Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua, and maintain defence and other diplomatic ties with Jakarta. Australia has been involved in training Indonesian army and police, and is a major aid donor to Indonesia.

Phil Mehrtens is far from the first hostage to be taken in this unequal power struggle. Nearly three decades ago, in the neighbouring district of Mapenduma, TPN-PB members kidnapped a group of environmental researchers from Europe for five months.

Like now, the demand was that Indonesia recognise West Papuan independence. Two Indonesians with the group were killed.

The English and Dutch hostages were ultimately rescued, but not before further tragedy occurred.

At one point, negotiations seemed to have stalled between the West Papuan captors and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which was delivering food and supplies to the hostages and working for their release.

Taking matters into their own hands, members of the Indonesian military commandeered a white civilian helicopter that had been used (or was similar to one used) by the ICRC. Witnesses recall seeing the ICRC emblem on the aircraft.

When the helicopter lowered towards waiting crowds of civilians, the military opened fire.

The ICRC denied any involvement in the resulting massacre, but the entire incident was emblematic of the times. It took place several years before the fall of former Indonesian president Suharto, when there was little hope of West Papua gaining independence from Indonesia through peaceful negotiations.

Then, as now, the TPN-PB was searching for a way to capture the world’s attention.

Human rights researcher pleads for West Papuan rebels to free NZ pilot

Losing hope
Since the early 2000s, with Suharto gone and fresh hope inspired by East Timor’s independence, Papuans — including members of the West Papuan Liberation Army — have largely been committed to fighting for independence through peaceful means.

After several decades of wilful non-intervention by Australia and New Zealand in what they consider to be Jakarta’s affairs, that hope is flagging. It appears elements of the independence movement are again turning to desperate measures.

In 2019, the TPN-PB killed 24 Indonesians working on a highway to connect the coast with the interior, claiming their victims were spies for the Indonesian army. They have become increasingly outspoken about their intentions to stop further Indonesian expansion in Papua at any cost.

In turn, this triggered a hugely disproportionate counter-insurgency operation in the highlands where Phil Mehrtens was captured. It has been reported at least 60,000 people have been displaced in the Nduga Regency over the past four years as a result, and it is still not safe for them to return home.

International engagement
It is important to remember that the latest hostage taking, and the 1996 events, are the actions of a few. They do not reflect the commitment of the vast majority of Indigenous West Papuans to work peacefully for independence through demonstrations, social media activism, civil disobedience, diplomacy and dialogue.

Looking forward, New Zealand, Australia and other governments close to Indonesia need to commit to serious discussions about human rights in West Papua — not only because there is a hostage involved, but because it is the right thing to do.

This may not be enough to resolve the current crisis, but it would be a long overdue and critical step in the right direction.

Negotiations for the release of Philip Mehrtens must be handled carefully to avoid further disproportionate responses by the Indonesian military.

The kidnapping is not justified, but neither is Indonesia’s violence against West Papuans — or the international community’s refusal to address the violence.

Dr Camellia Webb-Gannon, lecturer, University of Wollongong, and author of Morning Star Rising: The Politics of Decolonisation in West Papua. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

On 14 December 2022 German police arrested 25 people over what was called the “Reichsburger plot”. Two days later The Observer published an article by Philip Oltermann posing the question of whether this was a far-right “…sinister plan to overthrow the German state or just a rag-tag revolution?”

Although a long way away from our shores, this bizarre event has implications for New Zealand which should not be ignored. It got me to thinking about the attempted coups by electorally defeated presidents in the United States and Brazil.

This then led on to considering the occupation of Parliament grounds in early 2022 and a recent sighting in a tiny community about seven km away from my home on the Kāpiti Coast.

In the midst of writing this all up, came the unexpected resignation of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern last week. Then union leader Robert Reid popped up with a pertinent observation. But first, Germany.

German coup-plotters
Along with 25 other German co-conspirators, one Maximilian Eder was arrested. They were accused of planning to overthrow the state by violent means and install a shadow government headed by a minor German aristocrat.

Few of these coup plotters were well-known public figures. But they included some with a military background, doctors, judges, gourmet chefs and opera singers, a Lower Saxony civil servant at the criminal police office, and “…several of the ragtag bunch of wannabe revolutionaries seemed to have been radicalised in the comfortably well-off, respectable centre of society.”

Eder was a genuine commander of one of Germany’s armoured infantry battalions between 1998 and 2000. He had served in Kosovo and Afghanistan and was a founding member of Germany’s special forces command.

What further rattled Germany’s cage was the inclusion of a former member of the federal parliament from the far-right AfD party. She had knowledge of security arrangements and special access privileges to the complex of parliamentary buildings in the heart of Berlin.

Eccentrics or serious threat?
The plotters’ potential targets included seven members of Germany’s Parliament, including the Foreign Minister, conservative opposition, and two leaders of the governing Social Democrat party.

German police found weapons in 50 of the 150 properties linked to the co-conspirators (there may have been other weapons stashed away elsewhere). This was an insufficient arsenal to overthrow the government of a country with a population of 83 million. However, it was enough to carry out a targeted terror attack killing and maiming many.

The question remains unanswered as to whether these conspirators really did seriously threaten German democracy as it presently exists or were they “…just a  bunch of eccentrics with a hyperactive imagination…”

One of  the difficulties in making this call is that previously the growth of the German far-right had been under-estimated. The relatively recent electoral success of the AfD party was unexpected. Oltermann concluded his interesting article by citing a German terrorism expert who noted that while he didn’t believe the coup-plotters would have overthrown the government, the question that remained was how much damage they would have caused in trying to.

Washington DC and Brasilia
While we await a fuller analysis of the extent to which these coup-plotters were a threat to German democracy, we know enough to make some conclusions, especially in an international context.

The German coup-plotters may have included eccentrics. But their defining characteristic was that they were from that part of the extreme far-right of politics which was prepared to use violence to achieve their objectives.

There are similarities with two actual attempted coups seeking to overturn election results and putting back into power two far-right presidents who were defeated at the polls. These occurred in the respective capitals of the United States (Washington) in January 2001 and Brazil (Brasilia) two years later.

These attempts to put Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro back in power were both far-right led and involved short violent destructive occupations of their parliaments. The major difference was significant high-level military involvement in the attempted Brazilian coup.

Far-right levering off anti-vaccination protests
In February-March 2022 there was an anti-vaccination occupation of New Zealand’s Parliament Grounds. Last February I published a Political Bytes blog on the far-right agenda  in this occupation.

My essential point was that the susceptibility, to say the least, of many of these protesters was fertile territory for far-right leaders to exploit, influence and shape its more violent direction. This was well-highlighted in the excellent Fire & Fury podcast documentary published by Stuff.

Fire & Fury: Who’s driving a violent, misinformed New Zealand – and why?      Video: Stuff

The documentary has come under some peculiar criticism from those who believe it should have given similar or greater blame for the actions of Parliament’s Speaker in trying to dissuade the occupiers from continuing the protest.

However, aside from overstating his impact, this criticism misses the whole point of the documentary. Its focus was on what was behind the occupation and related protests, including the significant far-right influence and support.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of these protests was the far-right Counterspin Media online outlet. It reported the occupation virtually non-stop, quickly becoming the main source of news for the occupiers and their supporters.

Run by local far-right leaders, Counterspin Media relies on a far-right media outlet in the United States for support (Trump confidant Steve Bannon is in its central leadership). From a very small base its viewing numbers have rocketed upwards.

The occupation also accelerated the use of two new terms to designate some people within the far-right – “sovereign citizens” and “sheriffs”. The former believe they are not bound by laws unless they personally consent to them. They carry out violence although this is largely verbal.

The latter, sheriffs, believe they can take the law into their own hands, including apprehending, violence and even execution. In other words, those holding either designation are vigilantes.

Now to Peka Peka
This leads on to the peacefully seaside locality Peka Peka on the Kāpiti Coast of the lower North Island with a population of around 700. As it happens, it is seven km from where I live. I frequently cycle through it and walk dogs on its beautiful beach.

Its name is derived from a native New Zealand bat, the Pekapeka, which represents the interwoven nature of the spirit world and the world of the living — the seen and the unseen.

But following the end of the occupation of Parliament Grounds a small group of occupiers moved on to the land of a supportive local farmer. While numbers have diminished there are still there.

While driving past earlier this month I noticed a conspicuous vehicle parked outside on the road as photographs I took show. The vehicle belongs to Counterspin Media.

The issue at hand was the far-right’s support for the parents of a critically ill baby who tried to deny him access to a life-saving blood transfusion because overwhelmingly donors are vaccinated. They and Counterspin Media have also denied the right of their baby to privacy by breaching a court order for name suppression. [The matter was resolved by the court overruling the parents which enabled a successful transfusion that saved the baby’s life.]

What was particularly relevant to this blog, however, was the fact that the far-right Counterspin Media was present visiting the small group who among them are believed to include sovereign citizens and a sheriff or two.

It is a very long bow to suggest that the occupation of Parliament Grounds was responsible for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s dramatic resignation last week. Nevertheless its ferocity (including intimidation and threats of execution) and duration rattled her government’s cage and confidence.

Many are attributing Arden’s resignation to the volume and viciousness of the personal attacks on her, much of which was misogynous. They are right to make this conclusion but it is much deeper than this. To begin with, had her government been more successful in policy development and implementation or been doing better in the polls, she was less likely to have resigned.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) also came under vicious misogynous attacks but, as she has acknowledged, the attacks on Ardern far exceed those on her. What is the difference? First, social media’s influence in Clark’s time was much less than Ardern’s.

Second, the far-right was politically much less influential than now. We now have far-right governments in countries such as Italy, Poland, Hungary and India. There are strong far-right movements threatening countries like France and Spain. Both the United States and Brazil have had single term far-right presidents.

Germany had a follow-up from the December coup-plotters this week with five more far-right activists arrested for a second alleged coup plot, including kidnapping the health minister, to overthrow the government which The Guardian reported on January 23.

In New Zealand, the far-right’s levering off the anti-vaccination protests has led to an environment of threats through a sense of deluded entitlement, as Stuff reported on January 20, of a magnitude far greater than Clark and her government ever experienced.

Union leader Robert Reid was as close to getting it right as one can get in a Facebook post on January 20. He observed that, on the one hand, unlike the United States and Brazil, New Zealand was able to keep right-wing and fascist mobs from storming their parliaments.

However, on the other hand, in New Zealand they “…scored their first victory of bringing down the political leader of the country. Not a good feeling.”

I agree with Reid but would make the qualification that these far-right influenced and led “mobs” significantly contributed to bringing down a political leader.

Sociopaths and psychopaths
Soon after commencing working for the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists over three decades ago, I asked a leading psychiatrist, Dr Allen Fraser, what was the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths (Dr Fraser was the union’s first elected vice-president and second president).

His response, which I have never forgotten, was to repeat what he advised medical students and doctors-in-training: Sociopaths believe in castles in the sky; psychopaths live in castles in the sky

In other words, while Helen Clark was threatened by sociopaths, Jacinda Ardern was threatened by psychopaths. The transition from the former to the latter was the increasing influence of the far-right.

Robert Reid is right; it is not a good feeling. He is a master of the understatement.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

Fijian national, jurist and lawyer Imrana Jalal has been awarded the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Medal of Honour by the World Jurists Association.

The award is given in recognition of inspiring women jurists who fight to defend and strengthen the rule of law, and to consolidate society’s advances in gender equity.

She is the first woman from the Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Island region to receive the award.

• READ MORE: Other Imrana Jalal reports

Jalal said she was stunned to receive the news, and that she was deeply honoured to be one of the recipients.

She said Justice Bader Ginsburg was her hero and one of her dreams was to meet her while she worked in the US at the World Bank but owing to covid that did not happen.

Jalal added that to receive this award in Justice Bader Ginsburg’s name was personally and deeply moving for her.

She will be one of eight women jurists to receive the award in a ceremony in Madrid, Spain, on May 8 and will be hosted by King Felipe VI of Spain at the Rule of Law Centre of the World Jurist Association.

The Ruth Bader Ginsburg Medal of Honour is a new international recognition, established by the World Jurist Association and presented for the first time in 2021.

It will be the second time since the death of the iconic Justice Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States in 2020 at the age of 87 that the award will be presented.

Jalal was selected by an eminent jury comprising members of the World Jurists Association, including the daughter of the Justice Bader Ginsburg, Professor Jane Ginsburg of Columbia Law School, New York, who was the president of the jury.

In 2021, the Medal of Honour was bestowed on eight distinguished female jurists and leaders from around the world including Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank and former IMF head; Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, vice-president of the International Criminal Court; Maite Oronoz, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico; Navi Pillay, judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa; Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, vice-president of the European Court of Justice; Sujata Manohar, retired judge of the Supreme Court of India; and Young Hye Kim, senior judge, Commissioner at National Human Rights Commission.

Rashika Kumar is a FijiVillage News reporter.

As Julian Assange awaits the final appeal of his looming extradition to the United States while languishing behind bars in London’s notorious Belmarsh Prison, leading left luminaries and free press advocates gathered in Washington, DC, on Friday for the fourth sitting of the Belmarsh Tribunal, where they called on US President Joe Biden to drop all charges against the WikiLeaks publisher.

“From Ankara to Manila to Budapest to right here in the United States, state actors are cracking down on journalists, their sources, and their publishers in a globally coordinated campaign to disrupt the public’s access to information,” co-chair and Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman said during her opening remarks at the National Press Club.

“The Belmarsh Tribunal… pursues justice for journalists who are imprisoned or persecuted [and] publishers and whistleblowers who dare to reveal the crimes of our governments,” she said.

• READ MORE: Other Julian Assange articles at Asia Pacific Report

“Assange’s case is the first time in history that a publisher has been indicted under the Espionage Act,” Goodman added.

“Recently, it was revealed that the CIA had been spying illegally on Julian, his lawyers, and some members of this very tribunal. The CIA even plotted his assassination at the Ecuadorean Embassy under [former US President Donald] Trump.”

Assange — who suffers from physical and mental health problems, including heart and respiratory issues — could be imprisoned for 175 years if fully convicted of Espionage Act violations.

Among the classified materials published by WikiLeaks — many provided by whistleblower Chelsea Manning — are the infamous “Collateral Murder” video showing a US Army helicopter crew killing a group of Iraqi civilians, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs, which revealed American and allied war crimes.

Arbitrary detention
According to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Assange has been arbitrarily deprived of his freedom since he was arrested on December 7, 2010. Since then he has been held under house arrest, confined for seven years in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London while he was protected by the administration of former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, and jailed in Belmarsh Prison, for which the tribunal is named.

Human rights, journalism, peace, and other groups have condemned Assange’s impending extradition and the US government’s targeting of an Australian journalist who exposed American war crimes.

“That the extradition proceedings against Assange are an unexpected legal outcome — is a lie. Based on my experience as Ecuador’s foreign minister…the British government wanted to extradite him all along.” — @GuillaumeLong

Attend the Belmarsh Tribunal. https://t.co/1au3neo8FD pic.twitter.com/hwshaiiQzM

— Progressive International (@ProgIntl) January 19, 2023

In a statement ahead of Friday’s tribunal, co-chair and Croatian philosopher Srećko Horvat said:

The First Amendment, freedom of the press, and the life of Julian Assange are at stake. That’s why the Belmarsh Tribunal is landing literally just two blocks away from the White House.

As long as the Biden administration continues to deploy tools like the Espionage Act to imprison those who dare to expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe.

Our tribunal is gathering courageous voices of dissent to demand justice for those crimes and to demand President Biden to drop the charges against Assange immediately.

Belmarsh Tribunal participants include Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, US academic Noam Chomsky, British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn, former Assange lawyer Renata Ávila, human rights attorney Steven Donziger, and WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson.

The Belmarsh Tribunal hearing in Washington DC on January 20, 2023. Video: Democracy Now!

Assange’s father, John Shipton, and the whistleblower’s wife and lawyer Stella Assange, are also members, as are Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola, Chip Gibbons of Defending Rights, Selay Ghaffar of the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, investigative journalist Stefania Maurizi, The Nation publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel, and ACLU attorney Ben Wizner.

Former U.K. Labour Party leader @jeremycorbyn is in Washington for the Belmarsh Tribunal to advocate for Julian Assange’s freedom as he fights extradition from Britain to the United States.

“We’re standing up for the right to know. We’re standing up for journalism,” Corbyn says. pic.twitter.com/A4v6QbNSN0

— Democracy Now! (@democracynow) January 20, 2023

First Amendment foundation
“One of the foundation stones of our form of government here in the United States . . . is our First Amendment to the Constitution,” Ellsberg — whom the Richard Nixon administration tried to jail for up to 115 years under the Espionage Act, but due to government misconduct was never imprisoned — said in a recorded message played at the tribunal.

“Up until Assange’s indictment, the act had never been used… against a journalist like Assange,” Ellsberg added. “If you’re going to use the act against a journalist in a blatant violation of the First Amendment… the First Amendment is essentially gone.”

Ávila said before Thursday’s event that “the Espionage Act is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation in the world: an existential threat against international investigative journalism.”

“If applied, it will deprive us of one of our must powerful tools towards de-escalation of conflicts, diplomacy, and peace,” she added.

“The Belmarsh Tribunal convened in Washington to present evidence of this chilling threat, and to unite lawmakers next door to dismantle the legal architecture that undermines the basic right of all peoples to know what their governments do in their name.”

The Belmarsh Tribunal, first convened in London in 2021, is inspired by the Russell Tribunal, a 1966 event organised by philosophers Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre to hold the US accountable for its escalating war crimes in Vietnam.

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams. Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Washington has announced plans to reopen the United States Embassy in Solomon Islands.

Inside the Games reports that the move is a bid to counter China’s increasing assertiveness in the region, which has seen Beijing fund infrastructure for this year’s Pacific Games which take place later this year.

The US Department of State has informed Congress that it plans to establish an interim embassy in Honiara on the site of a former consular property.

• READ MORE: Other China-Solomon Islands geopolitics reports
• Fiji recalling all ambassadors and global staff

It said it would at first be staffed by two American diplomats and five local employees at a cost of US$1.8 million a year.

A more permanent facility with larger staffing will be established eventually.

The US closed its embassy in Honiara in 1993 as part of a post-Cold War global reduction in diplomatic posts and priorities.

The State Department warned in February 2022 that China’s growing influence in the region made reopening the embassy in the Solomon Islands a priority.

In October 2020, the Solomons and China signed an agreement for China to help build venues for the Pacific Games.

Last year, Honiara and Beijing signed a security pact after Chinese President Xi Jinping upgraded relations for a second time following a meeting with Solomons Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare.

The agreement could allow Solomon Islands to request China send police and military personnel if required, while China could deploy forces to protect “Chinese personnel and major projects”.

Sogavare has assured the US and other Western allies that he would not allow China to establish a naval base in his country, but concern about Chinese intentions has not eased.

Solomons and Chinese police visit Games stadium
Representatives from the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force have met with Chinese officials and police to visit the 2023 Pacific Games stadium which is still under construction.

The stadium is being built by the China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation, while a dorm at the National University is being built by JiangSu Provincial Construction.

The police force acknowledged the work of the companies in providing employment opportunities to local residents.

Assistant Commissioner Simpson Pogeava said police assistance would be reaffirmed, instructing Central police and Guadalcanal police to provide security support to keep the projects safe.

• The Games are scheduled to take place from November 19 to December 2.

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

The Federated States of Micronesia will receive more US economic assistance under the Compact of Free Association in exchange for the Pacific nation’s broader role in regional security that entails expanded military use of its land, water and air.

“Of paramount importance is that our nation’s citizenry be informed in advance when US fighter jets fly over the State of Yap, for example, or when the US practice firing anti-aircraft missiles from the ground,” FSM President David Panuelo said in a state of the nation address delivered on Friday before the FSM Congress.

Panuelo advised the FSM citizens to also expect more training exercises in and around the nation’s ocean.

• READ MORE: Other FSM reports

“These exercises will be increasing in frequency over the next several years, and while they are ultimately in our national interest and in the interest of our nation’s security — of which the US is our indisputable guardian — it is important that our citizens know about them well in advance so that our people do not see these activities and then immediately fear the worst,” he added.

The compact grants the United States “strategic denial” — the option to deny foreign militaries access to the freely associated nation and provide for US defence sites.

Panuelo acknowledged that the US military’s ramped-up presence in the region was brought about by growing geopolitical conflicts in the Pacific, where Washington and Beijing play tug of war.

The unabated rivalry is compounded by China’s persistent threats to take over Taiwan, which the US vows to defend.

Amplified military activities
Panuelo said the amplified military activities in Yap will require the expansion of the state ports and increased presence from the US Navy Seabees.

In his state of the nation address, Panuelo said the FSM would receive $140 million in annual sector grant assistance from Washington under the compact’s renewed economic provisions. The agreed amount represents more than $50 million a year over current assistance levels, the president added.

“The good news is that there is much we have already completed successfully with regards to our compact’s negotiations,” Panuelo said.

“I have also made clear that in addition to this sector grant assistance, a one-time contribution of funds into our Compact Trust Fund remains a critical component of our nation’s economic requirements, and is necessary for the health and sustainability of the fund,” Panuelo said.

The economic provisions of the compact are set to expire in September. Washington last week announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding, separately with Palau and the Marshall Islands, renewing the economic assistance for both freely associated states.

Washington and the FSM have yet to formally sign an agreement, but Panuelo said he has “shaken hands” with Joseph Yun, the US special presidential envoy for compact negotiations, on the proposed new deal.

“There remains some important work to be done before our nation’s negotiating teams can sign off,” Panuelo said.

Among sticky points
Among the sticky points is the FSM-proposed update on fiscal procedures, which Panuelo said must “reflect more deference to the FSM in the management and implementation of funding assistance.”

Panuelo earlier asked Washington to let the FSM manage its own financial responsibilities under the compact, noting that the funds provided by the treaty are part of diplomatic arrangements rather than largesse.

Read related story US asked not to micromanage FSM Other pending issues include “the development of mutually acceptable subsidiary agreements that are appropriate for the next compact period.”

At the same time, the negotiating panels are working on the continuation of US programmes such as Pell grants, and the reinstatement of US Department of Education programmes previously made available to FSM students.

“The FSM will work very hard until we are satisfied with all aspects of the agreements between our country and the United States,” Panuelo said.

Besides the compact funds, Panuelo reported that the FSM has received a total of $747 million from other foreign donors and lenders including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Japan, China, the European Union, Australia and India.

“The figure would be higher if we could financially measure certain forms of in-kind assistance,” Panuelo said.

“Part of this success is due to the improved coordination between the nation and its development partners since the establishment of the Overseas Development Assistance policy in 2013,” Panuelo said.

Foreign donations financed the FSM’s infrastructure projects including the administration’s $100 million “Pave the Nation” initiative.

Republished from the Pacific Island Times with permission.

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.

The United States would “respond” if China takes steps to establish a permanent military presence in the Solomon Islands, says a US official, noting the “potential regional security implications” of a newly signed pact between the two countries.

“We outlined clear areas of concern with respect to the purpose and scope of the agreement,” Daniel Kritenbrink, Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said at a press briefing yesterday following his trip to Honiara, where he led a US delegation last week.

US officials met with Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare and his cabinet following separate announcements by China and the Solomon Islands that the controversial Security Cooperation Agreement has been signed.

• READ MORE: Other Solomon Islands security reports

However, the State Department official did not provide a clear answer when asked to explain how exactly the US would respond.

“I’m not going to speculate on what that may or may not involve, but I think our goal was to be very clear in that regard,” Kritenbrink said.

“I’m not in a position to talk about what the United States may or may not do in such a situation.”

US still worried
Despite Sogavare’s repeated assurance that the pact was intended only for domestic implementation, Kritenbrink said the US is worried about the “potential regional security implications of the agreement, not just for ourselves, but for allies and partners across the region.”

Kritenbrink said what troubled the US was “the complete lack of transparency” behind the pact.

“What precisely are the motivations behind the agreement? What exactly are China’s objectives and the like?

“I think they’re completely unclear because this agreement has not been scrutinised or reviewed or subject to any kind of consultation or approval process by anyone else,” Kritenbrink said.

He linked the Solomons-China agreement to Beijing’s relentless bid to expand the People’s Liberation Army’s footprint in the region.

“I think it’s important in this context to keep in mind that we do know that [China] is seeking to establish a more robust overseas logistics and basing infrastructure that would allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at greater distances,” Kritenbrink said.

He added that the US “would follow developments closely in consultation with regional partners.”

Opening US embassy plans
Kritenbrink was accompanied by Kurt Campbell, Indo-Pacific coordinator for the National Security Council; Lieutenant-General Steve Sklenka,deputy commander of the Indo-Pacific Command; and Craig Hart, USAID’s acting senior deputy assistant administrator for Asia.

During the visit, the US delegation announced Washington’s intention to expedite the process of opening a US embassy in Honiara, strengthen the ties between the US and the Solomon Islands.

“Our purpose in going to the Solomons was to explain to our friends there our approach to the region and the steps we’re taking to step up our engagement across the Pacific Islands, the specific programmes and activities that are ongoing in the Solomons and that we expect to expand and accelerate in the months ahead,” Kritenbrink said.

“We reiterated our commitment to enhancing our partnership with the Solomon Islands, including expediting the opening of the US embassy there, advancing cooperation on addressing unexploded ordnance, and increasing maritime domain awareness, as well as expanding cooperation on climate change, health, people-to-people ties, and other issues as well,” he added.

Mar-Vic Cagurangan is chief editor and publisher of the Pacific Island Times. Republished with permission.

Former Solomon Islands Prime Minister Gordon Darcy Lilo says the country needs an economic solution to its instability problems, not a security solution.

Lilo said he could not understand how current Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare could justify signing a security cooperation agreement with China to quell public discontent in his government’s handling of national affairs.

Earlier this week Honiara and Beijing confirmed the signing of a security treaty despite serious concerns raised locally and internationally about the deal.

• READ MORE: Other China security pact reports

Lilo was supporting calls for the document to be made public in the interest of transparency and accountability.

“The best thing to help our people … to understand better on government is for government to take responsibility to manage our economy,” Lilo said.

“Create more employment, create more investment, that to me is a better way of securing a better society for our country, than to militarise this country,” he said.

Lilo served as prime minister of Solomon Islands from 2011 to 2014.

‘Beggars have no choice’
Meanwhile, another former prime minister, Danny Philip, who is now a backbencher in the Sogavare government, said Solomon Islands was “open to all sorts of things” because “beggars do not have a choice”.

He said Solomon Islands was mindful of the interplay between the superpowers in the Pacific, but the country did not want to be drawn into geopolitical battles.

“Yes, the US has always been there. But for the first time ever in 80 years they’ve sent very high officials to the Solomon Islands at the moment,” he said.

“We have with arrangements with Australia, which is very much US-mandated agreement. Australia is referred to by President Bush, I think as the as the ‘deputy sheriff’ of the United States in the Pacific.”

Solomon Islanders treated with ‘disrespect‘
A senior journalist in Honiara said Solomon Islanders were being treated disrespectfully and kept in the dark over the government’s security pact with China.

Speaking at a panel on the contentious treaty, Dorothy Wickham said most of the news coverage on the security arrangement had been focused on Australia and America’s positions.

“The government’s handling of the way it went about handling this treaty shows disrespect … to Solomon Islanders that there was no discussion, no consultation,” she said.

“Even a press release on the eve of the signing would have been a standard procedure and until today we have not had a press briefing or a press statement for a press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Office,” Wickham added.

She said the government had not meaningfully engaged with journalists to ensure that they could inform Solomon Islanders about what the security deal meant for them.

Wickham said local media had been struggling to refocus the narrative so that it was about Solomon Islands.

Pacific Islands Forum best place to discuss contentious security pact
Meanwhile, New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said discussions on the security agreement signed between China and Solomon Islands needed to be inclusive of other Pacific nations.

Mahuta said the Pacific Islands Forum was the best platform for discussing regional security concerns.

“I have concerns that based on a number of representations to ensure that this is fully discussed because of the regional implications that this has not been given priority, certainly by Solomon Islands, they have given us assurances, we must take them at their word, respecting their sovereignty,” Mahuta said.

“However, regional security issues, regional sovereignty issues are a matter of a broader forum. We see the Pacific Islands Forum as the best place for this.”

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

The Fiji Revenue and Customs Service has issued two infringement notices to the captain of the seized Russian super yacht Amadea which is berthed in Lautoka port.

These are notices under Section 14 of the Customs Act of 1986 for failure to comply with procedure on arrival and Section 17 which deals with failure to comply with people disembarking.

Section 14 deals with infringements under “procedure on arrival” where the master of every aircraft or ship arriving in the Fiji Islands shall bring the ship or aircraft to an airport or port or mooring without touching at any other place.

• READ MORE: Russian billionaires head for Turkey to flee Western sanctions
• Earlier reports on the Amadea
• US seizes Russian super yacht docked in Spain
• France seizes Russian oligarch’s yacht amid EU sanctions

A fine not exceeding F$20,000 (NZ$14,000) or imprisonment for four years applies for the infringement.

Section 17 deals with “provisions as to persons disembarking from or going onboard an aircraft, ship” and states a person who contravenes or fails to comply with any direction given by the Customs comptroller under the provisions of this section is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding F$10,000 (NZ$7000).

“These charges are as per the Customs Act 1986,” said Police Commissioner Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho.

“Normally the Act, (FRCS) Fiji Revenue and Customs Service acts on a fine matrix. If he pays the fines, then good otherwise, we will need to go to the court.”

US officials join investigation
Repeka Nasiko reports that American government officials are working with the Fiji Police Force in investigations over the Amadea.

Police Commissioner Brigadier-General Sitiveni Qiliho said the US investigators had already boarded the super yacht.

Commissioner Qiliho said investigations were progressing well.

“We are working very closely with the US government in regard to the current seizure of the yacht at the moment while we go through that investigation process,” he said.

He said the next course of action would not take place overnight and “probably take the next couple of days”.

The crew, he said, were on board and the person of interest was the captain of the vessel.

“The crew are of other nationalities.

“Their embassies and high commissions have been in touch with the investigation team and we are working through the US government with those embassies regarding the crew members who continue to be on board the vessel.”

He added that all relevant defence and border agencies were involved in the investigations.

“We have the RFMF through the Fiji Navy, Customs, Fiji Police and our international counterparts that monitor the movement of vessels.”

Amadea is reportedly owned by Russian oligarch Suleiman Kerimov, who is currently sanctioned by foreign governments, including the US, over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Anish Chand is the Fiji Times West Bureau chief reporter; Repeka Nasiko is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

On December 30, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade published a tweet condemning the forced closure of two Russian human rights groups, International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Centre.

The groups were shut down by the Russian Supreme Court which was enforcing strict laws relating to dealings with “foreign agents”.

In releasing the tweet, the government urged Russia to “live up to its civil and political rights commitments”.

• READ MORE: Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel system of domination and crime against humanity — Amnesty International

Our government has also been speaking out against human rights abuses in China against the Uighur people, to the extent of facilitating a parliamentary motion condemning the cruel policies of the Chinese government.

Compare the criticism of Russia and China with MFAT’s reaction to Israel’s outrageous attacks on Palestinian human rights groups last October when it declared six of them to be “terrorist” organisations.

The targeted groups (Bisan, Al-Haq, Addameer, Defence for Children International-Palestine, the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees, and the Union of Agricultural Work Committees) typically challenge human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority as well as Israel, both of which routinely detain Palestinian activists.

Israel’s “terrorist” claim against these groups was a blatant attempt to undermine some of the most effective Palestinian civil society organisations, stifle their collective voices, and cut their sources of funding.

Not a peep from MFAT
But not a peep from MFAT. No tweets, no public statements, nothing.

When our Foreign Minister is asked about these things her officials say the government is “very concerned” about developments in the Middle East and “keeping a close watch” on the situation. They say they regularly raise human rights concerns with the Israeli ambassador in meetings with officials.

Heaven only knows what goes on in those meetings but if all human rights abuses by Israel against the Palestinian people were discussed, the Israeli ambassador would be in permanent residence at MFAT.

MFAT gives similar responses when massive human rights abuses are perpetrated against the people of West Papua by the Indonesian Army, which has occupied the territory since 1962. These are discussed behind closed doors, if they are raised at all, with Indonesian officials.

So what’s the difference that results in the Russian and Chinese governments being castigated for human rights abuses but for countries like Indonesia and Israel, there is minimal, if any, public comment?

The awful truth is that our current government has moved New Zealand closer to the US than at any time since the 1980s and MFAT calls out human rights abuses to a US agenda.

If the abuses are perpetrated by enemies of the US, such as in Russia or China, they get a full public blast but if US allies are killing unarmed people protesting the occupation of their country then it’s all hushed up.

Kept ‘in the family’
It’s kept “in the family”, behind closed doors. Martin Luther King’s comment about “the injustice of silence” applies.

Human rights abuses against Palestinians and the people of West Papua continue because countries like New Zealand have self-important ministry officials who think it’s clever to operate a public/private hierarchy of human rights abuses according to US criteria.

Aotearoa New Zealand is complicit in many ongoing human rights abuses through our silence.

Cowardice is another word that comes to mind. It’s not acceptable.

The hypocrisy of the US, and Aotearoa New Zealand’s, position on human rights was laid bare last week when Amnesty International released a 280-page report which concluded that Israel was an apartheid state. US Government officials attacked the report outright without reading it and without challenging any of the report’s substance.

MFAT hasn’t uttered a word
At a Washington press conference, a State Department official was left to try to explain why US Human Rights Reports have quoted extensively from Amnesty International regarding Ethiopia, China, Iran, Burma, Syria and Cuba but reject outright Amnesty’s report on Israel.

Needless to say, MFAT hasn’t uttered a word on the Amnesty report but is busy helping support a webinar intending to “build strategic partnerships in agriculture” with Israel through AgriTech New Zealand. This is deeply embarrassing to this country and MFAT should cancel Aotearoa New Zealand’s involvement in this webinar.

It goes without saying this country should stand against all abuses of human rights in a principled and forthright manner. This won’t happen until the current leadership of MFAT is stood down.

John Minto is a political activist and commentator, and spokesperson for Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa. This article was first published by the New Zealand Herald and is republished with the author’s permission.

The United States insists it is a Pacific nation and has unveiled a raft of new strategies to better engage with other nations in the Region.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the first Secretary of State to visit Fiji in nearly 37 years.

During his historic visit, Blinken announced that the US was pursuing deeper engagement plans with Pacific nations.

• READ MORE: US to reopen Solomon Islands embassy amid moves to counter China
• Transparency watchdog seeks US help to tackle Pacific corruption

A key element and motivation for those plans is the strengthening of the US presence to match the growing influence of China in the Pacific.

In its engagement strategy, he said that China had combined its economic, diplomatic, military, and technological might to pursue “a sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific and seeks to become the world’s most influential power”.

During an eight-hour visit to Fiji, while returning from a Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) meeting in Australia, Blinken announced climate change financing, military and other exchange initiatives and plans for a new embassy in the Solomon Islands among other foreign diplomacy engagements.

Blinken has been on a world tour for the past several months to discuss two main issues: covid-19 and China, with his counterparts including Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne, Indian Minister of External Affairs Dr S. Jaishankar and Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Hayashi Yoshimasa.

New Indo-Pacific engagement strategy
While in Fiji, Blinken met with acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and 18 Pacific Island leaders virtually, during which he announced the US government’s brand new Indo-Pacific engagement strategy, calling the region “vital to our own prosperity, our own progress”.

Blinken said that the new strategy was the result of a year of extensive engagement in the Asia Pacific region and would reflect US determination to strengthen its long-term position in the region.

“We will focus on every corner of the region, from Northeast Asia and Southeast Asia, to South Asia and Oceania, including the Pacific Islands,” he said.

“We do so at a time when many of our allies and partners, including in Europe, are increasingly turning their own attention to the region; and when there is broad, bipartisan agreement in the U.S. Congress that the United States must, too.”

This American refocus is a direct response to the increasing influence of China in the Pacific.

Since 2006, Chinese trade and foreign aid to the Pacific has significantly increased. Beijing is now the third largest donor to the region.

Although Chinese aid still represents only 8 percent of all foreign aid between 2011 and 2017 (according to The Lowy Institute), many Pacific island governments have favoured concessional loans from China, to finance large infrastructure developments.

Chinese ‘coercion and aggression’
In Solomon Islands, where Blinken announced the latest US Embassy would be opened, almost half of all two-way trade is with China.

In describing China’s actions toward expanding its influence, Blinken stated:

“The PRC’s coercion and aggression spans the globe, but it is most acute in the Indo-Pacific. From the economic coercion of Australia to the conflict along the Line of Actual Control with India to the growing pressure on Taiwan and bullying of neighbours in the East and South China Seas, our allies and partners in the region bear much of the cost of the PRC’s harmful behaviour.

“In the process, the PRC is also undermining human rights and international law, including freedom of navigation, as well as other principles that have brought stability and prosperity to the Indo-Pacific.”

When questioned by reporters about US intentions for “authentic engagement that speaks to the real needs of the islanders”, Blinken replied that the US sees the Pacific as the region for the future, and that their intentions were beyond mere security concerns.

“It’s much more fundamental than that. When we are looking at this region that we share, we see it as the region for the future, vital to our own prosperity, our own progress.

“Sixty per cent of global GDP is here, 50 percent of the world’s population is here. For all the challenges that we have, at the moment we’re working on together, it’s also a source of tremendous opportunity.”

Democracy and transparency
Blinken insisted that Washington’s new strategy was about using democracy and transparency to build a free and open Indo-Pacific which was committed to a “rules based order”.

Moving onto economics, the Secretary of State stated that the US intends to forge partnerships and alliances within the region, which will include more work with ASEAN, APEC and the Pacific Islands Forum.

Despite being headquartered in Fiji, the Forum was not invited to be part of Blinken’s visit.

At the Pacific Leaders meeting, Blinken announced a commitment to deeper economic integration including measures to open market access for agricultural commodities from the islands.

“It’s about connecting our countries together, deepening and stitching together different partnerships and alliances. It’s about building shared prosperity, with new approaches to economic integration, some of which we talked about today with high standards.”

Washington’s new Indo Pacific engagement strategy also includes commitments to develop new approaches to trade, which meet high labour and environmental standards as well as to create more resilient and secure supply chains which are “diverse, open, and predictable.”

Climate change strategy
Regarding climate change, Blinken announced plans to divert substantial portions of the US$150 billion announced at COP26 last year to the Pacific and also plans to make shared investments in decarbonisation and clean energy.

The Indo Pacific strategy announced commitments to “working with allies and partners to develop 2030 and 2050 targets, strategies, plans, and policies consistent with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius”.

Blinken stated that the US was committed to reducing regional vulnerability to the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation.

On security matters, Blinken said the Pacific could expect power derived from US alliances in other parts of the world to come to the islands.

“The United States is increasingly speaking with one voice with our NATO allies and our G7 partners, when it comes to Indo Pacific matters, you can see the strength of that commitment to the Indo Pacific throughout the past year.”

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

Tensions are running high in the Middle East in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Over the weekend, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif claimed Israeli agents were planning to attack US forces in Iraq to provide US President Donald Trump with a pretext for striking Iran.

New intelligence from Iraq indicate that Israeli agent-provocateurs are plotting attacks against Americans—putting an outgoing Trump in a bind with a fake casus belli.

Be careful of a trap, @realDonaldTrump. Any fireworks will backfire badly, particularly against your same BFFs.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 2, 2021

Just ahead of the one-year anniversary of the US assassination of Iran’s charismatic General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also warned his country would respond forcefully to any provocations.

Today, we have no problem, concern or apprehension toward encountering any powers. We will give our final words to our enemies on the battlefield.

• READ MORE: Joe Biden’s approach to the Middle East will be very different from Trump’s, especially on Iran
  

Israeli military leaders are likewise preparing for potential Iranian retaliation over the November assassination of senior Iranian nuclear scientist Dr Mohsen Fakhrizadeh — an act Tehran blames on the Jewish state.

Both the US and Israel have reportedly deployed submarines to the Persian Gulf in recent days, while the US has flown nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the region in a show of force.

And in another worrying sign, the acting US Defence Secretary, Christopher Miller, announced over the weekend the US would not withdraw the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and its strike group from the Middle East — a swift reversal from the Pentagon’s earlier decision to send the ship home.

Israel’s priorities under a new US administration
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would like nothing more than action by Iran that would draw in US forces before Trump leaves office this month and President-elect Joe Biden takes over. It would not only give him the opportunity to become a tough wartime leader, but also help to distract the media from his corruption charges.

Any American military response against Iran would also make it much more difficult for Biden to establish a working relationship with Iran and potentially resurrect the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

It’s likely in any case the Biden administration will have less interest in getting much involved in the Middle East — this is not high on the list of priorities for the incoming administration.

However, a restoration of the Iranian nuclear agreement in return for the lifting of US sanctions would be welcomed by Washington’s European allies.

This suggests Israel could be left to run its own agenda in the Middle East during the Biden administration.

Israel sees Iran as its major ongoing security threat because of its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian militants in Gaza.

One of Israel’s key strategic policies is also to prevent Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state. Israel is the only nuclear weapon power in the Middle East and is determined to keep it that way.

While Iran claims its nuclear programme is only intended for peaceful purposes, Tehran probably believes realistically (like North Korea) that its national security can only be safeguarded by possession of a nuclear weapon.

In recent days, Tehran announced it would begin enriching uranium to 20 percent as quickly as possible, exceeding the limits agreed to in the 2015 nuclear deal.

This is a significant step and could prompt an Israeli strike on Iran’s underground Fordo nuclear facility. Jerusalem contemplated doing so nearly a decade ago when Iran previously began enriching uranium to 20 percent.

How the Iran nuclear deal fell apart
Iran’s nuclear programme began in the 1950s, ironically with US assistance as part of the “Atoms for Peace” programme. Western cooperation continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution toppled the pro-Western shah of Iran. International nuclear cooperation with Iran was then suspended, but the Iranian programme resumed in the 1980s.

After years of negotiations, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed in 2015 by Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (known as the P5+1), together with the European Union.

The JCPOA tightly restricted Iran’s nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions. However, this breakthrough soon fell apart with Trump’s election.

In April 2018, Netanyahu revealed Iranian nuclear programme documents obtained by Mossad, claiming Iran had been maintaining a covert weapons program. The following month, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the JCPOA and a re-imposition of American sanctions.

Iran initially said it would continue to abide by the nuclear deal, but after the Soleimani assassination last January, Tehran abandoned its commitments, including any restrictions on uranium enrichment.

Israel’s history of preventive strikes
Israel, meanwhile, has long sought to disrupt its adversaries’ nuclear programs through its “preventative strike” policy, also known as the “Begin Doctrine”.

In 1981, Israeli aircraft struck and destroyed Iraq’s atomic reactor at Osirak, believing it was being constructed for nuclear weapons purposes. And in 2007, Israeli aircraft struck the al-Kibar nuclear facility in Syria for the same reason.

Starting in 2007, Mossad also apparently conducted an assassination program to impede Iranian nuclear research. Between January 2010 and January 2012, Mossad is believed to have organised the assassinations of four nuclear scientists in Iran. Another scientist was wounded in an attempted killing.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in the killings.

Iran is suspected to have responded to the assassinations with an unsuccessful bomb attack against Israeli diplomats in Bangkok in February 2012. The three Iranians convicted for that attack were the ones recently exchanged for the release of Australian academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert from an Iranian prison.

The Mossad assassination programme was reportedly suspended under pressure from the Obama administration to facilitate the Iran nuclear deal. But there seems little doubt the assassination of Fakhrizadeh was organised by Mossad as part of its ongoing efforts to undermine the Iranian nuclear programme.

Fakhrizadeh is believed to have been the driving force behind covert elements of Iran’s nuclear programme for many decades.

The timing of his killing was perfect from an Israeli perspective. It put the Iranian regime under domestic pressure to retaliate. If it did, however, it risked a military strike by the truculent outgoing Trump administration.

It’s fortunate Moore-Gilbert was whisked out of Iran just before the killing, as there is little likelihood Iran would have released a prisoner accused of spying for Israel (even if such charges were baseless) after such a blatant assassination had taken place in Iran.

What’s likely to happen next?
Where does all this leave us now? Much will depend on Iran’s response to what it sees (with some justification) as Israeli and US provocation.

The best outcome would be for no obvious Iranian retaliation or military action despite strong domestic pressure for the leadership to act forcefully. This would leave the door open for Biden to resume the nuclear deal, with US sanctions lifted under strict safeguards to ensure Iran is not able to maintain a covert weapons program.

By Dr Clive Williams, Campus visitor, ANU Centre for Military and Security Law, Australian National University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Described by a Guardian reviewer as “superb hate-reading”, writer and columnist Anand Giridharadas‘s latest book Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World investigates the hypocrisy of billionaire “do-gooders”.

He questions how and why we have become reliant on the philanthropy of the super-rich to help solve our biggest global issues, and their role in eroding the public institutions that should be leading the way.

Giridharadas is an editor-at-large for Time magazine and was a foreign correspondent and columnist for The New York Times from 2005 to 2016. His two previous books are India Calling: An Intimate Portrait of a Nation’s Remaking and The True American: Murder and Mercy in Texas.

LISTEN: Kim Hill interviewing author Anand Giridharadas

He told Saturday Morning he once rubbed shoulders with the elite at Aspen Institute but had a revelation when seminar rooms there were named after some of the “worst actors in American and global life, David Koch for example and others”.

“We were discussing how to make the world better. And it occurred to me that some of these very people in the room had flown into Aspen from their jobs making the world worse.

“They worked for some of the Silicon Valley tech companies putting our democracy at risk, monopolising the economy and political power, they worked for food companies … lobbying against nutrition wavering, they worked for employers that fought against … raising minimum wages. And then they would fly to Aspen to talk about solving problems they were causing.”

Giridharadas said there was a spectrum of complicity – from the naive to the shrewd – among the richest and most powerful people in the world.

‘Shrewd’ financial crisis actions
He referred to the actions of Goldman Sachs in the global financial crisis of 2008 as shrewd.

“Tech is where the new money, the new power is.”

Tech elites like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, felt privileged because of their finances and that they had mastery over a specific set of tools which they could use to change the world, he said.

“This vision is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.”

He said neoliberalism was a notion that “you should always do what’s good for money because when you do what’s good for money, people benefit somehow”.

But the money never trickles down.

“This was a fraudulent ideology from the beginning.”

‘Reputation laundering’
At the heart of the argument of “winner takes all”, he said flamboyant do-gooding around the world increased one’s chokehold on wealth and power.

“You first get rich by cutting every possible social corner you can cut – you avoid taxes if you can avoid them, you use trusts and Cayman Islands accounts, you lobby for bottle service public policies that are good for you and your rich friends and bad for most people, you avoid paying people in creative ways by suppressing minimum wage, outsourcing to contractors.”

Bottle service, he explained, was like at a nightclub, where a patron commits to spending a large sum for it.

“You now have a lot of money, but you also have a lot of resentment if these connections are going to be made by people about what’s going on.

“Then what you do is you turn around and you start donating a fraction of that money to various forms of elite do-gooding – philanthropy, corporate social responsibility, for-profit social enterprises, maybe something involving Africa even if you’ve never been.”

He called this “reputation laundering”.

Do-gooding a smokscreen
Giridharadas said a person with money and a selfless demeanour could easily reach policymakers.

He said elite do-gooding was a smokescreen so the rich and powerful could continue to have their way.

There was a need for thought leaders to combat plutocracy, he said.

“A lot of these very wealthy business people are smart enough at business to make money and keep power, they’re not intellectuals, they’re not thinkers and they’re not necessarily gifted at spinning the web for justifications for their rule, so there is a need for quirk thinkers to supply the argumentation for an age of plutocracy.”

• Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing The World (Penguin Random House).

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

Protests in at least 30 cities across the US following the police killing of George Floyd have resulted in violent attacks from police and protesters alike against journalists, reports Reporters Without Borders.

Dozens of incidents have been reported so far, ranging from threats to serious physical assaults.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned these attacks in the strongest possible terms and calls for immediate measures to protect journalists.

READ MORE: Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index 2020

Thousands of New Zealanders have joined large numbers of Americans in protesting following the killing of Minneapolis man George Floyd.

In Auckland, Aotea Square overflowed yesterday with people before thousands marched down Queen Street towards the US consulate building.

Organisers said the aim was simple,”we want to put pressure on our government from the local level, right up to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to publicly condemn the acts of violence and state-sanctioned murder against African Americans in the United States”.

READ MORE: George Floyd protesters undeterred by curfews in US cities

Protests have been held in more than 30 cities across the US and throughout the world after disturbing video surfaced showing bystanders pleading with a white police officer kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a black man, as he gasped for breath.

Floyd died from the incident, the latest in a string of deaths of black men and women at the hands of US police.

Nigerian-Kiwi Mary Adeosun drove up from Hamilton for the protest.

She was in tears as she spoke to our reporter: “I really feel for my skin-folk, for the innocent lives that have been taken… I’m so far away in this country and I’m seeing people who look like me dying [in the US]”.

Hobson Hohepa flew his Tino Rangatiratanga flag high at the protest: “[Racism] happens here in our country. It happens to us. It happens to me. I’ve had enough.”

Ricky Wilkins is an African-American from Los Angeles, California. He has been living in New Zealand for the past seven months.

“I feel loved. Everybody wants to be us but no one wants to care for us. It’s just amazing to see in Aotearoa how people are representing and showing us love.”

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

• More photo essay images

#BlackLivesMatter

When the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to the bone this week, this represented the most decisive action taken so far to forestall recession caused by a global health crisis.

The US central bank’s dramatic intervention is an acknowledgement that a health pandemic risks the most severe downturn in the global economy since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09.

But the question should be asked: why it is being left to the Fed to do the heavy lifting in response to a global health emergency that risks morphing into an economic crisis?

READ MORE: Will coronavirus damage Trump in the US general election? And Morrison’s ratings improve in Newspoll
READ MORE: Global coronavirus watch – Test every suspected case, says WHO

What sort of leadership is the White House providing globally?

Why, indeed, has the US president not convened a meeting of G20 leaders, or officials, to coordinate a global response to the pandemic itself and to risks of a severe economic retrenchment?

The short answer is that American leadership has been conflicted.

President Donald Trump’s initial response to the emergence of the Covid-19 contagion in China was to play down its likely effects.

Trump referred to ‘hoax’
At one point Trump referred to reports of an emerging pandemic as a “hoax” designed to harm his presidency.

His media allies attacked those who sought to raise the alarm.

Valuable time has been squandered in forging a global response to a global health emergency and now economic crisis-in-the-making.

Winston Churchill has had attributed to him what may be an apocryphal quote. This is that America always does the right thing once it has exhausted other possibilities.

In the age of Trump, it would take a leap of faith to assume American leadership will provide the sort of guidance the world has come to expect, even take for granted.

America may, as Churchill observed, step up, but precious time has been lost.

Various world leaders, including Australia’s Scott Morrison, have begun calling for an emergency G20 session to respond to the risks of a much more severe slowdown than had seemed likely as recently as late February.

Monitoring risks
At a G20 gathering in Riyadh, finance ministers and heads of central banks resolved to monitor risks to the global economy.

Surprisingly, these officials did not come forward with a plan beyond an agreement to take “further action” if global growth slowed more sharply than the International Monetary Fund anticipated.

In a presentation, the IMF predicted the pandemic would shave a modest 0.1 percent off global growth. Growth would pick up in the latter half of the year and into 2021.

Depending on the longevity of the Covid-19 crisis, that expectation now appears far-fetched and even laughable. China’s growth has been revised down sharply in the latest IMF assessments.

In view of what has transpired in the three weeks since the Riyadh meeting it is clear the IMF significantly understated the economic consequences of a mushrooming health emergency.

Riyadh participants, who included US Treasury Steven Mnuchin, would certainly not have anticipated the sort of dramatic action taken overnight by the Federal Reserve.

Nor would they have expected the speed with which coronavirus has spread across the globe.

Overdependence on China
The Fed reduced its benchmark interest rate to a range of 0-0.25 percent. This is effectively a zero rate of interest, trending towards negative interest rates. This is not a vote of confidence in the durability of the American economy, or in the resilience of the global system.

The central bank’s loosening of the spigots in the purchases of billions of dollars of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed debt – so-called quantitative easing – is designed to throw a lifeline to a sputtering economy.

The last thing America needs is another mortgage-backed securities meltdown. This is what brought on the GFC.

None of this reflects a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American and global economies to withstand the twin shocks of a health emergency and a global economy made vulnerable by an overdependence on Chinese growth.

As a growth engine, China had been pumping up global growth, but the air is going out of those tyres. Irrespective of how long the Covid-19 crisis lasts, we will enter a new phase in which Chinese growth will be tempered.

In the meantime, the world finds itself at its most precarious moment since the GFC. The health emergency might be brought under control without lasting damage to the global economy. Global growth might be restored to an extent.

However, what remains in question is whether an American administration led by an avowed populist who has eschewed a global leadership role will become the champion of a much-needed multilateral response to a health and economic crisis.

When the GFC hit, America stepped up. Then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulsen guided an American response. The G20 played its part.

Lack of confidence in American leadership is not least of the contributing factors to a global sense of panic. The Federal Reserve has done its best. It might not be enough.

Dr Tony Walker is adjunct professor in the School of Communications atLa Trobe University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

• Viral spiral: the federal government is playing a risky game with mixed messages on coronavirus
  
  

Professor of International Relations at Oxford University Rosemary Foot kicked off the QS Summit debate, arguing that while a power transition between the US and China is obviously underway, China’s new vision for the region is being held back by its own policy decisions.

“It’s a question of China’s use of its new power as dominance, or power as authority, using ideas of consent, or coercion ..which is it?” she asked.

“You need to look at how wisely China is conducting state-to state relations in the region … is it attracting followers or not?”

READ MORE: The QS Summit on power relationships

She says China has held itself back with a perception of heavy-handedness on issues like the South China Sea, where new military installations have been constructed on a number of small, uninhabited islands an rocky outcrops.

She says any new order has to be attentive to the norms that have kept the region stable in recent times, and China’s rise now means it has a role to play in establishing and maintaining a stable regional order, focused on something more than just military dominance.

“The signals that China sends are mixed – the South China Sea has been militarised – that is seen as a defensive strategy by China, but as an aggressive move by its neighbours to take control of marine resources – it implies use of force, or at least a willingness to use force, and that creates distrust”

China though, regards the US as fundamentally disruptive to region order, dividing it into friends and enemies

Belt and Road ambitions
Beijing has spent a lot of time emphasising its own willingness and commitment to public goods, like the hugely ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). But the challenge, according to Professor Foot, is whether China can bring stability and development, and replace the US security order with something more firmly rooted in Asian economic power.

So, is China’s vision resonating anywhere?

The disruption caused by Donald Trump’s administration and its unilateral approach to international relations surely gives China a chance to corral some support.

”But China’s policies put China first and many in the region find it hard to see China ‘doing the right thing’,” says Professor Foot.

“China’s claim to be the main stabiliser in the region is put under question by its current attitude to the US and Japan, and its behaviour in places like the South China Sea.”

“Why is it that China is finding it so hard to move into the role of benign hegemon in Asia …I’m not sure, but I think there is a sense of entitlement and a sense of victimhood that is drawn on frequently … Xi Jinping has argued that China is in a “unique space”, not the post-colonial situation its neighbours occupy.”

Potential flashpoint warning
Professor Yuen Foong Khong joined the debate with a warning that political tensions in East Asia are a potential flashpoint for conflict.

“Asia is moving fast from uni-polarity to bi-polarity .. and the competition between the US and China could be reminiscent of the Cold War, but perhaps even more severe and dangerous than that period.”

“There are a number of flashpoints in Asia – the South China Sea, North Korea, Taiwan – and these flashpoints do not involve proxies. If they flare up then China and the US will find themselves directly involved very quickly”

But Professor Khong doubts a war will erupt, given the amount of economic integration between the two, and the fact neither would want any kind of nuclear exchange.

“China sees the current order as constraining on a number of fronts… China wants equality with the US in the region … but the US is very unlikely to cede to that, as it has more economic power, and stronger alliances in the region.

“Also China’s one-party political system is s serious stumbling block to it being accepted as a credible equal in the region at present.

His view was that the Asia-Pacific’s increasing instability could in fact result in a more pluralist future scenario, with no one power taking precedence over another.

“The bipolar scenario with China and the US may not eventuate. East Asia’s future may we be more diffusive and de-centralised than you might think.”

Graeme Acton, the new Asia New Zealand Foundation’s Asia Media Centre manager, is former foreign news editor of RNZ.

• Who is militarising the South China Sea?

In November every year, the Papua New Guinean National budget usually takes centre stage. But not this year.

This week, the 2019 budget came two days before the start of the biggest meetings of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation).  People were interested in it for a day, then it faded into the background.

Then BOOM… Enter China-US geopolitics…

On Thursday, Chinese President Xi Jinping, the most influential world leader in the Asia-Pacific arrived in Port Moresby with the largest delegation of officials.

They came on two large planes and the festivities for his delegation demonstrated just how important China’s money is to the Papua New Guinea ( government.

World politics is being played out on PNG soil. It already is, by the way.

From the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Singapore, US Vice President, Mike Pence indicated he would be revealing how “dangerous” the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative is to the rest of the world including the Pacific.

Infrastructure projects
This announcement comes on the back of US$60 billion funding (about NZ$87 billion) aimed at the Asia-Pacific region. Also note that China has allocated the same amount to African countries for various projects including infrastructure.

Australia has announced its own funding initiatives for the Pacific of 7 billion Kina (NZ$3 billion).

In the foreign ministers’ meeting, the US-China tension is already being felt as the US and China tussle over free trade and other issues.

On the ground in Port Moresby, there is a strong US and Australian military presence.

From China, a strong trade presence and message about building relationships. From the outset, China appears to have all its moves planned out and is ticking off each item on its list of things to do.

At least for the government, the attention from world leaders is important. Maybe APEC is an opportunity.  Maybe it is a double edged sword – with opportunity on the one side and debt on the other as has been the case in other countries like Sri Lanka.

What stands out is China’s willingness to engage. President Xi is here for four days. America’s Trump and Russia’s Putin both sent their number twos.

As US Vice-President Pence, tweeted and jetted into Cairns, President Jinping met with Pacific Island Forum leaders and representatives in Port Moresby in the afternoon.

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

Donald Trump is so spectacularly horrible that it’s hard to look away – especially now that he’s discovered bombs. But precisely because everyone’s staring gape-mouthed in his direction, other world leaders are able to get away with almost anything.

Don’t believe me? Look one country north, at Justin Trudeau.

Look all you want, in fact – he sure is cute, the planet’s only sovereign leader who appears to have recently quit a boy band. And he’s mastered so beautifully the politics of inclusion: compassionate to immigrants, insistent on including women at every level of government. Give him great credit where it’s deserved: in lots of ways he’s the anti-Trump, and it’s no wonder Canadians swooned when he took over.

But when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange guy in Washington.

Not rhetorically: Trudeau says all the right things, over and over. He’s got no Scott Pruitts in his cabinet: everyone who works for him says the right things. Indeed, they specialise in getting others to say them too – it was Canadian diplomats, and the country’s environment minister, Catherine McKenna, who pushed at the Paris climate talks for a tougher-than-expected goal: holding the planet’s rise in temperature to 1.5C (2.7F).

But those words are meaningless if you keep digging up more carbon and selling it to people to burn, and that’s exactly what Trudeau is doing. He’s hard at work pushing for new pipelines through Canada and the US to carry yet more oil out of Alberta’s tar sands, which is one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet.

Last month, speaking at a Houston petroleum industry gathering, he got a standing ovation from the oilmen for saying: “No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

Recoverable oil estimate
Yes, 173bn barrels is indeed the estimate for recoverable oil in the tar sands. So let’s do some math. If Canada digs up that oil and sells it to people to burn, it will produce, according to the math whizzes at Oil Change International, 30 percent of the carbon necessary to take us past the 1.5C target that Canada helped set in Paris.

That is to say, Canada, which represents one half of 1 percent of the planet’s population, is claiming the right to sell the oil that will use up a third of the earth’s remaining carbon budget. Trump is a creep and a danger and unpleasant to look at, but at least he’s not a stunning hypocrite.

This having-your-cake-and-burning-it-too is central to Canada’s self-image/energy policy. McKenna, confronted by Canada’s veteran environmentalist David Suzuki, said tartly: “We have an incredible climate change plan that includes putting a price on carbon pollution, also investing in clean innovation.

“But we also know we need to get our natural resources to market and we’re doing both.” Right.

But doing the second negates the first – in fact, it completely overwhelms it. If Canada is busy shipping carbon all over the world, it wouldn’t matter all that much if every Tim Horton’s stopped selling doughnuts and started peddling solar panels instead.

Canada’s got company in this scam. Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull is supposed to be more sensitive than his predecessor, a Trump-like blowhard.

When he signed on his nation to the Paris climate accords, he said: “It is clear the agreement was a watershed, a turning point and the adoption of a comprehensive strategy has galvanised the international community and spurred on global action.”

Which is a fine thing to say – or would be, if your government wasn’t backing plans for the largest coal mine on Earth.

Mathematically and morally absurd
That single mine, in a country of 24 million people, will produce 362 percent of the annual carbon emissions that everyone in the Philippines produces in the course of a year.

It is obviously, mathematically and morally absurd.

Trump, of course, is working just as eagerly to please the fossil fuel industry – he’s instructed the Bureau of Land Management to make permitting even easier for new oil and gas projects, for instance. And frackers won’t even have to keep track of how much methane they’re spewing under his new guidelines.

And why should they? If you believe, as Trump apparently does, that global warming is a delusion, a hoax, a mirage, you might as well get out of the way.

Trump’s insulting the planet, in other words. But at least he’s not pretending otherwise.