radiofree.asia

Category: Australia

  • Global warming predicted to cost Australia billions

    Global warming could cost Australia’s economy hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades if workplaces cannot adapt to soaring temperatures. That’s according to a new report from its own government. Working conditions will become so difficult in the already scorching continent that officials predict a drop in output of Aus$135-423bn.

    An ‘economic imperative’

    The forecast assumes global temperatures will increase by three to four degrees Celsius by 2063. Measures such as tree planting and changing how buildings are designed would only help sweltering workers “to some degree”, the report said.

    However, the estimate doesn’t include the cost to agriculture or tourism. Of course, fewer visitors could be expected to come due to natural disasters and the degradation of natural attractions.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated that:

    Dealing with climate change is a global environmental and economic imperative.

    He added that billions must be spent to meet the country’s net zero by 2050 target. This is needed to decarbonise heavy industries and build a clean energy economy. The minister also insisted the clean energy transition provided an opportunity to businesses and to a country replete with minerals needed to produce green energy technologies.

    Commenting on the report, Kathryn Bowen – professor of environment, climate and global health at the University of Melbourne – said measures aimed at helping people adapt to climate change needed to “rapidly accelerate”.

    A vicious cycle

    However, Australia is also one of the world’s largest producers of coal and gas. Coal is used to meet as much as 80% of the country’s energy requirements. As such, Australia is acting as a driving force of its own downfall.

    As the Canary’s Hannah Sharland has been documenting, many poorer countries in the Global South are experiencing vicious cycles of fossil fuel extraction. Sharland explained that:

    Without adequate funds from wealthy nations, the Global South is forced to turn to its fossil fuel reserves. The revenue from the exports of these reserves then finances the growing costs of climate impacts.

    Now, Australia’s relentless pursuit of coal and gas is having a similar effect on this far-more-affluent nation. The profit made from fossil fuel extraction is an illusion. In reality, the costs of dealing with the dire consequences of climate disaster will always loom behind the easy money offered by extraction companies.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Andrew Xu, resized to 1910*1000, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Cutting Climate Change Research: Cuts at the Australian Antarctic Division

    Australia’s funding priorities have been utterly muddled of late.  At the Commonwealth level, there is cash to be found in every conceivable place to support every absurd military venture, as long as it targets those hideous authoritarians in Beijing. It seemed utterly absurd that, even as the Australian federal government announced its purchase of over 200 tomahawk cruise missiles – because that is exactly what the country needs – there are moves afoot to prune and cut projects conducted by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD).

    On July 10, an email sent to all staff by the head of division, Emma Campbell, claimed that the AAD “won’t be able to afford” all current positions.  Since then, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) has given a flimsy assurance that no jobs will be lost. “The focus will be on finding areas where work performed by those on fixed-term contracts can be incorporated into the work of ongoing staff,” stated a spokesperson for the department.

    This all seemed an odd state of affairs, given the promise by the previous Morrison government that an additional AUD$804.4 million would be spent over a decade for scientific capabilities and research specific to Antarctic interests.

    Unfortunately for those concerned with the bits and bobs at the AAD, the undertaking was not entirely scientific in nature.  Part of the package included AUD$3.4 million to “enhance Australia’s international engagement to support the rules and norms of the Antarctic Treaty system and promote Australia’s leadership in Antarctic affairs”.

    Australia’s long-standing obsession with claiming 42 per cent of the Antarctic, one that continues to remain unrecognised by other states, has meant that any exploration or claims by others are bound to be seen as threats.  In 2021, the People’s Republic of China built its fifth research station base in Australia’s Antarctic environs, sparking concerns that Beijing may be less interested in the science than other potential rich offerings.  They are hardly the only ones.

    The AAD, however, has shifted its focus to identifying necessary savings amounting to 16% of the annual budget, a crude, spreadsheet exercise that can only harm the research element of the organisation.  As Campbell’s staff-wide email goes on to declare, a review of the future season plan is also being pursued, along with the concern about a “budget situation [that] has made the three-year plan process harder than expected.”

    A spokesperson for DCCEEW claimed that the resulting AUD$25 million difference in funding could be put down to the planning difficulties around the commissioned Antarctic icebreaker, the Nuyina.  Few could have been surprised that the process resulted in delays, leading to the AAD to seek alternative shipping options.

    What proved surprising to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (when will they ever change such excruciating names?) was that there had been “no cuts to the [AAD] at all”.  As Federal Minister Catherine King went on to say, the Australian government had not altered administering “the $804 million budget that is there for the Antarctic Division.  There are no cuts, we’re a bit perplexed as to where this story has come from.”

    The difference between Canberra’s automatic assumption of reliable finance and delivery has not, it would seem, translated into the individual funding choices made in the ice-crusted bliss of Australia’s southern research stations.  According to Nature, two of Australia’s permanent research stations – Mawson and Davis – will not be staffed to their full capacity over the summer period.

    The implication for such a budget trim will have one logical consequence.  As Jan Zika, a climate scientist working at the University of New South Wales reasons, “When someone says there’s a cut to the AAD, it basically means less science, less understanding of what’s going on.”  Zika is unsparing in suggesting that this was “catastrophic” (the word comes easily) given the changes to the sea ice under study.  “We’re seeing so little sea ice relative to what we normally see at this time of the year.”

    To have such gaps in data collection was also “catastrophic” to scientific and ecological understanding.  “If we have data up to a certain date, and then we have a gap for three years, five years, and then we start to get the data again, it doesn’t make it useless.  But it makes it really hard for us to get that understanding that we need.”

    Zika is certainly correct about the sea ice findings.  On June 27, data gathered by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center showed that the sea ice enveloping Antarctica was a record winter low of 11.7 million square kilometres, namely, more than 2.5 million square kilometres below the average for the time between 1981 and 2010.

    Other researchers, notably those who collaborate with the AAD, fear the impeding effects of budget cuts.  Christian Haas, a sea-ice specialist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of the Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany sees this as inevitable.  Nathan Bindoff of the University of Tasmania, who specialises in physical oceanography, has also suggested that such funding cuts would delay investigative procedures with irreversible effect.  “We’re probably going to be too late to address some of these questions.”

    This hideous disjuncture says it all: climate change research, trimmed and stripped, thereby disrupting the gathering of data; military purchases and procurement, all the rage and adding to insecurity.  While such foolish, exorbitant projects as the nuclear submarine plan under AUKUS is seen as an industry, country-wide enterprise that will produce jobs across the economy, the study of catastrophic climate change is being seen as a problem of secondary relevance, ever vulnerable to the financial razor gang.

  • JASDF readies F-35As for first overseas exercise

    The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) is readying its fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters for the type’s first international drill in Japanese service in northern Australia, the JASDF announced in a 14 August statement. According to the JASDF, four F-35A aircraft operated by the 3rd Air Wing at Misawa will undertake […]

    The post JASDF readies F-35As for first overseas exercise appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • University of Adelaide and Babcock team up to boost defence talent and skills

    A new partnership between the University of Adelaide and Babcock Australasia (Babcock) is set to accelerate Australia’s critical defence industry workforce to support the biggest and most ambitious defence agenda in the nation’s history. A new partnership between the University of Adelaide and Babcock Australasia (Babcock) is set to accelerate Australia’s critical defence industry workforce […]

    The post University of Adelaide and Babcock team up to boost defence talent and skills appeared first on Asian Military Review.

  • Assange Be Wary: The Dangers of a US Plea Deal

    At every stage of its proceedings against Julian Assange, the US Imperium has shown little by way of tempering its vengeful impulses.  The WikiLeaks publisher, in uncovering the sordid, operational details of a global military power, would always have to pay.  Given the 18 charges he faces, 17 fashioned from that most repressive of instruments, the US Espionage Act of 1917, any sentence is bound to be hefty.  Were he to be extradited from the United Kingdom to the US, Assange will disappear into a carceral, life-ending dystopia.

    In this saga of relentless mugging and persecution, the country that has featured regularly in commentary, yet done the least, is Australia.  Assange may well be an Australian national, but this has generally counted for naught.  Successive governments have tended to cower before the bullying disposition of Washington’s power. With the signing of the AUKUS pact and the inexorable surrender of Canberra’s military and diplomatic functions to Washington, any exertion of independent counsel and fair advice will be treated with sneering qualification.

    The Albanese government has claimed, at various stages, to be pursuing the matter with its US counterparts with firm insistence.  Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has even publicly expressed his frustration at the lack of progress in finding a “diplomatic solution” to Assange’s plight.  But such frustrations have been tempered by an acceptance that legal processes must first run their course.

    The substance of any such diplomatic solution remains vague.  But on August 14, the Sydney Morning Herald, citing US Ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy as its chief source, reported that a “resolution” to Assange’s plight might be in the offing.  “There is a way to resolve it,” the ambassador told the paper.  This could involve a reduction of any charges in favour of a guilty plea, with the details sketched out by the US Department of Justice.  In making her remarks, Kennedy clarified that this was more a matter for the DOJ than the State Department or any other department.  “So it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think there absolutely could be a resolution.”

    In May, Kennedy met members of the Parliamentary Friends of Julian Assange Group to hear their concerns.  The previous month, 48 Australian MPs and Senators, including 13 from the governing Labor Party, wrote an open letter to the US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, warning that the prosecution “would set a dangerous precedent for all global citizens, journalists, publishers, media organizations and the freedom of the press.  It would also be needlessly damaging for the US as a world leader on freedom of expression and the rule of law.”

    In a discussion with The Intercept, Gabriel Shipton, Assange’s brother, had his own analysis of the latest developments. “The [Biden] administration appears to be searching for an off-ramp ahead of [Albanese’s] first state visit to DC in October.”  In the event one wasn’t found, “we could see a repeat of a very public rebuff delivered by [US Secretary of State] Tony Blinken to the Australian Foreign Minister two weeks ago in Brisbane.”

    That rebuff was particularly brutal, taking place on the occasion of the AUSMIN talks between the foreign and defence ministers of both Australia and the United States.  On that occasion, Foreign Minister Penny Wong remarked that Australia had made its position clear to their US counterparts “that Mr Assange’s case has dragged for too long, and our desire it be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve said that publicly and you would anticipate that that reflects also the positive we articulate in private.”

    In his response, Secretary of State Blinken claimed to “understand” such views and admitted that the matter had been raised with himself and various offices of the US.  With such polite formalities acknowledged, Blinken proceeded to tell “our friends” what, exactly, Washington wished to do.  Assange had been “charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.  The actions that he has alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention.”

    Such an assessment, lazily assumed, repeatedly rebutted, and persistently disproved, went unchallenged by all the parties present, including the Australian ministers.  Nor did any members of the press deem it appropriate to challenge the account.  The unstated assumption here is that Assange is already guilty for absurd charges, a man condemned.

    At this stage, such deals are the stuff of manipulation and fantasy.  The espionage charges have been drafted to inflate, rather than diminish any sentence.  Suggestions that the DOJ will somehow go soft must be treated with abundant scepticism.  The pursuit of Assange is laced by sentiments of revenge, intended to both inflict harm upon the publisher while deterring those wishing to publish US national security information.  As the Australian international law academic Don Rothwell observes, the plea deal may well take into account the four years spent in UK captivity, but is unlikely to either feature a complete scrapping of the charges, or exempt Assange from travelling to the US to admit his guilt.  “It’s not possible to strike a plea deal outside the relevant jurisdiction except in the most exceptional circumstances.”

    Should any plea deal be successfully reached and implemented, thereby making Assange admit guilt, the terms of his return to Australia, assuming he survives any stint on US soil, will be onerous.  In effect, the US would merely be changing the prison warden while adjusting the terms of observation.  In place of British prison wardens will be Australian overseers unlikely to ever take kindly to the publication of national security information.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • West Papuan solidarity group condemns arrest of 21 activists protesting 1962 ‘tragedy’

    Asia Pacific Report

    An Australian West Papuan solidarity group has condemned the reported arrest of 21 activists protesting in Jayapura over a “tragic day in history” and called on Canberra to urge Jakarta to restrain its security forces.

    The West Papuan National Committee (KNPB) activists were arrested at the weekend because they were handing out flyers calling on West Papuans to mark the date on Tuesday — 15 August 1962 —  when the Papuan people were “betrayed by the international community”, reports Jubi News.

    That was the date of the New York Agreement, brokered by the US, which called for the transfer of the Dutch colony of Netherlands New Guinea to Indonesia after a short period of UN administration.

    No West Papuans were involved in this agreement.

    “Hopefully this year the Indonesian security forces will allow the West Papuan people to hold their peaceful rallies without interference,” said Joe Collins, spokesperson for the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) in a statement.

    “Canberra should be urging Jakarta to control its security forces in West Papua, otherwise we will see more arrests and more human rights abuses.

    “We should not forget,  Australia was involved and still involved”.

    The New York Agreement included a guarantee that the Papuan people would be allowed an “Act of Free Choice” to determine their political status.

    Peaceful demonstration
    The so-called “Act of Free Choice” in 1969 has been branded as a sham by activists and international critics.

    Sixty one years after that contested agreement, West Papuans are still calling for a real referendum.

    West Papuan activists handing out New York Agreement protest flyers in Jayapura
    West Papuan activists handing out New York Agreement protest flyers in Jayapura. Image: Jubi News

    The Central KNPB spokesperson, Ones Suhuniap, said that 21 KNPB Sentani Region activists were arrested on Saturday when activists distributed leaflets calling for a peaceful demonstration to mark the New York Agreement and also the racism troubles that Papuan students suffered in Surabaya, Central Java, in August 2019.

    Although some of the activists had been released, these arrests were intended to intimidate civil society groups into not taking part in the planned rallies, said the spokesperson.

    Collins said: “West Papuan civil society groups regularly hold events and rallies on days of significance in their history, to try and bring attention to the world of the injustices they suffer under Indonesian rule.

    “And this is what Jakarta fears most — international scrutiny on the ongoing human rights abuses in the territory”.

    A West Papua news report of the activist arrests
    A West Papua news report of the activist arrests. Image: Jubi News/APR screenshot

    Collins said it was of “great concern” that Indonesian security forces could again stage a crackdown in “their usual heavy-handed approach to any peaceful rallies held by West Papuans” during this coming week.

    In the past, West Papuans had not only been being arrested for peaceful action but had also been beaten, tortured – and some people had faced charges of treason.

    Three students jailed for ‘treason’
    On Tuesday, three students were found guilty of treason and given a 10-month prison term by a panel of judges at the Jayapura District Court for alleged treason by being involved in a “free speech” event last year, reports Jubi News.

    Yoseph Ernesto Matuan, Devio Tekege, and Ambrosius Fransiskus Elopere took part in the event held at Jayapura University of Science and Technology (USTJ) on November 10, 2022, when they waved Morning Star flags of independence.

    The event aimed to reject a Papua peace dialogue plan introduced by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).

  • Calf Days and Rationed Broadcasting: The Women’s World Cup

    FIFA is a funny organisation.  Mafia-run, obscenely corrupt, it governs the most popular game on the planet with a shameless, muscular vigour that must make other criminal enterprises green with envy.  But even its members must find the curious limitations to viewing matches of the 2023 Women’s World Cup being held in Australia and New Zealand odd, especially given the organisation’s efforts to promote the appeal of the game.

    Billed as the most popular women’s tournament ever, Australians have been rationed in their share of viewable matches.  A mere 15 matches are available from the free-to-air service on Channel Seven.  If you do fork out for a subscription to the extortionists at Optus Sport, then you can view all 64 matches for a monthly fee of A$24.99.  Existing Optus customers have the pleasure of viewing the matches at the cost $A6.99.

    Those attending in person have not disappointed the organisers, and figures have been supremely healthy in both countries, with Australia doing particularly well.  But the broadcasting pay wall has baffled the supporters of various national sides.

    When a very entertaining Nigeria advanced to the knockout stages of the tournament, supporters in Australia found their options for viewing the match against England spare.  “Many people have been looking forward to watching the game with England, but not everybody can afford to pay for Optus Sports,” complained the frustrated chairperson of the Nigerian Association of Western Australia, Dr Pedrus Eweama.  “But there’s a limit to what we can do, it’s just part of policy … it’s very disappointing.”

    Expatriates from other countries living in Australia were also bemused.  A UK citizen living in Melbourne, Alex Read, found it odd that his friends and family back in the old country could enjoy all the games on free to air platforms, live television or the BBC iPlayer.  “I get that football is a bigger sport in the UK than it may be in Australia, but that should be irrelevant.  You’re not going to show the Olympics and not show the whole thing for live view.”  Well, not unless you are in Australia, where broadcasting is stunningly tribal.

    True to form, supporters of the Australian side, the Matildas, have little reason to be concerned about any impending paywall.  Channel Seven has rights to broadcast all their matches without charge.  But their broadcasting has been, for the most part, ordinary, platitudinous and stifled by cliché.  During the Australia-France quarterfinal held in Brisbane, a remark from one of the mathematically challenged commentators stood out: “There have been 50,000 eyes looking on tonight.”  Given the presence of 50,000 attendees, it can only be presumed that 25,000 one-eyed, Cyclopean wonders had stumbled their way into the Suncorp Stadium to witness the Australian victory after a brutally draining penalty shootout.

    The viewing arrangements meant that only subscribers could watch the England-Colombia quarterfinal being held in Sydney later in the evening, which furnished those in attendance a thrilling 2-1 spectacle with the England Lionesses prevailing.  The next day, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation made footnote references to the match, focusing with almost exclusive adulation on the achievements of the home side’s efforts against France. That England remains a firm favourite to win the tournament has been all but scratched from the narrative.

    For sports journalist and presenter Lucy Zelić, this seemed to conform to a disturbing pattern in the field of football broadcasting down under.  “From the technological disaster with SBS and Optus in 2018, to the limited offering of free-to-air matches for the 2019 Women’s World Cup, history has had an unfunny way of repeating itself.”  The limited offerings on Australian soil were all the more galling given that each of the 32 countries being represented at the tournament “has a proud community living in Australia.”

    None of this was helped by the fact that the Women’s World Cup, despite being held on home soil, was not placed on a protected list of salient sporting tournaments that prevent them from falling into the cosmos of pay television.  Such Australian anti-siphoning laws, passed in 1992, were not used to cover the tournament as it was deemed, according to Zelić, not “to be ‘nationally important’ or ‘culturally significant’ for the Australian public”.  Those occupying the portfolio of Communications Minister have been far from sharp in that regard.

    The problem was a microcosm of the broader challenges of broadcasting that seemed to have plagued this tournament.  Even before a ball was kicked, a spat arose between the head of FIFA, Gianni Infantino, and public service providers in five European countries over the cost of broadcasting rights.  Infantino was particularly miffed by offerings of US$1 million and US$10 million for the rights, compared with US$100 million to US$200 million for the men’s tournament.

    The other tournament story that seemed to suck up the oxygen of discussion has been the cultish obsession with Sam Kerr’s injured calf muscle, which has come to resemble the miracle bone of a medieval saint.  Was the injury mild, severe, or even crippling?  The delicate wonder has featured in press conferences, cod psychology and the circles of endless punditry.  Seen as one of the most potent strikers in women’s football, the Australian has been confined to meandering on the sidelines and releasing words of undisclosed wisdom to her teammates like a sagacious witchdoctor.

    In the match against France, Kerr finally made a lengthier show, though the weight of the team in the tournament has been borne with exuberant audacity largely by the likes of Caitlin Foord and Mary Fowler.  Because of their efforts, and those of goalkeeper Mackenzie Arnold, the team has reached their first World Cup semi-final.  At least Channel Seven will broadcast it, if poorly.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The Censors Down Under: The ACMA Gambit on Misinformation and Disinformation

    In January 2010, the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, doing what she does best, grasped a platitude and ran with it in launching, of all things, an institution called the Newseum.  “Information freedom,” she declared, “supports the peace and security that provide a foundation for global progress.”

    The same figure has encouraged the prosecution of such information spear carriers as Julian Assange, who dared give the game away by publishing, among other things, documents from the State Department and emails from Clinton’s own presidential campaign in 2016 that cast her in a rather dim light.  Information freedom is only to be lauded when it favours your side.

    Who regulates, let alone should regulate, information disseminated across the Internet remains a critical question.  Gone is the frontier utopianism of an open, untampered information environment, where bright and optimistic netizens could gather, digitally speaking, in the digital hall, the agora, the square, to debate, to ponder, to dispute every topic there was.  Perhaps it never existed, but for a time, it was pleasant to even imagine it did.

    The shift towards information control was bound to happen and was always going to be encouraged by the greatest censors of all: governments.  Governments untrusting of the posting policies and tendencies of social media users and their facilitators have been, for some years, trying to rein in published content in a number of countries.  Cyber-pessimism has replaced the cyber-utopians.  “Social media,” remarked science writer Annalee Newitz in 2019, “has poisoned the way we communicate with each other and undermined the democratic process.”  The emergence of the terribly named “fake news” phenomenon adds to such efforts, all the more ironic given the fact that government sources are often its progenitors.

    To make things even murkier, the social media behemoths have also taken liberties on what content they will permit on their forums, using their selective algorithms to disseminate information at speed even as they prevent other forms of it from reaching wider audiences.  Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, heeding the call of the very screams and bellows of their own creation, thought it appropriate to exclude or limit various users in favour of selected causes and more sanitised usage.  In some jurisdictions, they have become the surrogates of government policy under threat: remove any offending material, or else.

    Currently under review in Australia is another distinctly nasty example of such a tendency.  The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a proposed instrument that risks enshrining censorship by stealth.  Its exposure draft is receiving scrutiny from public submissions till August.  Submissions are sought “on the proposed laws to hold digital platform services to account and create transparency around their efforts in responding to misinformation and disinformation in Australia.”

    The Bill is a clumsily drafted, laboriously constructed document.  It is outrageously open-ended on definitions and a condescending swipe to the intelligence of the broader citizenry.  It defines misinformation as “online content that is false, misleading or deceptive, that is shared or created without an intent to deceive but can cause and contribute to serious harm.”  Disinformation is regarded as “misinformation that is intentionally disseminated with the intent to deceive or cause serious harm.”

    The bill, should it become law, will empower the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to monitor and regulate material it designates as “harmful online misinformation and disinformation”.  The Big Tech fraternity will be required to impose codes of conduct to enforce the interpretations made by the ACMA, with the regulator even going so far as proposing to “create and enforce an industry standard”.  Those in breach will be liable for up to A$7.8 million or 5% of global turnover for corporations.

    What, then, is harm?  Examples are provided in the Guidance Note to the Bill.  These include hatred targeting a group based on ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion or physical or mental disability.  It can also include disruption to public order or society, the old grievance the State has when protestors dare differ in their opinions and do the foolish thing by expressing them.  (The example provided here is the mind of the typical paranoid government official: “Misinformation that encouraged or caused people to vandalise critical communications infrastructure.”)

    John Steenhoff of the Human Rights Law Alliance has identified, correctly, the essential, dangerous consequence of the proposed instrument.  It will grant the ACMA “a mechanism what counts as acceptable communication and what counts as misinformation and disinformation.  This potentially gives the state the ability to control the availability of information for everyday Australians, granting it power beyond anything that a government should have in a free and democratic society.”

    Interventions in such information ecosystems are risky matters, certainly for states purporting to be liberal democratic and supposedly happy with debate.  A focus on firm, robust debate, one that drives out poor, absurd ideas in favour of richer and more profound ones, should be the order of the day.  But we are being told that the quality of debate, and the strength of ideas, can no longer be sustained as an independent ecosystem.  Your information source is to be curated for your own benefit, because the government class says it’s so.  What you receive and how you receive, is to be controlled paternalistically.

    The ACMA is wading into treacherous waters.  The conservatives in opposition are worried, with Shadow Communications Minister David Coleman describing the draft as “a very bad bill” giving the ACMA “extraordinary powers.  It would lead to digital companies self-censoring the legitimately held views of Australians to avoid the risk of massive fines.”  Not that the conservative coalition has any credibility in this field.  Under the previous governments, a relentless campaign was waged against the publication of national security information.  An enlightened populace is the last thing these characters, and their colleagues, want.

  • Long-range fires a feature of Talisman Sabre 2023

    The 2023 edition of the Australia-led multinational military exercise Talisman Sabre, which formally commenced on 21 July and concluded on 4 August, was held across five Australian states and territories and comprised over 34,000 military personnel from 13 countries with drills conducted across sea, land, air, cyberspace, and space. A key highlight of the event […]

    The post Long-range fires a feature of Talisman Sabre 2023 appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Allegations over cult leader feature in new Muslim Media Watch outlet

    Pacific Media Watch

    A new media monitoring watchdog, Muslim Media Watch, published its first edition today featuring a cover story alleging that a Malaysian cult leader who was reportedly now in New Zealand could “create social unrest”.

    Named as Suhaini bin Mohammad, he was allegedly posing as a Muslim religious leader and was said to be wanted by the authorities in Malaysia for “false teachings” that contradict Islam.

    His cult ideology was identified by MMW as SiHulk, which was banned by the Johor State Religious Department (JAINJ) in 2021.

    The front page of the inaugural August edition of Muslim Media Watch
    The front page of the inaugural August edition of Muslim Media Watch. Image: Screenshot

    In an editorial, the 16-page publlcation said a need for “such a news outlet” as MMW had been shown after the mass shootings at two Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 and the Royal Commission inquiry that followed.

    Fifty one people killed in the twin attacks were all Muslims attending the Islamic Friday prayer — “they were targeted solely because they were Muslims”.

    The editorial noted “the shooter was motivated largely by online material. His last words before carrying out the shootings were: ‘Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.’”

    “It is therefore disappointing that, while acknowledging the role of the media in the shootings, none of the 44 recommendations in the government’s response to the [Royal Commission] relate to holding media to account for irresponsible reporting, or even mention media; the word does not appear in any recommendation,” writes editor Adam Brown.

    Often not neutral
    “Indeed, the word Muslim appears only once, in ‘Muslim Community Reference Group’.
    It has long been acknowledged that media reporting of Muslims and Islam is often not neutral.”

    The editorial cited an Australian example, a survey by OnePath Network Australia which tallied the number, percentage and tone of articles about Islam in Australian media in 2017, in particular newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp: The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail and The Advertiser.

    “Over the year, the report found that 2891 negative articles ran in those five newspapers, where Islam and Muslims were mentioned alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism and radical. This equates to over eight articles per day for the whole year; 152 of those articles ran on the front page,” said the MMW editorial.

    “The percentage of their opinion pieces that were Islamophobic ranged from 19 percent
    to 64 percent.

    “The average was 31 percent, nearly a third, with one writer reaching almost two thirds. Also, as OnePath comment, ‘Even though they are stated to be “opinion” pieces, they are often written as fact.’”

    Editor Brown said the situation in New Zealand had not improved since the shootings.

    “Biased and unfair reporting on Muslim matters continues, and retractions are not always forthcoming,” he wrote.

    Examples highlighted
    The editorial said that the purpose of MMW was to highlight examples of media reporting — in New Zealand and overseas — that contained information about Islam that was not
    accurate, or that was not neutrally reported.

    It would also model ethical journalism and responsible reporting following Islamic practices and tradition.

    MMW offered to conduct training sessions and to act as a resource for other media outlets.

    On other pages, MMW reported about misrepresentation of Islam “being nothing new”, a challenge over a Listener article misrepresentation about girls’ education in Afghanistan, an emerging global culture of mass Iftar events, an offensive reference in a Ministry of Education textbook, and the ministry “acknowledges bias in teacher recruiting”, an article headlined “when are religious extremists not religious extremists”, and other issues.

  • Scientists say climate crisis and El Niño put Australia’s Great Barrier Reef at risk of another mass die-off this year

    On Wednesday 9 August, Australia’s top marine body said that the Great Barrier Reef could deteriorate if warming ocean temperatures spark another mass coral bleaching event later this year.

    Sections of the reef had been showing promising signs of recovery until a bleaching event in 2022 turned swathes of the vibrant coral a sickly, pale white.

    The Australian Institute of Marine Science said that although the reef’s condition had stabilised during a “relatively mild” summer in 2023, it remained in a precarious position.

    Institute research director David Wachenfeld said the reef was at:

    increased risk with climate change driving more frequent and severe bleaching events.

    Australia’s weather bureau has said it is “likely” an El Niño weather pattern will develop over the country in the coming weeks. The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) declares the El Niño when sea temperatures in the the tropical eastern Pacific exceed 0.5C above the long-term average. These are naturally-occurring periodic warming events.

    On 4 July, the WMO announced that El Nino was underway. The event has been bringing warmer ocean temperatures to the Pacific. As a result, this has renewed the risk of coral bleaching.

    Soaring sea temperatures and coral bleaching

    Globally, the average ocean temperature has been topping seasonal heat records on a regular basis since April. On 31 July, climate modelling service Copernicus recorded the highest ever global sea surface temperature of 20.96C.

    Coral bleaching occurs when sea temperatures rise by 1-2C for a prolonged period. The increased temperature causes corals to expel the algal organisms living in their tissues. This exposes the coral and makes it more vulnerable.

    As a result of the current sustained high sea surface temperatures, corals in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are at risk of a mass bleaching event. Australian Institute of Marine Science director David Wachenfeld said the reef was:

    only one large-scale disturbance away from a rapid reversal of recent recovery.

    Marine heatwaves have caused mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef in 2016, 2017, 2020 and 2022.

    Researcher Mike Emslie said even the most minor bleaching event was enough to “put the brakes” on the reef’s recovery. Emslie explained that:

    This means the reef is still at risk of decline from more frequent disturbances

    Fossil-fuel-driven climate crisis to blame

    Of course, the fossil-fuel-driven climate crisis is exacerbating the soaring sea surface temperatures.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) most recent report detailed that incidences of marine heatwaves had doubled since 1980. Crucially, the report stated that:

    human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006.

    In other words, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is largely to blame.

    Moreover, the IPCC stressed that on the current climate trajectory, marine heatwaves are likely to increase in number throughout the 21st century. This would have a devastating impact on coral reef ecosystems. At 1.5C of warming, scientists have projected that over 90% coral reefs could die.

    A 2019 study also found that the climate crisis is causing more intense El Niño events.

    As the Canary has previously reported, rich Global North nations are the main climate culprits. For instance, the same IPCC report highlighted that wealthy ‘developed’ nations were responsible for 57% of GHG emissions between 1850 and 2019.

    Naturally, these are the same rich nations who are still funding the extraction and expansion of fossil fuels.

    World Heritage Site at risk

    The Great Barrier Reef extends over 2,300km of coastline and is home to over 9,000 marine species. This includes 400 types of coral, 1,500 species of fish and 4,000 types of mollusc.

    In 1981, The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated the reef system a World Heritage Site (WHS). UNESCO defines these sites as:

    places on Earth that are of outstanding universal value to humanity

    After a damning report in 2021, World heritage body UNESCO considered listing the reef as “in danger”. However, following intense lobbying from Australia’s previous conservative government, it left the fading wonder off the list of endangered sites. The current Labor government in Australia has also continued to lobby UNESCO to keep the reef off the list.

    The reef is one of Australia’s premier tourist attractions. Successive Australian governments have been concerned that putting it on the in-danger list could substantially tarnish its allure for international visitors.

    Instead, UNESCO has set up a monitoring mission within Australia to assess the impact of pollution, fishing, the climate crisis, and coral bleaching. The UNESCO committee’s decision went against the scientific advice from experts who conducted a mission to reef.

    Australia’s environment minister Tanya Plibersek told reporters that:

    Lobbying is about telling the truth about what we’re doing

    Plibersek was referring to the Labor government’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis and pressures to the reef. However, much like other Global North governments, Australia is continuing to develop reckless oil, gas and coal projects. As the climate crisis intensifies, taking the impacts on the world’s largest coral reef system seriously should mean finally bringing the era of fossil fuels to an end. Thousands of unique marine species are depending on it.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Feature image via Gökhan Tolun/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. 

    By Hannah Sharland

  • Australia picks Redback for army IFV requirement

    The Australian government has selected Hanwha Defense Australia (HDA) to deliver 129 AS21 Redback infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) under the Australian Army’s LAND 400 Phase 3 programme following a five-year tender which saw HDA eventually edging out Rheinmetall Defence Australia (RDA)’s Lynx KF41 IFV. The Land 400 Phase 3 programme, which is worth A$5-7 billion, […]

    The post Australia picks Redback for army IFV requirement appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Building for War: The US Imperium’s Top End Spend

    The AUSMIN 2023 talks held between the US Secretaries of State and Defense and their Australian counterparts, confirmed the increasing, unaccountable militarisation of the Australian north and its preparation for a future conflict with Beijing.  Details were skimpy, the rhetoric aspirational.  But the Australian performance from Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong, was crawling, lamentable, even outrageous.  State Secretary Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III could only look on with sheer wonder at their prostrate hosts.

    Money, much of it from the US military budget, is being poured into upgrading, expanding and redeveloping Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases in the Northern Territory city of Darwin, and Tindal, situated 320km south-east of Darwin, the intended to “address functional deficiencies and capacity constraints in existing facilities and infrastructure.”  Two new locations are also being proposed at RAAF Bases Scherger and RAAF Curtin, aided by site surveys.

    The AUSMIN joint statement, while revealing nothing in terms of operational details or costs, proved heavy with talk about “the ambitious trajectory of Enhanced Force Posture Cooperation across land, maritime, and air domains, as well as Combined Logistics, Sustainment and Maintenance Enterprise (CoLSME).”  Additionally, there would be “Enhanced Air Cooperation” with a rotating “US Navy Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft in Australia to enhance regional maritime domain awareness, with an ambition of inviting likeminded partners to participate in the future.”

    Further details have come to light about the money being spent by the Pentagon on facilities in Darwin.  The unromantically titled FY22 MCAF Project PAF160700 Squadron Operations Facility at the RAAF Darwin base “includes the construction (design-bid-build) of a United States Air Force squadron facility at the … (RAAF) in Darwin, Australia.”  The project is deemed necessary to add space “for aircrew flight equipment, maintenance and care, mission planning, intelligence, crew briefings, crew readiness, and incidental related work.”  Some of the systems are mundane but deemed important for an expanded facility, including ventilating and air conditioning, water heating, plumbing, utility energy meters and sub-meters and a building automation system (HVAC Control system).

    Correspondents from the Australian Broadcasting have gone further into the squadron operations facility, consulting US budget filings and tender documents to reveal cost assessments of $26 million (A$40 million).  A further parking apron at RAAF Darwin is also featured in the planning, estimated to cost somewhere in the order of $258 billion.  This will further supplement plans to establish the East Arm fuel storage facility for the US Air Force located 15 kilometres from Darwin that should be able to, on completion by September this year, store 300 million litres of military jet fuel intended to support US military activity in the Northern Territory and Indo-Pacific region.

    According to the tender documents, the squadron operations facility also had a broader, more strategic significance: “to support strategic operations and to run multiple 15-day training exercises during the NT dry season for deployed B-52 squadrons.”  The RAAF Tindal facility’s redevelopment, slated to conclude in 2026, is also intended to accommodate six B-52 bombers.  Given their nuclear capability, residents in the NT should feel a suitable degree of terror.

    Michael Shoebridge, founder and director of Strategic Analysis Australia, is none too pleased by this state of affairs.  He is unhappy by Canberra’s reticence on US-Australian military arrangements, and none too keen on a debate that is only being informed by US-based sources.  “A public debate needs to be enabled by information and you can’t have a complete picture without knowing where the money is being spent.”

    While it is hard to disagree with that tack, Shoebridge’s outfit, in line with such think tanks as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is not against turning Australia into a frontline fortress state ready for war.  What he, and his colleagues take issue with, is the overwhelmingly dominant role the US is playing in the venture. Those in Washington, Shoebridge argues, seem to “understand the urgency we don’t seem to.”  Rather than questioning Australia’s need for a larger, more threatening military capability to fight phantoms and confected foreign adversaries, he accepts the premise, wholeheartedly.  Canberra, in short, should muck in more, pull its weight, and drum up Australian personnel for the killing.

    Anthony Bergin, a senior fellow of Strategic Analysis Australia, teases out the idea of such mucking in, suggesting a familiar formula.  He insists that, in order to improve “our national security, we should be looking at options short of conscription which wouldn’t be as hard to sell to the Australian people.”  He thought the timing perfect for such a move.  “There’s now a latent appetite for our political leaders to introduce measures to bolster national resilience.”

    This silly reading only makes sense on the assumption that the Australian public has been softened sufficiently by such hysterical affronts to sensibility as the Red Alert campaign waged in the Fairfax Press.

    Options to add padding to Australia’s military preparedness include doubling or tripling school cadets and cadet programs of the “outdoor bound” type based in the regions.  But more important would be the creation of a “national militia training scheme”.  Bergin is, however, displeased by the difficulty of finding “volunteers of any kind”, a strange comment given the huge, unpaid volunteer army that governs the delivery of numerous services in Australia, from charities to firefighting.

    Alison Broinowski, herself formerly of the Australian diplomatic corps, safely concludes that the current moves constitute “another step in the same direction – a step that the government has been taking a series of for years; accepting whatever the United States government wants to place on Australian soil.”  More’s the pity that most details are to come from Washington sources, indicating, with irrefutable finality, Canberra’s abject subordination to the US imperium and its refusal to admit that fact.

  • Could a Universal Basic Income be the answer to cost of living woes?

    By Madeleine Wedesweiler

    See original post here.

    Models for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) show that giving money to everyone in Australia would never come cheap.

    But experts say the concept, which has been around since the 1800s, provides useful ideas around policies that could help ease people’s financial pain during rising inflation and cost of living pressures.

    A UBI is essentially a payment from the state to each and every household with no strings attached, like a ‘dividend’ from being a ‘shareholder’ in society.

    It would allow some not to work, but others would need to work and pay extensive taxes on their income.

    Proponents argue such a payment would provide a society-wide safety net, protect workers from job losses from the increasing automatisation of work, and lead to greater equality.

    It has widespread support – 51 per cent of Australians are in favour, according to the 2019−20 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes – but there are many challenges involved, the biggest one being finding the money to pay for it.

    How would a UBI work in Australia?

    Associate Professor at the Australian National University’s Centre of Social Research and Methods Ben Phillips told SBS News a model of basic income he costed was “wildly expensive”.

    The model would see every adult in Australia take home $27,600 a year, roughly what the current age pension is, and wouldn’t mean an end to some payments that need to continue including childcare and family payments.

    “It would increase welfare spending from about $140 billion a year at the moment to probably over $550 billion per year, if done in a full-blown way,” he said.

    Associate Professor Phillips said that kind of spending is not a live policy option, and he would recommend updating the current welfare system instead.

    “You’d be looking at having to pretty much double personal income tax,”

    he said.

    “So if your current tax rate was, say, 30 cents of the dollar, it becomes 60 cents in the dollar. You might have to increase the GST from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, on everything.”

    In 2018, the then Greens leader Richard Di Natale announced a universal basic income policy for Australia, suggesting a scheme of between ‘$20,000 and $40,000 year’ would be necessary to ensure adequacy.

    Greens Treasury spokesperson Nick McKim declined to comment for this article.

    Co-Director of the Australian Basic Income Lab, Ben Spies-Butcher, said another model he costed was a liveable income guarantee that was centred on changing the requirements around JobSeeker requirements.

    It would cost around $103.45 billion and require income taxes to be raised by 12 percentage points.

    “The welfare system has a lot of surveillance and very harsh oversight, so this model said instead of having this thing that means you have to go to all these job appointments, or all these training programs, which often are pretty useless, what we should do is broaden our understanding of what a contribution to society looks like,” he said.

    “So if you’re caring for people, if you’re volunteering in the community, those sorts of things also count, and we should change it, so it’s similar to the tax system.”

    How have other countries trialled a UBI?

    A new trial announced this month in England would see 30 recipients receive no-strings-attached payments of around $2,800 a month for two years.

    Dr Spies-Butcher said there had been an explosion of UBI pilots and experiments and renewed interest in the topic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “If the pilots and trials weren’t working, they wouldn’t still be going,”

    he said.

    Since September 2022, Ireland has been trialling a program of giving 2,000 artists a payment of around $525 a week so that they could focus on making music, poetry and visual arts without focusing on a day job.

    It is not means tested, so participants may still be eligible for social welfare payments and will still be able to earn other money from their work.

    Fellow Co-Director of the Australian Basic Income Lab, Troy Henderson, said it could bring positive spillover effects for the rest of society.

    “But I’d make the broader point that if we’re talking about a UBI, we would like it to be available to everybody,” he said.

    Would it solve inflation problems?

    Dr Henderson said increasing any kind of social assistance could have a very important impact on people living in poverty in current circumstances.

    “I think there’s some merit to the argument that we should consider a universal basic income right now in relation to the cost of living crisis, because we’ve seen even when you break down inflation, that the largest increases in prices have been in relation to staple goods, things that people need on an everyday basis. They’re not discretionary,” he said.

    “So those goods are disproportionately important to people on lower incomes, including those receiving different types of social assistance payments.”

    Dr Spies-Butcher said a UBI wouldn’t benefit everyone right now, but it would take pressure off some groups, including parents with young children and students, who would benefit from not working.

    “The insecurity that’s associated with (the welfare system) is really debilitating,” he said.

    “Economic security is not just about how high costs are, it’s about being able to rely on having income and being able to plan in order to be able to meet your needs over time and not be completely terrified and stressed out all the time about whether payments will be cut or reduced.”

    Dr Spies-Butcher added it’s important to realise a UBI wouldn’t be a silver bullet for the rising cost of living but would need to be complemented by other policies on housing and healthcare.

    How would a UBI impact the workforce?

    One of the common arguments against a UBI is that it would be a disincentive to people working, and their productivity and the economy would decline.

    Dr Spies-Butcher said there’s extremely little evidence of that.

    “There’s been heaps of trials around the world, and the trials are different so that, they’re targeting different things. But pretty consistently, there’s been a very small labour market effect,” he said.

    However, Associate Professor Phillips disagreed and said that because of the extraordinary taxes people would have to pay on their income, it wouldn’t overall be a good thing for employment but would benefit mental health.

    What about other welfare policies?

    The UBI is not in the mainstream frame of policy discussion by major parties, but it does offer insights into other ideas on modernising welfare policy.

    “There’s elements of our welfare system that I think are a bit too harsh,” Associate Professor Phillips said.

    “I think loosening some of those is probably a good thing would help a lot of people, particularly very disadvantaged people, and making the system a bit more generous for those who really need it. That’s where I would be going first, rather than a UBI.”

    Dr Henderson said if the Labor government wants to be progressive on welfare issues, it first needs to tackle “some of the cultural norms and stereotypes we have around the deserving and undeserving poor”.

    “The classic example is, you know, we have the pejorative term in Australia of the dole bludger, the person kicking back eating, you know, corn chips and, and smoking, while everyone else works hard.

    “Then, if you reach retirement age the next day, you are a deserving old age pensioner.”

    The post Could a Universal Basic Income be the answer to cost of living woes? appeared first on Basic Income Today.

  • Macron warns of ‘new colonialism’ in Pacific, but clings to French territories

    ANALYSIS: By Ravindra Singh Prasad

    In a historic first visit to an independent Pacific state by a sitting French president, President Emmanuel Macron has denounced a “new imperialism” in the region during a stop in Vanuatu, warning of a threat to the sovereignty of smaller states.

    But, earlier, during a two-day stop in France’s colonial outpost, Kanaky New Caledonia, he refused to entertain demands by indigenous Kanak leaders to hold a new referendum on independence.

    “There is in the Indo-Pacific and particularly in Oceania a new imperialism appearing, and a power logic that is threatening the sovereignty of several states — the smallest, often the most fragile,” he said in a speech in the Vanuatu capital Port Vila on July 27.

    “Our Indo-Pacific strategy is above all to defend through partnerships the independence and sovereignty of all states in the region that are ready to work with us,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that France still has “colonies” in the Pacific (Oceania) that they refuse to let go.

    Some 1.6 million French citizens live across seven overseas territories (colonies), including New Caledonia, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and the smaller Pacific atolls of Wallis and Futuna.

    This gives them an exclusive economic zone spanning nine million sq km.

    Macron uses this fact to claim that France is part of the region even though his country is more than 16,000 km from New Caledonia and Tahiti.

    An ‘alternative’ offer
    As the US and its allies seek to counter China’s growing influence in the region, France offered an “alternative”, claiming they have plans for expanded aid and development to confront natural catastrophes.

    The French annexed New Caledonia in 1853, reserving the territory initially as a penal colony.

    Indigenous Kanaks have lived in the islands for more than 3000 years, and the French uprooted them from the land and used them as forced labour in new French plantations and construction sites.

    Tahiti’s islands were occupied by migrating Polynesians around 500 BC, and in 1832 the French took over the islands. In 1946 it became an overseas territory of the French Republic.

    China is gaining influence in the region with its development aid packages designed to address climate change, empowerment of grassroots communities, and promotion of trade, especially in the fisheries sector, under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new Global Development Initiative.

    After neglecting the region for decades, the West has begun to woo the Pacific countries lately, especially after they were alarmed by a defence cooperation deal signed between China and Solomon Islands in April 2022, which the West suspect is a first step towards Beijing establishing a naval base in the Pacific.

    In December 2020, there was a similar alarm, especially in Australia, when China offered a $200 million deal to Papua New Guinea to establish a fisheries harbour and a processing factory to supply fisheries products to China’s seafood market, which is the world’s largest.

    Hysterical reactions in Australia
    It created hysterical reactions in the Australian media and political circles in Canberra, claiming China was planning to build a naval base 200 km from Australia’s shores.

    A stream of Western leaders has visited the region since then while publicly claiming to help the small island nations in their development needs, but at the same time, arm-twisting local leaders to sign defence deals for their navies, in particular to gain access to Pacific harbours and military facilities.

    While President Macron was on a five-day visit to New Caledonia, Vanuatu and PNG, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin were in Tonga and PNG, respectively, negotiating secret military deals.

    At the same time, Macron made the comments of a new imperialism in the Pacific.

    Defence Secretary Austin was at pains to explain to sceptical journalists in PNG that the US was not seeking a permanent base in the Pacific Islands nation. It has been reported in the PNG media that the US was seeking access to PNG military bases under the pretext of training PNG forces for humanitarian operations in the Pacific.

    Papua New Guinea and the US signed a defence cooperation agreement in May that sets a framework for the US to refurbish PNG ports and airports for military and civilian use. The text of the agreement shows that it allows the staging of US forces and equipment in PNG and covers the Lombrum Naval Base, which Australia and US are developing.

    There have been protests over this deal in PNG, and the opposition has threatened to challenge some provisions of it legally.

    China’s ‘problematic behavior’
    Blinken, who was making the first visit to Tonga by a US Secretary of State, was there to open a new US embassy in the capital Nuku’alofa on July 26. At the event, he spoke about China’s “problematic behavior” in the Pacific and warned about “predatory economic activities and also investments” from China, which he claimed was undermining “good governance and promote corruption”.

    Tonga is believed to be heavily indebted to China, but Tongan Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni later said at a press conference that Tonga had started to pay down its debt this year and had no concerns about its relationship with China.

    Pacific leaders have repeatedly emphasised that they would welcome assistance from richer countries to confront the impact of climatic change in the region, but they do not want the region to be militarised and get embroiled in a geopolitical battle between the US and China.

    This was stated bluntly by Fiji’s Defence Minister at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last year. Other Pacific leaders have repeated this at various forums since then.

    Though the Western media reports about these visits to the Pacific by Western leaders as attempts to protect a “rules-based order” in the region, many in the Pacific media are sceptical about this argument.

    Fiji-based Island Business news magazine, in a report from the New Caledonian capital Noumea, pointed out how Macron ignored Kanaks’ demands for independence instead of promoting a new deal.

    President Macron has said in Noumea that “New Caledonia is French because it has chosen to remain French” after three referendums on self-determination there. In a lengthy speech, he has spoken of building a new political status in New Caledonia through a “path of apology and a path of the future”.

    Macron’s pledges ring hollow
    As IB reported, Macron’s pledges of repentance and partnership rang hollow for many indigenous Kanak and other independence supporters.

    In central Noumea, trade unionists and independence supporters rallied, flying the flag of Kanaky and displaying banners criticising the president’s visit, and as IB noted, the speech was “a clear determination to push through reforms that will advantage France’s colonial power in the Pacific”.

    Predominantly French, conservative New Caledonian citizens have called for the electoral register to be opened to some 40,000 French citizens who are resident there, and Macron has promised to consider that at a meeting of stakeholders in Paris in September.

    Kanaky leaders fiercely oppose it, and they boycotted the third referendum on independence in December 2022, where the “No” vote won on a “landslide” which Macron claims is a verdict in favour of French rule there.

    Kanaks boycotted the referendum (which they were favoured to win) because the French government refused to accept a one-year mourning period for covid-19 deaths among the Kanaks.

    Kanaky independence movement workers’ union USTKE’s president Andre Forest told IB: “The electorate must remain as is because it affects citizens of this country. It’s this very notion of citizenship that we want to retain.”

    Independence activists and negotiator Victor Tutugoro said: “I’m one of many people who were chased from our home. The collective memory of this loss continues to affect how people react, and this profoundly underlies their rejection of changes to the electorate.”

    ‘Prickly contentious issues’
    In an editorial on the eve of Macron’s visit to Papua New Guinea, the PNG Post-Courier newspaper sarcastically asked why “the serene beauty of our part of the globe is coming under intense scrutiny, and everyone wants a piece of Pasifica in their GPS system?”

    “Macron is not coming to sip French wine on a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific,” noted the Post-Courier. “France still has colonies in the Pacific which have been prickly contentious issues at the UN, especially on decolonisation of Tahiti and New Caledonia.

    “France also used the Pacific for its nuclear testing until the 90s, most prominently at Moruroa, which had angered many Pacific Island nations.”

    Noting that the Chinese are subtle and making the Western allies have itchy feet, the Post-Courier argued that these visits were taking the geopolitics of the Pacific to the next level.

    “Sooner or later, PNG can expect Air Force One to be hovering around PNG skies,” it said.

    China’s Global Times, referring to President Macron’s “new colonialism” comments, said it was “improper and ridiculous” to put China in the same seat as the “hegemonic US”.

    “Macron wants to convince regional countries that France is not an outsider but part of the region, as France has overseas territories there,” Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies told Global Times.

    “But the validity of France’s status in the region is, in fact, thin, as its territories there were obtained through colonialism, which is difficult for Macron to rationalise.”

    “This is why he avoids talking about it further and turns to another method of attacking other countries to help France build a positive image in the region.”

    Meanwhile, during his visit to the 7th Melanesia Arts and Cultural Festival in Port Vila, four chiefs from the disputed islands of Matthew and Hunter, about 190 km from New Caledonia, handed over to the French President what they called a “peaceful demand” for independence. IDN-InDepthNews

    Ravindra Singh Prasad is a correspondent of InDepth News (IDN), the flagship agency of the International Press Syndicate. This article is republished with permission.

  • The Day Australian Sovereignty Died

    If a date might be found when Australian sovereignty was extinguished by the emissaries of the US imperium, July 29, 2023 will be as good as any.  Not that they aren’t other candidates, foremost among them being the announcement of the AUKUS agreement between Australia, UK and the US in September 2021.  They all point to a surrender, a handing over, of a territory to another’s military and intelligence community, an abject, oily capitulation that would normally qualify as treasonous.

    The treason becomes all the more indigestible for its inevitable result: Australian territory is being shaped, readied, and purposed for war under the auspices of closer defence ties with an old ally.  The security rentiers, the servitors, the paid-up pundits all see this as a splendid thing.  War, or at least its preparations, can offer wonderful returns.

    The US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin III, was particularly delighted, though watchful of his hosts.  His remit was clear: detect any wobbliness, call out any indecision.  But there was nothing to be worried about.  His Australian hosts, for instance, proved accommodating and crawling.

    Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles, for instance, standing alongside Austin, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, declared that there was “a commitment to increase American force posture in respect of our northern bases, in respect to our maritime patrols and our reconnaissance aircraft; further force posture initiatives involving US Army watercraft; and in respect of logistics and stores, which have been very central to Exercise Talisman Sabre.”  To the untutored eye, Marles might have simply been another Pentagon spokesman of middle-rank.

    The acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines was a process that was well underway (Marles seemed untroubled by grumbling voices in the Republican Party that the US Navy was short-changing itself by transferring three Virginia-class boats to the Royal Australian Navy) and taking place “in terms of an increased force posture of America within Australia.”  Speaking with confidence, Marles was also looking forward to “an increased tempo of visits from American nuclear-powered submarines to our waters as we look towards the establishment of a US submarine rotation, HMS Sterling, later in this decade.”

    Australian real estate would be given over to greater “space cooperation”, alongside creating “a guided weapons and explosive ordnance enterprise in this country, and doing so in a way where we hope to see manufacturing of missiles commence in Australia in two years’ time as part of a collective industrial base between the two countries.”  Chillingly, Marles went on to reiterate what has become something of a favourite in his middle-management lexicon.  The efforts to fiddle the export-defense export control legislation by the Biden administration would create “a more seamless defence industrial base between our countries.”  Seamless, here, is the thick nail in the coffin of sovereignty.

    Moves are also underway to engage in redevelopment of bases in northern Australia, in anticipation of the increased, ongoing US military presence.  The RAAF Base Tindal, located 320km south-east of Darwin in the Northern Territory, is the subject of considerable investment “to address functional deficiencies and capacity constraints in existing facilities and infrastructure.”  The AUSMIN talks further revealed that scoping upgrades would take place at two new locations: RAAF Base Scherger and RAAF Curtin.

    Australia’s Defence Intelligence Organisation will also be colonised by what is being termed a “Combined Intelligence Centre – Australia” by 2024.  This is purportedly intended to “enhance long-standing intelligence cooperation” while essentially subordinating Australian intelligence operations to their US overlords.  Marles saw the arrangement as part of a drive towards “seamless” (that hideous word again) intelligence ties between Canberra and Washington.  “This is a unit which is going to produce intelligence for both of our defence forces … and I think that’s important.”

    In the pro-war press outlets such as The Australian, Greg Sheridan complained that AUSMIN talks had revealed “the appalling state of our defences”.  What bothered him was the expectation that Washington do everything in terms of addressing such inadequacies, while leaving the Australian defence base reliant and emaciated.  “Under the Albanese government we have reverted completely to our worst selves on defence.  We’re going to do almost nothing consequential over the next 10 years other than get the Americans to do more on our land.”  Well, Sheridan, don’t give up hope: Australia might be at war with China under US-direction before a decade is up, vassalized warriors eager to kill and be killed.

    From his vantage point as the Australian Financial Review’s international editor, historian James Curran glumly noted that, “The permanent American military presence on Australian soil is now at a scale unprecedented since the Second World War.”  While the US-Australian relationship had previously stressed the value of deterrence, the focus seemed increasingly on the “projection” of power.  “The change from the mid-1990s has been nothing short of staggering.”

    The most striking matter in this whole business was the utter absence of parliamentary outrage in Canberra.  There was no registered protest, no red mist rage in the streets, and no debate to speak off, nor even an eloquent funeral oration.  You might even say that AUSMIN 2023 was one of history’s most successful coups, implemented in plain sight by all too willing collaborators.  Its victim, Australian sovereignty, has been laid to rest.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Disinformation and climate crisis, governance, training feature in PJR

    Pacific Journalism Review

    Research on climate crisis as the new target for disinformation peddlers, governance and the media, China’s growing communication influence, and journalism training strategies feature strongly in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

    Byron C. Clark, author of the recent controversial book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists, and Canterbury University postgraduate researcher Emanuel Stokes, have produced a case study about climate crisis as the new pandemic disinformation arena with the warning that “climate change or public health emergencies can be seized upon by alternative media and conspiracist influencers” to “elicit outrage and protest”.

    The authors argue that journalists need a “high degree of journalistic ethics and professionalism to avoid amplifying hateful, dehumanising narratives”.

    The latest Pacific Journalism Review . . . July 2023
    The latest Pacific Journalism Review . . . July 2023.

    PJR editor Dr Philip Cass adds an article unpacking the role of Pacific churches, both positive and negative, in public information activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Several articles deal with media freedom in the Pacific in the wake of the pandemic, including a four-country examination by some of the region’s leading journalists and facilitated by Dr Amanda Watson of Australian National University and associate professor Shailendra Singh of the University of the South Pacific.

    They conclude that the pandemic “has been a stark reminder about the link between media freedom and the financial viability of media of organisations, especially in the Pacific”.

    Dr Ann Auman, a specialist in crosscultural and global media ethics from the University of Hawai’i, analyses challenges facing the region through a workshop at the newly established Pacific Media Institute in Majuro, Marshall Islands.

    Repeal of draconian Fiji law
    The ousting of the Voreqe Bainimarama establishment that had been in power in Fiji in both military and “democratic” forms since the 2006 coup opened the door to greater media freedom and the repeal of the draconian Fiji Media Law. Two articles examine the implications of this change for the region.

    An Indonesian researcher, Justito Adiprasetio of Universitas Padjadjaran, dissects the impact of Jakarta’s 2021 “terrorist” branding of the Free West Papua movement on six national online news media groups.

    In Aotearoa New Zealand, media analyst Dr Gavin Ellis discusses “denying oxygen” to those who create propaganda for terrorists in the light of his recent research with Dr Denis Muller of Melbourne University and how Australia might benefit from New Zealand media initiatives, while RNZ executive editor Jeremy Rees reflects on a historical media industry view of training, drawing from Commonwealth Press Union reviews of the period 1979-2002.

    Protesters calling for the release of the refugees illegally detained in Brisbane - © 2023 Kasun Ubayasiri
    Protesters calling for the release of the refugees illegally detained in Brisbane . . . a photo from Kasun Ubayasiri’s photoessay project “Refugee Migration”. Image: © 2023 Kasun Ubayasiri

    Across the Tasman, Griffith University communication and journalism programme director Dr Kasun Ubayasiri presents a powerful human rights Photoessay documenting how the Meanjin (Brisbane) local community rallied around to secure the release of 120 medevaced refugee men locked up in an urban motel.

    Monash University associate professor Johan Lidberg led a team partnering in International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) studies about “the world according to China”, the global media influence strategies of a superpower.

    The Frontline section features founding editor Dr David Robie’s case study about the Pacific Media Centre which was originally published by Japan’s Okinawan Journal of Island Studies.

    A strong Obituary section featuring two personalities involved in investigating the 1975 Balibo Five journalist assassination by Indonesian special forces in East Timor and a founder of the Pacific Media Centre plus nine Reviews round off the edition.

    Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 29th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

    It is published by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) Incorporated educational nonprofit.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • AUSMIN and Assange: The Great Vassal Smackdown

    It was there for all to see.  Embarrassing, cloying, and bound make you cough up the remnants of your summit lunch, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III stopped by one of the vassal states to make sure that the meal and military service was orderly, the troops well behaved, and the weapons working as they should.  On the occasion of 2023 AUSMIN meetings, the questions asked were mild and generally unprovocative; answers were naturally tailored.

    Seeing that Australia is now rapidly moving into the US orbit of client status – its minerals will be designated a US domestic resource in due course – and given that its land, sea and air are to be more available than ever for the US armed forces, nuclear and conventional, nothing will interrupt this inexorable extinguishing of sovereignty.

    One vestige of Australian sovereignty might have evinced itself, notably in how Canberra might push for the release, or at the very least better terms, for the Australian national and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange.  The publisher faces 18 counts, all but one of them pertaining to the Espionage Act of 1917, an archaic, wartime act with a dark record of punishing free speech and contrarians.  The Albanese government, eschewing “the hailer” approach in favour of “quiet diplomacy” and not offending Washington, has conspicuously failed to make any impression.

    In April, an open letter to the US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, featuring 48 Australian MPs and Senators, including 13 from the governing Labor Party, argued that the Assange prosecution “would set a dangerous precedent for all global citizens, journalists, publishers, media organizations and the freedom of the press.  It would also be needlessly damaging for the US as a world leader on freedom of expression and the rule of law.”

    Despite such concerns bubbling away in Parliament, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong was in no danger of upsetting their guests.  “[W]e have made clear our view that Mr Assange’s case has dragged for too long, and our desire it be brought to a conclusion, and we’ve said that publicly and you would anticipate that that reflects also the positive we articulate in private.”  But, as ever, “there are limits until Mr. Assange’s legal processes have concluded.”  The assumption, laid bare, is that Australia will only push for terms once the US secures its treasured quarry.

    Blinken parroted staged, withered lines, politely dismissing Wong’s statements while pouring acid on the Assange plea.  “I really do understand and certainly confirm what Penny said about the fact that this matter was raised with us, as it has been in the past, and I understand the sensitivities, I understand the concerns and view of Australians.”  He thought it “important”, as if it mattered “that our friends here understand our concerns about this matter.”

    Those friends were made to understand that matter in no uncertain terms. Assange had been “charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.  The actions that he has alleged to have committed risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention.”

    Such excremental, false reasoning was galling, and went unchallenged by the all too pliant Senator Wong and the Australian Defence Minister, Richard Marles.  This, despite the cool findings by Blinken’s own colleagues at the Pentagon that the WikiLeaks disclosures never posed a risk to any valued source in the service of the US imperium, and the fact that other outlets have also published these purportedly “named sources” without having their collars fingered by the US Department of Justice. The double standard is gold in Washington.

    The same babbling nonsense was evident during the extradition trial proceedings of Assange that were held at London’s Central Criminal Court in 2020.  There, the prosecution, representing a number of clumsy, clownish and impressively ignorant representatives from Freedom Land, proved unable to produce a single instance of actual compromise or harm to a single informant of the US imperium.  They also showed, with idiotic facility, an ignorance of the court martial that the US military had subjected Chelsea Manning to when she faced charges for revealing classified national security information to WikiLeaks.

    Wong, as part of her buttoned-up brief dictated by Washington’s suits, either did not know nor care to correct Blinken who, for all we know, is equally ignorant of his brief on the subject.  If the prosecutors in London in 2020 had no idea, why should the US secretary of state, let alone the Australian foreign minister?

    As a terrible omen for the Australians, four defence personnel seem to have perished in waters near Hamilton Island through an accident with their MRH-90 Taipan helicopter as part of the Talisman Sabre war games.  The US overlords were paternal and benevolent; their Australian counterparts were grateful for the interest.  Blinken soppily suggested how the sacrifice was appreciated.  “They have been on our minds throughout today; they remain very much on our minds right now.”  But the message was clear: Australia, you are now less a state than a protectorate, territory to exploit, a resource basket to appropriate.  Why not just make it official?

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Potential AUKUS deal could divide NZ and Pacific, says academic

    By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

    An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

    AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

    That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

    The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

    The visit came after he visited Tonga.

    Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

    “Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

    Sharing defence information
    Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

    “We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

    Professor Robert Patman
    Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

    “The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

    “New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

    “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

    Not committed
    But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

    Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

    Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

    “[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

    “We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

    He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Potential AUKUS deal could divide NZ and Pacific, says academic

    By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific

    An international relations professor says that if New Zealand joins AUKUS it could impact on its relations with Pacific countries.

    AUKUS is a security agreement between Australia, the UK and the US, which will see Australia supplied with nuclear-powered submarines.

    That has raised concern in the Pacific, which is under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.

    The topic has come up while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited New Zealand.

    The visit came after he visited Tonga.

    Robert Patman, professor of international relations at the University of Otago, said New Zealand’s views on non-nuclear security are shared by the majority of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members and also the Pacific Island states.

    “Even if New Zealand joined AUKUS in a non-nuclear fashion, technically, it may be seen through the eyes of others as diluting our commitment to that norm,” Professor Patman said.

    Sharing defence information
    Professor Patman explained that “pillar 1” of AUKUS is about providing nuclear-powered submarines to Australia over two or three decades, and “pillar 2” is to do with sharing information on defence technologies.

    “We haven’t closed the door on it, but it’s a considerable risk from New Zealand’s point of view, because a lot of our credibility is having an independent foreign policy.”

    Professor Robert Patman
    Professor Robert Patman . . . the Pacific may not view New Zealand joining AUKUS favourably – if it is to happen in the future. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Asked about New Zealand’s potential membership in AUKUS, Blinken said work on pillar 2 was ongoing.

    “The door is very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate,” he said.

    “New Zealand is a deeply trusted partner, obviously a Five Eyes member.

    “We’ve long worked together on the most important national security issues.”

    New Zealand Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta said the government was exploring pillar 2 of the deal.

    Not committed
    But she said New Zealand had not committed to anything.

    Mahuta said New Zealand had been clear it would not compromise its nuclear-free position, and that was acknowledged by AUKUS members.

    Patman said that statement was reassurance for Pacific Island states.

    “[New Zealand is] party to the Treaty of Rarotonga,” he said.

    “We have to weigh up whether the benefits of being in pillar 2 outweigh possible external perception that we’re eroding our commitment, to being party to an arrangement which is facilitating the transfer of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.”

    He said New Zealand had also been in talks with NATO about getting access to cutting-edge technology, so it was not dependent on AUKUS for that.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Australia’s ageing population will demand more robots, researchers say

    Robots will be needed to fill manufacturing jobs as the ageing population expands and younger Australians choose alternative career paths, according to the Advanced Robotics in Manufacturing Hub and the Australian Cobotics Centre. ARM Hub chief executive Corri Stewart told a parliamentary inquiry into developing advanced manufacturing in Australia on Tuesday that the country faces…

    The post Australia’s ageing population will demand more robots, researchers say appeared first on InnovationAus.com.

    This post was originally published on InnovationAus.com.

  • PNG plans 21-gun salute for Macron in historic visit to an independent Pacific state

    PNG Post-Courier

    French President Emmanuel Macron jets into Port Moresby late tomorrow for his historic visit to Papua New Guinea and will be met by Prime Minister James Marape with a 21-gun salute and other ceremonies.

    Marape yesterday expressed profound enthusiasm for the upcoming visit of President Macron — currently in New Caledonia — considering it a significant milestone in the nation’s global engagement.

    President Macron’s visit marks the first time a French president has visited an independent country in the Pacific, showcasing Papua New Guinea’s growing connectivity with the world, Marape said.

    “This historic visit by President Macron exemplifies the profound connectivity that Papua New Guinea, under my leadership, is forging with the international community,” he said.

    “In today’s interconnected virtual realm of commerce, real-time trade, and foreign relations, the visit by the esteemed French president bodes exceedingly well for PNG.

    “We eagerly anticipate strengthening our ties with this influential G7 economy.”

    This meeting follows a previous encounter between President Macron and Prime Minister Marape earlier this year in Gabon, Central Africa, during the “One-Forest” Summit.

    Bilateral cooperation
    The forthcoming visit further cements the amicable relations between the two leaders and enhances bilateral cooperation.

    In recent months, the Prime Minister has had fruitful discussions with several world leaders, demonstrating PNG’s growing prominence on the global stage.

    A one-day state visit of Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, resulted in tangible benefits, including the establishment of direct flights between Port Moresby and Bali.

    Discussions with the President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol, during the Korea-Pacific Islands Summit, fostered constructive engagements and cooperation between the nations.

    Papua New Guinea also hosted leaders such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, further strengthening ties and fostering positive developments.

    Leaders of all Pacific countries were also present for the visit of Prime Minister Modi.

    Critical issues
    Reflecting on these milestones, Marape expressed his commitment to advancing bilateral relations and addressing critical issues of mutual concern with visiting dignitaries.

    He hailed the visit of Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, earlier this year, which marked a turning point in the relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia after 47 years of independence.

    “In anticipation of President Macron’s visit, Papua New Guinea stands ready to engage in productive dialogues and explore new avenues of cooperation with France.

    “The visit bears the potential to further elevate PNG’s global presence and unlock new opportunities for mutual growth and prosperity,” Marape said.

    President Macron will also be visiting Vanuatu and Fiji.

    Republished with permission.

    French President Emmanuel Macron pays a tribute at the customary Senate
    French President Emmanuel Macron pays a tribute at the customary Senate in New Caledonia yesterday. Image: @EmmanuelMacron

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • UK government’s vaping policies are endangering our health, suggest evidence

    In the UK vaping products are easily accessible. In contrast, such products are much more restricted in Australia. And the question of access is important because studies show vape usage presents a general health hazard.

    Health hazards of vaping

    A May 2021 systematic review, published in Heart & Lung, found vaping is directly associated with lung injury. Moreover, a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute paper, published in 2019, warned that vaping:

    may cause harmful effects to lung tissue, including inflammation and genetic damage that could indicate long-term risk for respiratory disease and even cancer

    So what do vapes contain that’s of concern?

    A Harvard Medical School paper, published in June, pointed out that US vaping products can contain the following:

    • nicotine
    • ultrafine particles that can be inhaled deep into the lungs
    • flavorings such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to a serious lung disease
    • volatile organic compounds
    • cancer-causing chemicals
    • heavy metals such as nickel, tin, and lead

    In addition, according to one lung cancer expert, substances commonly found in vapes can include:

    • Diacetyl: This food additive, used to deepen e-cigarette flavors, is known to damage small passageways in the lungs.
    • Formaldehyde: This toxic chemical can cause lung disease and contribute to heart disease.
    • Acrolein: Most often used as a weed killer, this chemical can also damage lungs

    Research shows vaping can lead to conventional smoking

    In 2022, a systematic review conducted by researchers at the Australian National University found that vaping:

    increases the risk of multiple adverse health outcomes, including poisoning, addiction, seizures, burns, lung injury and smoking uptake.

    Furthermore, ABC News said the review found:

    “substantial evidence” that e-cigarette use results in dependence on nicotine, and that e-cigarettes can increase the uptake of tobacco smoking in people who don’t smoke.

    Alarmingly, professor Emily Banks, who led the review, told ABC News that it found:

    Young non-smokers who vape are around three times as likely to take up smoking than non-vapers

    Teenagers and young adults especially at risk

    A July 2022 paper, published in the British Medical Journal, argued that the biggest uptake of vaping is by teenagers and young adults. The study concluded:

    The true impact of vaping on respiratory health will manifest over the coming decades, but in the interval a prudent and time tested recommendation remains to abstain from consumption of inhaled nicotine and other products.

    A UK government report identified a legal loophole that allows shops and companies to give free samples of vaping products to be given to persons of any age. The report also refers to a survey that revealed 24.8% of persons aged 11 to 17 have admitted that friends had given them vaping products.

    Meanwhile, a small US study, published in the Harvard Gazette, showed around 28% of high school students were vape users. That’s despite evidence that vaping can lead to “small airway obstruction and asthma-like symptoms”.

    Vaping products availability in the UK

    Anyone 18 years and over can buy vaping products in the UK – including those containing nicotine – without a prescription. The NHS states it will next review that practice in October 2025.

    In June, the Guardian reported how several pro-vaping lobby groups are promoting their products via social media. They include Save My Vape and #BackVapingSaveLives.

    Global Britain Ltd, which is headed by former Brexit party politician Brian Monteith, is linked to Save My Vape as well as Say No To WHO (World Health Organisation).

    We Vape UK is another lobby group, set up by an Adam Smith Institute (ASI) fellow. It runs the #BackVapingSaveLives campaign. ASI has received sponsorship from Japan Tobacco International.

    Other approaches to vaping availability

    Meanwhile, Australia has adopted a more restrictive approach to vaping. There, it’s illegal for persons “to possess a nicotine-filled vape unless they are over 18 and have a prescription to help them stop smoking”.

    In May 2023, BBC News reported that Australia is set to ban recreational vaping for users of all ages. As a result, only pharmacies will supply vaping products. The country will also ban disposable vapes.

    In Singapore, restrictions are even more severe: all vapes are illegal. In the US it is complicated, with each state legislating differently.

    Further restrictions needed

    Earlier this month, councils across England and Wales urged Westminster to place a ban on single-use products by 2024 on health and environmental grounds. The throwaway products, they point out, are also a fire risk and a pollutant.

    MPs are demanding action too – but only in regard to the packaging and marketing of single-use vapes.

    Associate professor of public health Becky Freeman makes it clear we need to go much further, commenting:

    The ideal public health solution would see the elimination of all vaping product sales, nicotine and non-nicotine alike, that fall outside of the prescription-only access pathway.

    Indeed, given the numerous health risks outlined via evidence-based clinical studies, such a recommendation makes sense. It only remains for the government to act upon that evidence. Or, as with its handling of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, it will risk accusations of again being asleep at the wheel.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons – TBEC Review cropped 770×403 pixels

    By Tom Coburg

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Congressional Concerns: Stalling Nuclear Submarines for Australia

    Any security arrangement with too many variables and multiple contingencies, risks stuttering and keeling over. Critical delays might be suffered, attributable to a number of factors beyond the parties concerned. Disputes and disagreements may surface. Such an arrangement is AUKUS, where the number of cooks risk spoiling any meal they promise to cook.

    The main dish here comprises the nuclear-powered submarines that are meant to make their way to Australian shores, both in terms of purchase and construction. It marks what the US, UK and Australia describe as the first pillar of the agreement. Ostensibly, they are intended for the island continent’s self-defence, declared as wholesomely and even desperately necessary in these dangerous times. Factually, they are intended as expensive toys for willing vassals, possibly operated by Australian personnel, at the beckon call of US naval and military forces, monitoring Chinese forces and any mischief they might cause.

    While the agreement envisages the creation of specific AUKUS submarines using a British design, supplemented by US technology and Australian logistics, up to three Virginia Class (SSN-774) submarines are intended as an initial transfer. The decision to do so, however, ultimately resides in Congress. As delighted and willing as President Joe Biden might well be to part with such hulks, representatives in Washington are not all in accord.

    Signs that not all lawmakers were keen on the arrangement were already being expressed in December 2022. In a letter to Biden authored by Democratic Senator Jack Reed and outgoing Republican Senator James Inhofe, concerns were expressed “about the state of the US submarine industrial base as well as its ability to support the desired AUKUS SSN [nuclear sub] end state.” Current conditions, the senators went on to describe, required “a sober assessment of the facts to avoid stressing the US submarine industrial base to the breaking point.”

    On May 22, a Congressional Research Service report outlined some of the issues facing US politicians regarding the procurement of the Virginia (SSN-774) submarine for the Australian Navy. Should, for instance, Congress “approve, reject, or modify DOD’s AUKUS-related legislative package for the FY2024 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] sent to Congress on May 2, 2023”? Would the transfer of three to five such boats “while pursuing the construction of three to five replacement SSNs for the US Navy” have a “net impact on collective allied deterrence”? And should Beijing even worry, given some unequivocal remarks from Australian officials that they would not automatically use the US-supplied boats against them in a conflict involving Washington.

    The report has proven prescient enough. Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee have realised that stalling aspects of AUKUS might prove useful, if it entails increasing military spending beyond levels set by the current debt-limit deal. On July 16, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker, one of the committee’s ranking members, took to the Wall Street Journal to declare that the US had to double submarine production. The opening words of praise for the security pact are merely the prelude for a giant dollop of America First advice, snootily relegating Australia to the status of mere clients. “As it stands, the AUKUS plan would transfer US Virginia-class submarines to a partner nation even before we have met our own Navy’s requirements.”

    The magic number of 66 nuclear submarines was some way off; the US only had 49 in its fleet, a number that would fall to three by 2030 as aging submarines retired at a rate faster than their replacement. The industrial base for such vessels had been stretched, with a mere 1.2 Virginia-class attack submarines being produced annually instead of the necessary two. For Wicker, the halcyon days for submarine procurement were the 1980s, when bold, muscular administrations lustily spent money on the program.

    Then came another problem: almost 40% of the US attack submarines would be incapable of deployment due to maintenance delays. The senator offered one example from 2021: an accident to the USS Connecticut in the South China Sea meant that it would not be of use until 2026.

    The terms, for Wicker, are stark. “To keep the commitment under AUKUS, and not reduce our own fleet, the US would have to produce between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year.” There would have to be improvements in the field of submarine maintenance and “more forward basing of submarines” (Australia is not mentioned as an option for such staging, but the implication throbs in its obviousness). While acknowledging that Australian investment in US shipyards will help, the amount of $3 billion in the submarine base, Wicker stated in a separate interview fell far short of what was necessary.

    Priorities are what they are: “we cannot afford to shrink the overworked US submarine fleet at a dangerous moment.” And why should that be so? Because the People’s Liberation Army of China will, as instructed by China’s President Xi Jinping, “be ready for a Taiwan invasion by 2027. Time is of the essence.”

    When, then, to be done? No fuss will be made by the senator and his colleagues were Biden to “immediately send Congress a request for supplemental appropriations and authorities – including a detailed implementation – that increases US submarine production to 2.5 Virginia-class attack submarines.” General investments in US submarine production capacity including supplier and workforce development initiatives were needed. Remember, Wicker urges, those bold and brash expenditures of the Second World War and the Cold War. “To fulfill the promise and benefit of the AUKUS agreement, we need such clarity of purpose once again.”

    Such manoeuvring has caught the Democrats off guard. Senate Foreign Relations Chair Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who had hoped for an easy transfer of submarines pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act, is pondering the need for a separate amendment to the defence policy bill facilitating the submarine transfer. He thought that Republican reluctance to permit the transfer to the Australians was “foolish because giving us the ability to have that type of presence in the Pacific with a strong ally makes a lot of sense”.

    As US lawmakers wrestle over funds and the need to increase submarine production, the Australian side of the bargain looks flimsy, weak, and dispensable. With cap waiting to be filled, Canberra’s undistinguished begging is qualified by what, exactly, will be provided. What the US president promises, Congress taketh. Wise heads might see this as a chance to disentangle, extricate, and cancel an agreement monumentally absurd, costly and filled with folly. It might even go some way to preserve peace rather than stimulate Indo-Pacific militarism.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • USS Canberra arrives in Sydney Harbour for historic commissioning

    The future US Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) USS Canberra has arrived in Sydney Harbour after transiting the Pacific on 18 July for its official commissioning at the Royal Australian Navy Fleet Base East, the service announced a day later. Once commissioned on 22 July, Canberra will be first US Navy warship to be commissioned […]

    The post USS Canberra arrives in Sydney Harbour for historic commissioning appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Deserved Cancellations: Victoria Rejects the Commonwealth Games

    Hosting sporting events has always been a government’s formula to distract their seducible subjects.  It’s the secular version of smells and bells, the warbling of the church choir turned into flesh and performance.  If such occasions are of sufficient scale, they might even be political promotions, body beautiful types paraded and performing before clapping and glorifying spectators.  Sponsors also have their share of exposure. Horrendous expenses can thereby be justified, raids on the treasury written off in the name of improving society’s spiritual being.

    For all their heralded merits, mega sporting events usually have two clear outcomes: the budget blowout followed by the White Elephant syndrome.  In that effort, other spending programs will be slashed or sacrificed altogether.  But the propagandists will always shoot back: the sporting show is not merely the athlete on display but a form of renewal, a communal release.  Why such renewal cannot happen without the building of sporting facilities with public funds is never made clear, though much is made of consumer spending, be it on food, drink and accommodation.

    Such issues, and more beside, have been ignited with the cancellation of the 2026 Commonwealth Games by the Victorian state government.  Premier Daniel Andrews, in announcing the matter on July 18, stated that the cost of hosting the Commonwealth Games in Victoria would exceed A$6 billion, “more than twice the estimated economic benefit the Games would bring our state.”

    Andrews explains the “main reason” for originally agreeing to host the Games: “to deliver lasting benefits in housing, tourism and sporting infrastructure for regional Victoria.”  It was flawed reasoning from the start, linking the hosting of a sporting event with a social, economic program.  But even more critically, the decision to host an event no one else wanted was made even as the state’s debt was ballooning.  Victoria faces deficits fed by the borrowing of A$31.5 billion worth in emergency funds to combat the COVID pandemic.  The cynics had to venture the point that this whole affair was an indulgent political gambit, at least in part: to pitch for the Games would earn rewards at the November 2022 poll.

    Given such money problems, the burgeoning costs came to be seen as something of a nightmare.  This was hardly helped by the government’s own decision to essentially avoid the pre-existing facilities already available in Melbourne.  The decision to spread the games across four regional hubs in Victoria was always going to swell the sum in any logistical sense.

    In place of not hosting the games, the Andrews government is offering “a comprehensive A$2 billion package to ensure regional Victoria still receives all the benefits that would have been facilitated by the Games – and more.”

    While Andrews insists that funding that would otherwise be spent on the Games would be channelled into, for instance, the building of 1,300 homes in country Victoria, such claims are undercut by the sheer scale of spending on sporting infrastructure in the regional areas, projected for 2026.  These include funding to build or upgrade a number of facilities from football stadia to netball courts and pools.

    Ballarat is promised a 5,000 permanent seater upgrade and a facility “including competition-grade oval and sports pavilion with carparking, amenities and changerooms.”  Bendigo can expect a redeveloped Bowls Club, while Bendigo Stadium will receive four additional sports courts.

    The result is an Andrews magic formula that, once the pudding is baked, is unlikely to be as nourishing, let alone wholesome, as thought.  In it, all is expected to come together in unrealistic fashion: the sporting infrastructure to bribe the community; the tourism that will mysteriously make its way to regional Victoria; and a relief on the crushingly inaccessible housing market.

    Sporting events are cancelled in Australia on pain of reputational battering.  Reputations will be tarred and feathered, to forever wander through halls of infamy.  That such a move might be wise and necessary is neither here nor there.  Priorities, much like beauty, lie in the eye of the beholding punter.  And so it is that the Australian Financial Review regards the cancellation as “a disaster for Victoria’s reputation as the host of major events and the supposed sporting capital of the world.”  (Really?  According to whom?)

    The Commonwealth Games Australia (CGA) chief executive, Craig Philips, followed the script of reputational beating.  “I would be very careful if I was an international sporting body coming and doing business in this state in the future.”  Ditto John Coates of the International Olympic Committee, a famed crawler to the sporting industrial complex.  “It must reflect on Australia when we’ve committed to host an event and thinking that we had the support of the state government and they’ve pulled the plug.”

    Much bemoaning also focuses on the welfare of the athletes.  Those poor, fit darlings, so eager to represent their country, deprived from competing in an antiquated event with all too modern costs.  One athlete, Paralympian and Commonwealth Games gold medal winner, Rowan Crothers, even had the imaginative gall to say that the cancellation would “suck for the state of inclusion”.  How, pray?

    For all the clumsiness and sheer carelessness of the Andrews government, the merits of not hosting such a large sporting venture are hard to dismiss.  Billions of dollars being injected into what Andrews called “a 12-day sporting event” is always a hard proposition to sustain.  The benefits of cancellation in his case, however, have been blunted.  Victoria need never have applied in the first place and now faces what may amount to a hefty damages bill.

    The result of the cancellation has also sent deserved jitters through the resource sucking megaevent sporting fraternity.  Australia is, after all, playing host to the FIFA Women’s World Cup while Brisbane is set to host the 2032 Summer Olympics.  In all the fanfare and bluster, former Australian swimmer and CEO of the Australian Sports Commission, Kieren Perkins, had a more grounded observation to make: “Where large portions of the population don’t see that benefit [of hosting such events], it probably does ask questions of us of how exactly we are actually deploying the resources that we receive”.  How, indeed.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • In the last 10 years, Australia has forcibly transferred over 3,000 asylum seekers to Nauru and PNG


    This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • NZ govt says it ‘honoured’ Solomons support, rejects Sogavare’s claims

    By Kelvin Anthony, RNZ Pacific lead digital and social media journalist, and Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor

    The New Zealand government has rejected claims by Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare that it has withheld financial support promised to the country.

    On Monday, soon after landing back in Honiara from his official visit to Beijing, Sogavare told local media the Australian and New Zealand governments had promised budget support but “changed their position and delayed their assistance”.

    Sogavare, as first reported by ABC, said the decision of its “traditional donors” to pull funding support had pushed Solomon Islands to lean on China, who agreed to “fill the gap”.

    Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavar
    Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare . . . donor partners have “left this country and people in a predicament. Image: Tavuli News

    “Some of our donor partners who have committed to providing budget support to us this year have since changed their position and delayed their assistance for us and we are struggling to finance the 2023 budget,” he said.

    “This has left this country and people in a predicament. But I am delighted to announce, the People’s Republic of China has really stepped up to provide this budget support needed for 2023.”

    Australia had promised $12 million while and New Zealand promised $15 million in budget support, according to Sogavare.

    When asked later in the media conference to expand on this statement, he responded in Solomon Islands Pidgin saying that prior to his departure to Beijing cabinet had heard that budgetary funding expected this year from several donor partners including New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the World Bank had been delayed for various reasons.

    ‘That is how it is’
    “So, we have analysed that in different ways. But that is how it is,” he said.

    “It is their money; we respect them and their taxpayers if they want to help us or not help us that is how it is. But because of that it has put a little bit of pressure on the budget especially our priority to fund the Pacific Games.”

    The prime minister eventually conceded that some of this funding was expected to arrive in government coffers this month.

    But he insisted his country would need all the help it could get to deliver on its main priority for this year which is to deliver the Pacific Games in Honiara in November.

    “We need to have enough resources there in terms of our revenue. I am sure it will pick up already,” he said.

    “Maybe the money that our friends have mentioned probably it has already come because they said it would be by mid-July or towards the end of July it should come. Once it comes that is great. We really need to have some resources there to successfully host the Pacific Games.”

    ‘NZ has honoured its commitments’
    However, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) spokesperson told RNZ Pacific: “We have not withheld or delayed any budget support to Solomon Islands.”

    “Aotearoa New Zealand remains committed to our development partnership, and over the past year has provided around NZ$10.1 million budget support to Solomon Islands including for education, economic reform and Pacific Games support,” the spokesperson said.

    “Our development partnership with Solomon Islands is one of our most significant by breadth, depth and value — now at approximately NZ$150m for 2021-2024. This includes budget support as well as funding for specific activities.

    “The New Zealand High Commissioner in Honiara has been tasked to set the record straight with the Solomon Islands government, confirming New Zealand has honoured its budget support commitments.”

    The Australian government had earlier told ABC it had not backtracked on any formal commitments.

    “Australia has delivered on our budget support commitments to Solomon Islands this year,” a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) spokesperson told ABC.

    “This support has been provided across numerous sectors in Solomon Islands including health, education and elections,” they said.

    “We continue to discuss development and budget support needs with the Solomon Islands government.”

    ‘Unneighbourly claim
    Sogavare has also questioned the “unneighbourly” and “coercive diplomatic approach” of targeting China-Solomon Islands relations and labelled it as “foreign interference” into the internal affairs of Solomon Islands.

    He has also hinted at Solomon Islands intentions of establishing its own military due to the limited capacity of the Solomon Islands Police Force.

    Sogavare said he had had this conversation with the Australian Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles earlier this year.

    The New Zealand government did not respond to RNZ’s question on whether it had had any conversations about such intentions at any time this year, and if it would support such plans of the Solomon Islands government.

    RNZ Pacific’s attempts to get comments from Sogavare have been unsuccessful so far.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Rethinking Australia’s Food System As a Path to Sustainability

    burger
    3 Mins Read

    Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, has published a comprehensive report proposing a major shift in Australia’s food production and consumption strategies to bolster the nation’s sustainability efforts.

    The agency’s report, entitled “Reshaping Australian Food Systems” outlines five primary areas where Australia could forge a more resilient, productive, and sustainable food system. These are aligned with the challenges Australia currently faces, including climate change, rising costs, supply chain and workforce disruptions, growing demand, and public health issues related to nutrition.

    The findings

    According to the report, Australia is ideally placed to become a global leader in alternative protein markets, including plant-based meats and cell-cultivation products, leading to a reduction in emissions.

    Australia’s food industry, which safely feeds approximately 75 million people domestically and abroad, serves as a major economic engine and job creator. But to ensure a thriving future, the roadmap asserts that the nation must redefine its approach to food systems.

    Image courtesy of Pexels.

    The specific areas of focus include promoting equitable access to healthy, sustainable diets, reducing waste while enhancing circularity, aiding Australia’s transition to net-zero emissions, aligning socio-economic resilience with environmental sustainability, and increasing productivity and value.

    The report also emphasizes the role and potential of alternative proteins in lowering emissions from the agrifood sector and diversifying Australia’s food production and exports, thereby strengthening the country’s long-term economic outlook.

    “Food systems are highly complex, impacting health, environment, climate, and energy domains, among others,” CSIRO says. “They contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, intensive production systems, land use change and deforestation, biodiversity loss, poor resource management, and pollution.

    “At the same time these food systems are vulnerable to these changes themselves. Climate-induced risks reduce the ability of food systems to grow and produce, threatening food security and livelihoods. Despite this complex relationship, food systems have the potential to be a major lever to address interrelated challenges of environmental health, climate change, and human well-being,” the agency says.

    Recommendations

    By investing across these sectors, Australia could see improvements in environmental, economic, and public health arenas.

    The roadmap identifies digitalization as a crucial component, supporting efforts such as process optimization, mapping, modeling, and forecasting, and it underscores the importance of traceability, ensuring product origin verification, and protecting brand reputations.

    Photo by Catarina Sousa from Pexels.

    The roadmap further advocates for solutions rooted in local communities, emphasizing the need to consider cultural diversity, socio-economic disparities, and Indigenous knowledge. Recognizing the wealth of knowledge contained within Indigenous systems of plant, animal, and land management, the roadmap encourages avenues for Indigenous leadership within Australia’s food systems.

    “Change is possible across all sectors of Australia’s food system, but significant collaboration and coordination will be necessary to achieve it,” CSIRO says. “Our Roadmap highlights the need for collective engagement and actions underpinned by systems-based thinking.”

    As part of the initiative, a collaboration with The University of Queensland has established the Food System Horizons, aiming to advance discussions and build capacity to manage change processes. “Together we can shift Australia’s food systems to be more sustainable, productive, and resilient,” CSIRO says.

    The post Rethinking Australia’s Food System As a Path to Sustainability first appeared on Green Queen.

    The post Rethinking Australia’s Food System As a Path to Sustainability appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Solomon Islands leader tells US, Australia to respect sovereignty

    The prime minister of the Solomon Islands has accused the United States and Australia of meddling in the Pacific island country’s affairs after they called for making public the police cooperation agreement it recently signed with China.

    Manasseh Sogavare returned home on Monday after a weeklong official visit to China, his second since his country switched its diplomatic recognition to Beijing from Taiwan in 2019.

    “The narrow coercive diplomatic approach of targeting China-Solomon Islands relations is unneighborly and lacks respect for established international principles under the United Nations Charter,” he told reporters at the international airport outside Honiara. “This is nothing but interference by foreign states into the internal affairs of Solomon Islands.”

    China and the Solomon Islands signed nine agreements during Sogavare’s visit, including for police cooperation. The U.S., Australia and the Solomon Islands’ opposition leader last week called for China and the Solomons to make the policing pact public, underscoring their concerns that the agreement could undermine regional stability.

    Home to about 700,000 people, the Solomon Islands has become a hotspot in the escalating Sino-U.S. competition for influence in the Pacific. It signed a secretive security pact with China last year, alarming the U.S. and its allies such as Australia, who see the agreement as a possible prelude to a Chinese military presence in the region. Neither China nor the Solomons has released the security agreement but a purported draft of it circulated online.

    Under Sogavare, the Solomon Islands has sought to benefit from the rivalry between the superpowers by securing more development assistance. The South Pacific country, an archipelago about 2,100 kilometers (1,300 miles) northeast of Brisbane, Australia, grapples with crumbling roads, limited telecommunications and lack of basic healthcare.

    Sogavare said Australia and the United States had nothing to fear from the police cooperation agreement with China. 

    It is a three-year agreement that complements the Pacific country’s police cooperation with Australia and New Zealand, he said, adding it aims to increase the police force’s capabilities and will contribute to eventual self-reliance.

    Australia led a military intervention in the Solomon Islands from 2003 to 2017 after the country descended into lawlessness and ethnic strife at the turn of the century. Australian troops returned to the country at the request of its government in late 2021, after anti-government and anti-China rioting in the capital Honiara left its Chinatown torched. 

    “The time has come for Solomon Islands to empower its police force, invest in stability and break the dependency it has on external security arrangements,” Sogavare said.

    ‘Not anyone’s backyard’

    The competition for influence in the Solomons has increasingly spilled into domestic security, raising concerns it could cause new instability.

    China and Australia have been training Solomon Islands police and donating equipment, including water cannons gifted by China and guns courtesy of Australia. In the past month, the Solomons has been given seven Nissan X-Trail SUVs from Australia as well as night-vision devices, drones, a wireless signal jammer and two vehicles from China.

    Sogavare went to China after Australia earlier this month offered to extend a military and police deployment in the Solomon Islands. The Pacific island country is preparing to host a regional sporting event later this year – bankrolled by China, Australia and Indonesia – and hold postponed elections in the first half of 2024.

    While in China, Sogavare was feted by its leaders and in turn he lavished praise on his hosts. When greeted in Beijing by Chinese officials, he said he was back home.

    In interviews with Chinese state media, he lauded China’s international diplomacy such as its “wonderful” global security initiative and said the country threatened no one.

    “All I want is for our beloved country to develop,” Sogavare said at the airport press conference.

    “For forty-five years [since independence] we’ve been left by the wayside and treated as someone else’s backyard,” he said. “We are not anyone’s backyard. We are a sovereign country and we want to be treated with respect, as equals.”

    BenarNews is an RFA-affiliated online news organization.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Gina Maka’a for BenarNews.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.