Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt says international media are “in the dark” about the reasons behind his decision to ban the Samoa Observerfrom government press conferences, arguing that overseas attention has created “support for one newspaper at the expense of the entire country.”
He also addressed concerns raised locally, directing criticism at the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS) for advising him to reconsider the ban.
“Now you have given me advice, but you should advise where the problem came from,” he said at a media conference this week. “Why are you advising me to lift the ban when you should be advising them [Samoa Observer]?”
La’aulialemalietoa said his duty was to the nation. “Who do I stand for? It is the country I represent. I will not back down from protecting the people of Samoa.”
He said he remained firm in his decision but hoped for a “constructive resolution” ahead. “As the Prime Minister, I will stand strong to do the right thing.”
On international reactions, he said some overseas commentators “do not understand Samoa” and claimed outside support was being used “to support one business and throw away the whole country that is trying to protect its future.”
He said the media was “part of democracy,” but argued that global reporting had focused on the ban itself rather than what he described as the issues that led to it.
Questioned actions of journalists
Turning to domestic matters, the Prime Minister also questioned the actions of local journalists, saying JAWS did not engage with ministries affected by earlier Samoa Observer reporting.
“You are talking to me, but why didn’t you talk to the ministries impacted?” he asked.
He also raised questions about the role of a media council. “Where do I go, or where does the government go, if this sort of thing happens?” he said, adding he was unsure whether such a body existed or had convened.
The Prime Minister said his concerns extended beyond media conduct to the protection of the Samoan language and culture.
“My whole being is about the Gagana Samoa. If there is no language, there is no country,” he said.
He also accused the Samoa Observer of showing disrespect and said harmful reporting left lasting effects.
“If you say something that hurts a person, it will stay with the person forever,” he said.
La’aulialemalietoa said he made it clear upon taking office that his position “is Samoa’s chair,” and the government must correct misinformation when it believed reporting was inaccurate or misleading.
“The government has to say something if a journalist is in the wrong,” he said, arguing that overseas commentary did not reflect local realities.
He said the government supported the media but insisted that cooperation depended on factual reporting.
“If you want to work together, the opportunity is open, but we cannot move forward until the writings are corrected.”
He dismissed one allegation as “a pure lie,” accusing journalists of trespassing onto his land.
“People do not walk onto my land like it’s a market,” he said, urging respect for aganuʻu and cultural protocol.
New Zealand pro-Palestinian demonstrators marched peacefully on The Warehouse in downtown Auckland today to protest over the sale of products by the genocidal state of Israel.
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair Maher Nazzal and fellow protesters delivered a giant letter calling on the management to stop selling SodaStream products.
SodaStream — an Israel-based company since 1978 — is at the centre of the global BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) campaign.
The letter was reluctantly accepted by The Warehouse city branch duty manager Alyce, who needed to take a management phone call before agreeing to take the letter mounted on a board.
“The Warehouse’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes must stop,” said Nazzal in the letter. “I know you will be appalled as we are at Israel’s cruel and depraved war crimes against Palestinians.”
The letter was handed over by a small deputation on behalf of about 200 protesters who stood peacefully by the shop entrance escalator in Elliott Street as they chanted “Blood on your hands” and other condemnation of Israel over the genocide in Gaza that has killed at least 69,000 people, mostly women and children.
The letter addressed to The Warehouse management said that “trading in SodaStream products . . . supports Israel to continue its war crimes against Palestinian people. It encourages Israel to expand its illegal occupation and its genocidal oppression of Palestinians.”
One third of aid trucks
In spite of the so-called “ceasefire” brokered by US President Donald Trump commencing on October 10, only one third of the promised 600 aid trucks a day had been allowed into Gaza.
PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal explains the purpose of the giant protest letter to The Warehouse city branch duty manager Alyce in Auckland today. Image: Asia Pacific Report
“On 19 July 2024 the International Court of Justice, in a landmark ruling, declared Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories — the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza strip — is illegal and no one should give ‘aid or assistance’ to Israel in maintaining its illegal occupation.
“However, The Warehouse is giving direct ‘aid and assistance’ to Israel’s racist policies through selling SodaStream. This must stop.
“Since 2005, Palestinian civil society organisations have called for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel, to build international, non-violent pressure on Israel to end its brutal oppression of Palestinians.
“Sanction Israel Now” declares a banner at today’s Palestine rally and march in downtown Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report
“BDS aims to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, end its apartheid policies towards Palestinians and allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land in Palestine.
The PSNA letter said the protesters supported BDS against Israel — “just as we supported the international boycott of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s”.
‘New Zealanders support sanctions’
“New Zealanders support sanctions against Israel by the ratio of two to one amongst those who give an opinion. New Zealanders expect The Warehouse to end its collaboration with Israeli apartheid and genocide and swap out of SodaStream for alternative brands,” the letter said.
Auckland’s central city branch of The Warehouse in Elliott Street . . . plea to drop SodaStream products. Image: Asia Pacific Report
The Warehouse Group’s says “ethical sourcing” policy was cited in the letter, quoting in part: “Like our customers, we care about doing the right thing — not only here in New Zealand but everywhere we operate.
“Our aim is to ensure our customers have confidence that our products have been ethically sourced.”
The letter continued: “Selling SodaStream directly violates this policy. So why do The Warehouse and it’s subsidiary, Noel Leeming, continue to sell these products linked to ethnic cleansing and genocide?”
Nasser said PSNA wanted the opportunity to speak with The Warehouse management directly about the stocking of SodaStream and looked forward to hearing from the business.
Earlier, at a rally in Te Komititanga Square several speakers about BDS policies included PSNA secretary Neil Scott and South African-born activist Achmat Esau, who explained how global sanctions had forced the brutal racist minority white regime in his homeland to abandon apartheid and bow to genuine democracy.
Esau recalled how in 1968 white South African Prime Minister John Vorster banned a tour by the England cricket team because it included a mixed-race player, Cape Town-born Basil D’Oliveira.
Boycott of apartheid South Africa
“After this incident, South Africa was excluded from international cricket until the release of political prisoner Nelson Mandela 22 years later.
“The anti-apartheid boycott of the South African regime from the 1960s until the 1980s was instrumental in bringing the racist apartheid regime to its knees,’ Esau said.
He said the success of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa was an indicator of how it could also succeed through the BDS movement against apartheid Israel.
“We must draw in the politicians and political parries to isolate, expose and oppose this evil Zionist regime that is guilty of state terrorism.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters outside the Elliott Street entrance to The Warehouse in Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report
UNSC Resolution 2803 is unequivocally rejected. It is a direct contravention of international law itself, imposed by the United States with the full knowledge and collaboration of Arab and Muslim states.
These regimes brutally turned their backs on the Palestinians throughout the genocide, with some actively helping Israel cope with the economic fallout of its multi-frontal wars.
The resolution is a pathetic attempt to achieve through political decree what the US and Israel decisively failed to achieve through brute force and war.
It is doomed to fail, but not before it further exposes the bizarre, corrupted nature of international law under US political hegemony. The very country that has bankrolled and sustained the genocide of the Palestinians is the same country now taking ownership of Gaza’s fate.
It is a sad testimony of current affairs that China and Russia maintained a far stronger, more principled position in support of Palestine than the so-called Arab and Muslim “brothers.”
The time for expecting salvation from Arab and Muslim states is over; enough is enough.
Even more tragic is Russia’s explanation for its abstention as a defence of the Palestinian Authority, while the PA itself welcomed the vote. The word treason is far too kind for this despicable, self-serving leadership.
Recipe for disaster
If implemented and enforced against the will of the Palestinians in Gaza, this resolution is a recipe for disaster: expect mass protests in Gaza, which will inevitably be suppressed by US-led lackeys, working hand-in-glove with Israel, all in the cynical name of enforcing “international law”.
UNSC Resolution 2803 is unequivocally rejected. It is a direct contravention of international law itself, imposed by the United States with the full knowledge and collaboration of Arab and Muslim states. These regimes brutally turned their backs on the Palestinians throughout the…
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the history of Palestine knows that Res 2803 has hurled us decades back, resurrecting the dark days of the British Mandate over Palestine.
Another historical lesson is due: those who believe they are writing the final, conclusive chapter of Palestine will be shocked and surprised, for they have merely infuriated history.
The story is far from over. The lasting shame is that Arab states are now fully and openly involved in the suppression of the Palestinians.
Dr Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London). He has a PhD in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter (2015) and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. This commentary is republished from his Facebook page.
A rift within New Caledonia’s pro-independence movement has further widened after the second component of the “moderates”, the UPM (Progressist Union in Melanesia), has officially announced it has now left the once united Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS).
The UPM announcement, at a press conference in Nouméa, comes only five days after the PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party), another moderate pro-independence group, also made official it was splitting from the FLNKS.
It was in line with resolutions taken at the party’s Congress held at the weekend.
Both groups have invoked similar reasons for the move.
UPM leader Victor Tutugoro told local media on Wednesday his party found it increasingly “difficult to exist today within the [FLNKS] pro-independence movement, part of which has now widely radicalised through outrage and threats”.
He said both his party and PALIKA did not recognise themselves anymore in the FLNKS’s increasingly “violent operating mode”.
Tutugoro recalled that since August 2024, UPM had not taken part in the operation of the “new FLNKS” [including its political bureau] because it did not accept its “forceful ways” under the increasing domination of Union Calédonienne, especially the recruitment of new “nationalist” factions and the appointment of CCAT leader and UC political commissar Christian Téin as its new President,.
Téin was arrested in June 2024 for alleged criminal-related charges before and during the May 2024 riots and then flown to mainland France.
After one year in jail in Mulhouse (North-east of France), his pre-trial conditions were released and in October 2025, he was eventually authorised to return to New Caledonia, where he should be back in the next few days.
Christian Téin’s return soon Téin remains under pre-trial conditions until he is judged, at a yet undetermined date.
Téin and a “Collectif Solidarité Kanaky 18” however announced Téin was to hold a public meeting themed “Which way for the Decolonisation of Kanaky-New Caledonia?” on 22 November 2025 in the small French city of Bourges, local media reported.
“This will be his last public address before he returns to New Caledonia,” said organisers.
Tutugoro says things worsened since the negotiations that led to the signing of a Bougival agreement, in July 2025, from which FLNKS pulled out in August 2025, denouncing what they described as a “lure of independence”.
“This agreement now separates us from the new FLNKS. And this is another reason for us to say we have nothing left to do [with them],” said Tutugoro.
UPM recalls it was a founding member of the FLNKS in 1984.
UPM, PALIKA founding members of FLNKS 41 years ago On November 14, the PALIKA [Kanak Liberation Party] revealed the outcome of its 50th Congress held six days earlier, which now makes official its withdrawal from the FLNKS (a platform it was part of since the FLNKS was set up in 1984).
It originally comprised PALIKA, UPM (Progressist Union in Melanesia), Union Calédonienne (UC) and Wallisian-based Rassemblement démocratique océanien (RDO).
PALIKA said it had decided to formally split from FLNKS because it disagreed with the FLNKS approach since the May 2024 riots.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
There’s been skillful work in journalism’s dark arts on display in the UK this past week, as the nasty British right-wing media pack tore down two senior BBC executives. The right-wing culture warriors will be celebrating big time.
They reckon they’ve put a big dent in Britain’s most trusted and most used news media with the scalps of director-general Tim Davie and director of news Deborah Turness.
Best of all, the London Daily Telegraph was able to make it look like an inside job (leaning into a paean of outrage from a former part-time “standards” adviser), hiding its hit job behind the pretence of serious investigative journalism.
For the paper long dubbed the Torygraph, it’s just another day of pulling down the country’s centrist institutions for not being right wing enough in the destructive, highly politicised world of British news media.
Sure, there’s criticisms to be made of the BBC’s news output. There’s plenty of research and commentary that pins the broadcaster for leaning over backwards to amplify right-wing talking points over hot-button issues like immigration and crime. (ABC insiders here in Australia call it the preemptive buckle.)
Most recently, for example, a Cardiff University report last month found that nearly a quarter of BBC News programmes included Nigel Farage’s Reform Party — far more coverage than similar-sized parties like the centrist Liberal Democrats or the Greens received.
It’s why there are mixed views about Davie (who started in the marketing rather than the programme-making side of the business), while the generally respected Turness is being mourned and protested more widely.
BBC’s damage-control plan
The resignations flow from the corporation’s damage-control plan around an earlier — and more genuine — BBC scandal: the 2020 expose that then rising star Martin Bashir had forged documents to nab a mid-1990s Princess Diana interview. You know the one: the royal-rocking “there were three of us in the marriage” one.
The Boris Johnson government grabbed onto the scandal as an opportunity to drive “culture change”, as then Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden put it in an interview in Murdoch’s The Times. As part of that change, the BBC board (almost always the villain in BBC turmoil) decided to give the Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee a bit of a hand, by adding an external “adviser”.
Enter Michael Prescott, a former News Corp political reporter before moving on to PR and lobbying. Not a big BBC gig (it pays $30,000 a year), but it came with the fancy title of “Editorial Adviser”.
Roll forward four years: new government, new board, new BBC scandal. Prescott’s term ended last July. But he left a land-mine behind: a 19-page jeremiad, critiquing the BBC and its staff over three of the right’s touchstone issues: Trump, Gaza and trans people.
It fingered the BBC’s respected Arab programming for anti-Israel bias and smeared LGBTQIA+ reporters for promoting a pro-trans agenda.
Last week, his letter turned up (surprise!) — all over the Telegraph’sfront pages, staying there every day since last Tuesday, amplified by its partner on the right, the Daily Mail, helped along with matching deplora-quotes from conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and demands for answers from the Tory MP who chairs the House of Commons Culture Standing Committee.
The one stumble sustaining the outrage? Back in November 2024, on the BBC’s flagship Panorama immediately before the US presidential election, snippets of Trump’s speech on the day of the January 6 riot had been spliced together, bringing together words which had been spoken 50 minutes apart.
Not for the first time, heads have rolled at the BBC following a puffed-up scandal pushed by the UK’s Tory press. Will the ABC learn the lessons of its British compatriot? https://t.co/nteARbd2M3
Carelessness . . . or bias?
Loose editing? Carelessness? Or (as the cacophony on the right insist) demonstrable anti-Trump bias?
The real problem? The loose editing took the report over one of the right’s red lines: suggesting — however lightly — that Trump was in any way responsible for what happened at the US Capital that day.
Feeding the right’s fury, last Thursday the BBC released its findings that a newsreader’s facial expression when she changed a script on-air from “pregnant people” to “pregnant women” laid the BBC “open to the interpretation that it indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity”.
Even as the British news media has deteriorated into the destructive, mean-spirited beast that it has become, outdated syndication arrangements mean Australia’s legacy media has to pretend to take it seriously. And our own conservative media just can’t resist joining in the mother country’s culture wars.
An Australian Financial Review opinion piece by the masthead’s European correspondent Andrew Tillett took the opportunity to rap the knuckles of the ABC, the BBC and “their alleged cabals of leftist journalists and content producers”, while Jacquelin Magnay at The Australian called for a clean-out at the BBC due to its pivot “from providing factual news to becoming an activist for the trans lobby and promoting pro-Gaza voices”.
Trump, of course, was not to be left out of the pile-on, with his press secretary Karoline Leavitt calling the BBC “100 percent fake news” — and giving the UK Telegraph another front page to keep the story alive for another day. Overnight, Trump got back into the headlines as he announced his trademark US$1 billion demand on media that displeases him.
It’s not the first time Britain’s Tory media have brought down a BBC boss for being insufficiently right wing. Back in 1987, Thatcher appointed ex-Daily Mail boss Marmaduke Hussey as BBC chair. Within three months, he shocked the niceties of British institutional life when he fired director-general Alastair Milne over the BBC’s reporting on the conservative government.
Here we are almost 40 years later: another puffed-up scandal. Another BBC head falling to the outrage of the British Tory press.
Christopher Warren is an Australian journalist and Crikey’s media correspondent. He was federal secretary of the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance (MEAA) until April 2015, and is a past president of the International Federation of Journalists. This article was first published by Crikey and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
The Paris-based global media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders has called on the Samoan Prime Minister to lift the ban preventing the daily newspaper Samoa Observer from attending government press conferences.
“The measure is totally unacceptable — it comes after one of its journalists filed a complaint over violence committed by the PM’s security officers,” said RSF in a post on its BlueSky news feed.
Samoan Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt “temporarily” banned the Samoa Observer on Monday from engagements with him and his ministers, triggering a wave of condemnation from Pacific and global media freedom organisations.
#Samoa: RSF is calling on the Prime Minister to lift the ban preventing the daily #SamoaObserver from attending government press conferences. The measure is totally unacceptable — it comes after one of its journalists filed a complaint over violence committed by the PM’s security officers.
As other criticism of the Samoan Prime Minister continued to flow during the week, former prime minister and leader of the Samoa Uniting Party, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, said the ban was a “clear attempt to silence scrutiny” and a serious decline in Samoa’s democratic standards.
Quoted in the Samoa Observer today, Fiame said that when a person held public office, transparency was an obligation, not a choice.
She warned that democracy weakened not through a single dramatic event, but through a series of actions that slowly eroded transparency and silenced independent voices.
Fiame said the banning of a major newspaper like the Samoa Observer could not be viewed as a simple administrative decision.
“It is an act that strikes at the heart of media freedom, a right that allows the public to understand and question those who hold power,” she said.
Fiame reflected on her own time as prime minister, noting that no journalist or media organisation had ever ever been shut out, regardless of how challenging their questions were.
She said leadership required openness, accountability, and the ability to face criticism without fear or restriction.
Meanwhile, the Samoa Observer’s editor, Shalveen Chand, reported that the Journalists Association of [Western] Samoa (JAWS) had also urged Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa to reconsider the decision and lift the ban on the newspaper’s journalists from attending his press conferences.
JAWS said in a statement it was deeply concerned that such bans might “become the norm” for the current government and for future governments.
The UN Security Council passed a regime change resolution against Gaza on Monday, effectively issuing a mandate for an invasion force to enter the besieged coastal enclave and install a US-led ruling authority by force.
Passing with 13 votes in favour and none in defiance, the new UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution has given the United States a mandate to create what it calls an “International Stabilisation Force” (ISF) and “Board of Peace” committee to seize power in Gaza.
US President Donald Trump has hailed the resolution as historic, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has stood in opposition to an element of the resolution that mentions “Palestinian Statehood”.
In order to understand what has just occurred, it requires a breakdown of the resolution itself and the broader context surrounding the ceasefire deal.
When these elements are combined, it becomes clear that this resolution is perhaps one of the most shameful to have passed in the history of the United Nations, casting shame on it and undermining the very basis on which it was formed to begin with.
An illegal regime change resolution In September 2025, a United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel to have committed the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip.
For further context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the most powerful international legal entity and organ of the UN, ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide and thus issued orders for Tel Aviv to end specific violations of international law in Gaza, which were subsequently ignored.
Taking this into consideration, the UN itself cannot claim ignorance of the conditions suffered by the people of Gaza, nor could it credibly posit that the United States is a neutral actor capable of enforcing a balanced resolution of what its own experts have found to be a genocide.
This resolution itself is not a peace plan and robs Palestinians of their autonomy entirely; thus, it is anti-democratic in its nature.
It was also passed due in large part to threats from the United States against both Russia and China, that if they vetoed it, the ceasefire would end and the genocide would resume. Therefore, both Beijing and Moscow abstained from the vote, despite the Russian counterproposal and initial opposition to the resolution.
It also gives a green light to what the US calls a “Board of Peace”, which will work to preside over governing Gaza during the ceasefire period. The head of this board is none other than US President Trump himself, who says he will be joined by other world leaders.
Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who launched the illegal invasion of Iraq, has been floated as a potential “Board of Peace” leader also.
Vowed a ‘Gaza Riviera’
On February 4 of this year, President Trump vowed to “take over” and “own” the Gaza Strip. The American President later sought to impose a plan for a new Gaza, which he even called the “Gaza Riviera”, which was drawn up by Zionist economist Joseph Pelzman.
Part of Pelzman’s recommendations to Trump was that “you have to destroy the whole place, restart from scratch”.
As it became clear that the US alone could not justify an invasion force and simply take over Gaza by force, on behalf of Israel, in order to build “Trump Gaza”, a casino beach land for fellow Jeffrey Epstein-connected billionaires, a new answer was desperately sought.
Then came a range of meetings between Trump administration officials and regional leaderships, aimed at working out a strategy to achieve their desired goals in Gaza.
After the ceasefire was violated in March by the Israelis, leading to the mass murder of around 17,000 more Palestinians, a number of schemes were being hatched and proposals set forth.
The US backed and helped to create the now-defunct so-called “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” (GHF) programme, which was used to privatise the distribution of aid in the territory amidst a total blockade of all food for three months.
Starving Palestinians, who were rapidly falling into famine, flocked to these GHF sites, where they were fired upon by US private military contractors and Israeli occupation forces, murdering more than 1000 civilians.
The ‘New York Declaration’
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and France were busy putting together what would become the “New York Declaration” proposal for ending the war and bringing Western nations to recognise the State of Palestine at the UN.
Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, here came Trump’s so-called “peace plan” that was announced at the White House in October. This plan appeared at first to be calling for a total end to the war, a mutual prisoner exchange and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza in a phased approach.
From the outset, Trump’s “20-point plan” was vague and impractical. Israel immediately violated the ceasefire from the very first day and has murdered nearly 300 Palestinians since then. The first phase of the ceasefire deal was supposed to end quickly, ideally within five days, but the deal has stalled for over a month.
Throughout this time, it has become increasingly clear that the Israelis are not going to respect the “Yellow Line” separation zone and have violated the agreement through operating deeper into Gaza than they had originally agreed to.
The Israeli-occupied zone was supposed to be 53 percent of Gaza; it has turned out to be closer to 58 percent. Aid is also not entering at a sufficient rate, despite US and Israeli denials; this has been confirmed by leading rights groups and humanitarian organisations.
In the background, the US team dealing with the ceasefire deal that is headed by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff has been juggling countless insidious proposals for the future of Gaza.
Even publicly stating that reconstruction will only take place in the Israeli-controlled portion of the territory, also floating the idea that aid points will be set up there in order to force the population out of the territory under de facto Hamas control. This has often been referred to as the “new Gaza plan”.
The disastrous GHF
As this has all been in the works, including discussions about bringing back the disastrous GHF, the Israelis have been working alongside four ISIS-linked collaborator death squads that it controls and who operate behind the Yellow Line in Gaza.
No mechanisms have been put in place to punish the Israelis for their daily violations of the ceasefire, including the continuation of demolition operations against Gaza’s remaining civilian infrastructure. This appears to be directly in line with Joseph Pelzman’s plan earlier this year to “destroy the whole place”.
The UNSC resolution not only makes Donald Trump the effective leader of the new administrative force that will be imposed upon the Gaza Strip, but also greenlights what it calls its International Stabilisation Force. This ISF is explicitly stated to be a multinational military force that will be tasked with disarming Hamas and all Palestinian armed groups in the Gaza Strip.
The US claims it will not be directly involved in the fighting with “boots on the ground”; it has already deployed hundreds of soldiers and has been reportedly building a military facility, which they deny is a base, but for all intents and purposes will be one.
Although it may not be American soldiers killing and dying while battling Palestinian resistance groups, they will be in charge of this force.
This is not a “UN peacekeeping force” and is not an equivalent to UNIFIL in southern Lebanon; it is there to carry out the task of completing Israel’s war goal of defeating the Palestinian resistance through force.
In other words, foreign soldiers will be sent from around the world to die for Israel and taxpayers from those nations will be footing the bill.
‘Self-determination’ reservation
The only reason why Israel has reservations about this plan is because it included a statement claiming that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) — that does not control Gaza and is opposed by the majority of the Palestinian people — undergoes reforms that the West and Israel demand, then conditions “may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”.
A keyword here is “may”, in other words, it is not binding and was simply added in to give corrupted Arab leaderships the excuse to vote yes.
Hamas and every other Palestinian political party, with the exception of the mainstream branch of Fatah that answers to Israel and the US, have opposed this UNSC resolution.
Hamas even called upon Algeria to vote against it; instead, the Algerian leadership praised Donald Trump and voted in favour. Typical of Arab and Muslim-majority regimes that don’t represent the will of their people, they all fell in line and bent over backwards to please Washington.
It won’t likely work As has been the story with every conspiracy hatched against the people of Gaza, this is again destined to fail. Not only will it fail, but it will likely backfire enormously and lead to desperate moves.
To begin with, the invasion force, or ISF, will be a military endeavour that will have to bring together tens of thousands of soldiers who speak different languages and have nothing in common, in order to somehow achieve victory where Israel failed.
It is a logistical nightmare to even think about.
How long would it take to deploy these soldiers? At the very least, it’s going to take months. Then, how long would this process take? Nobody has any clear answers here.
Also, what happens if Israel begins bombing again at any point, for example, if there is a clash that kills Israeli soldiers? What would these nations do if Israeli airstrikes killed their soldiers or put them in harm’s way?
Also, tens of thousands of soldiers may not cut it; if the goal is to destroy all the territory’s military infrastructure, they may need hundreds of thousands. Or if that isn’t an option, will they work alongside the Israeli military?
It is additionally clear that nobody knows where all the tunnels and fighters are; if Israel couldn’t find them, then how can anyone else?
After all, the US, UK, and various others have helped the Israelis with intelligence sharing and reconnaissance for more than two years to get these answers.
How do regimes justify this?
Finally, when Arab, European, or Southeast Asian soldiers return to their nations in body bags, how do their regimes justify this? Will the president or prime minister of these nations have to stand up and tell their people . . . “sorry guys, your sons and daughters are now in coffins because Israel needed a military force capable of doing what they failed to do, so we had to help them complete their genocidal project”.
Also, how many Palestinian civilians are going to be slaughtered by these foreign invaders?
As for the plan to overthrow Hamas rule in Gaza, the people of the territory will not accept foreign invaders as their occupiers any more than they will accept Israelis. They are not going to accept ISIS-linked collaborators as any kind of security force either.
Already, the situation is chaotic inside Gaza, and that is while its own people, who are experienced and understand their conditions, are in control of managing security and some administrative issues; this includes both Hamas and others who are operating independently of it, but inside the territory under its de facto control.
Just as the Israeli military claimed it was going to occupy Gaza City, laying out countless plans to do this, to ethnically cleanse the territory and “crush Hamas”, the US has been coordinating alongside it throughout the entirety of the last two years. Every scheme has collapsed and ended in failure.
It has been nearly a month and a half, yet there are still no clear answers as to how this Trump “peace plan” is supposed to work and it is clear that the Israelis are coming up with new proposals on a daily basis.
There is no permanent mechanism for aid transfers, which the Israelis are blocking. There is no clear vision for governance.
How a US plan envisages Gaza being permanently split into two sections – a green zone and a red zone. Image: Guardian/IDF/X
‘Two Gazas’ plan incoherent
The “two Gazas” plan is not even part of the ceasefire or Trump plan, yet it is being pursued in an incoherent way. The ISF makes no sense and appears as poorly planned as the GHF.
Hamas and the other Palestinian factions will not give up their weapons. There is no real plan for reconstruction. The Israelis are adamant that there will be no Palestinian State and won’t allow any independent Palestinian rule of Gaza, and the list of problems goes on and on.
What it really looks like here is that this entire ceasefire scheme is a stab in the dark attempt to achieve Israel’s goals while also giving its forces a break and redirecting their focus on other fronts, understanding that there is no clear solution to the Gaza question for now.
The United Nations has shown itself over the past two years to be nothing more than a platform for political theatre. It is incapable of punishing, preventing, or even stopping the crime of all crimes.
Now that international law has suffocated to death under the rubble of Gaza, next to the thousands of children who still lie underneath it, the future of this conflict will transform.
This UNSC vote demonstrates that there is no international law, no international community, and that the UN is simply a bunch of fancy offices, which are only allowed to work under the confines of gangster rule.
If the Palestinian resistance groups feel as if their backs are against the wall and an opportunity, such as another Israeli war on Lebanon, presents them the opportunity, then there is a high likelihood that a major military decision will be made.
In the event that this occurs, it will be this UNSC resolution that is in large part responsible.
When the suffering in Gaza finally ends, whether that is because Israel obliterates all of its regional opposition and exterminates countless other civilians in its way, or Israel is militarily shattered, the UN should be disbanded as was the League of Nations. It is a failed project just as that which preceded it.
Something new must take over from it.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle and it is republished with permission.
The editor of Samoa’s only daily newspaper barred on Monday from accessing the Prime Minister’s press conferences says media freedom in Samoa is under attack.
Samoan Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt “temporarily” banned the Samoa Observer from engagements with him and his ministers.
In a statement, La’aulialemalietoa said the Observer had been “unfair and inaccurate” in its reporting on him, particularly during his health stay in New Zealand.
“While I strongly support the principles of the public’s right to information and freedom of the media, it is important that reporting adheres to ethical standards and responsible journalism practices, given the significant role and influence media plays in informing our community,” he said.
“There have been cases where stories have been published without sufficient factual verification or a chance for those involved to respond, which I believe is fundamental to fair reporting.”
La’aulialemalietoa pointed to several examples, such as an article regarding the chair he used during a meeting with New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters, several articles based on leaks from inside the government, and an article “aimed at creating discord during my absence”.
“In the light of these experiences, I have decided to temporarily suspend this newspaper from my press engagements starting today [Monday].”
‘We just want answers’
However, Samoa Observer editor Shalveen Chand told RNZ Pacific the newspaper was just doing its job.
“We don’t really have any sides. We just want answers for questions which we believe the people of the nation need to know,” Chand said.
The Prime Minister’s ban on the Samoa Observer takes up the entire front page of the newspaper’s edition yesterday. Image: Samoa Observer screenshot RNZ
“If he has taken the step to ban us, he has just taken a step to stifle media freedom.”
Chand said that the government had a history of refusing to answer or ignoring questions posed by their reporters.
“It doesn’t change the fact that the job that we have to do we will continue doing. We will keep on holding the government accountable. We will keep on highlighting issues.”
“We’re not against the government, we’re not fighting the government. We just want answers.”
The Samoa Observer said it could still access MPs and other officials, and it could still enter Parliament and cover sittings.
But La’aulialemalietoa has reportedly asked his ministers not to engage with the Observer or any of its reporters.
Chand said, so far, there had not been any engagement from the government, and they did not know what they needed to do to have the ban lifted.
Ban ‘disproportionate’ says PINA
The Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) called the ban “disproportionate and unnecessary”, stating it represented a grave threat to media freedom in the country.
“PINA urges the government of Samoa to immediately reverse the ban and uphold its commitment to open dialogue and transparent governance,” the association said in a statement.
PINA noted that Samoa already had a legally mandated and independent mechanism (the Samoa Media Council) to address concerns about media accuracy, fairness, or ethical conduct.”
The Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) said La’aulialemalietoa’s decision “undermines constitutional rights on media freedom and people’s right to seek and share information”.
“Banning an entire news organisation from press conferences hurts the public interest as people will lose access to independent reporting on matters of national importance,” PFF Polynesia co-chair Katalina Tohi said.
The PFF is urging the Prime Minister “to rethink his actions”.
Confrontation outside PM’s home On November 16, La’aulialemalietoa said three newspaper reporters and photographers trespassed his home, despite being stopped by police at the gate. Those reporters were from the Samoa Observer and the BBC.
“Their approach was rude, arrogant, invasive and lacked respect for personal privacy.”
But Chand denies that anybody had entered the compound at all, rather accessing the outside of the fence by the road.
“He’s the Prime Minister of Samoa, he’s a key public figure, and we as the press wanted to know how he was.”
As far as what played out afterward, Chand recalled things differently.
“One of my journalists had gone to ask, basically, how his trip had been and if he was doing okay . . . there was no regular communication with the Prime Minister during his eight-week stay in New Zealand.
“He told the journalist at the gate to come back on Monday, and the journalist was leaving. I had just come to drop off a camera lens for the journalist. I was getting into my car when two men unexpectedly walked out and started to assault me.”
Chand said he had received no explanation for why this had happened.
PMN News reported last night that BBC journalist Dr Mandeep Rai, who witnessed the incident, said the Samoa Observer team acted “carefully and respectfully”, and that the hostile response was surprising.
Ever since, Samoa Observer journalists have been bombarded with online abuse, Chand said.
“Attacks against me have actually doubled and tripled on social media . . . fake pages, or even people with real pages . . . it has somewhat impacted my family members a bit,” Chand said.
“But hey, we’re trying to do a job.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
For a Roman general about to commit to battle, every piece of intelligence was vital. Rather than blindly attack or retreat, he asked the gods. More specifically, he got a professional augur to open a cage with chicken in, throw some bread at it, and watch how the chicken ate it. Then, you see, he would know if the gods favoured him. Today, we use opinion polls.
Just before the Caerphilly by-election, Survation predicted Reform would poll 42%, with Plaid Cymru on 38%. The result? Plaid polled 47%, Reform 36%. From 4% behind, Plaid won by 11%.
True, that was a single constituency telephone poll with a small sample size. But why have people revered divination throughout history?
We didn’t always have opinion polls
The Ancient Greeks preferred the Oracle to chickens. A priestess would sit on a stool over a crack in the ground that belched out natural petrochemical fumes. Then she’d speak the word of the gods.
When I was elected Mayor in May 2019, Theresa May was Prime Minister. Imagine if I’d written a column predicting she’d be gone within weeks, and that bloke from Have I Got News For You would become Prime Minister. And there’d be this killer virus, right, that would stop us all going outside and we’d be paid to stay at home, but there would be no toilet paper or pasta. But the scruffy-haired Latin bloke would get convicted for having a big party in Downing Street, so he would be replaced by that angry cheese speech woman, but she’d be beaten by a lettuce. And get this, a load of Russian tanks would roll into Ukraine, but then get confused and stop, and go back. Then invade again. British summers would top 40 degrees Celsius. Oh, and England will win the European Football Championship – twice.
You would have thought I was huffing the Ancient Greek glue. Especially if I’d said we would solve street homelessness overnight. Which we did, in lockdown. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
There is a reason politics and everything flowing from it is so febrile. No one has addressed the root cause of the 2007-8 financial crash. In the post-war boom profits came from making things. Developing new products, organising productive new methods of manufacturing. Profit depended on increasing the skills and productivity of the workforce. There was at least something of a balance of power between owners and workers, leading to increasing wages and prosperity. Beveridge’s five giant evils of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness all but disappeared.
Awash with money
Today, profit comes more from owning things and charging rent on them. Remember how most of the building societies were turned into banks? Well, most of those bank shares are now owned by very rich people. Our care homes used to be run by councils. Now most are owned by private equity.
Britain is awash with money. But it is not being usefully deployed. Billionaire wealth has increased tenfold since the 1990’s. That’s after accounting for inflation.
That’s the cause of austerity. That’s why we have unemployed GPs and a shortage of GP appointments. That’s why university leaves you with £53,000 debt just for getting the skills we need to run a modern economy. That’s why your park no longer gets the grass cut. That’s why you see homeless people on the street and 3 million people using food banks. How long before kids have to pay back the loan for their A-Level tuition?
The most recent Find Out Now poll still has Reform in the lead, but puts the Green Party second. They’re on 18%, ahead of the Tories on 16% and Labour on 15%. And that’s before the Starmtroopers decided to start a leadership challenge against themselves.
The turmoil will continue
Who would have predicted Labour would be fourth just sixteen months after winning 411 general election seats? Who would have predicted the Greens would be the opposition? Will Labour now step aside to stop splitting the progressive vote?
Until someone offers a credible cure for Thatcherism, politics will continue in turmoil. Polls will rise and fall, leaders will come and go. At Majority, we’re committed to pluralism and progressive alliances. We need leaders at every level who can work together, who are competent and networked, and who don’t get snagged in petty disputes. People who could run the country in the interests of the people who do the work, and run it well. We run training on community wealth building, on being a candidate, on how to mobilise activists. And you can be a member of the Greens, or Your Party, or anything else progressive, and still join Majority.
Here’s one prediction I will make. There will continue to be scandals and panics. Poverty will remain widespread and climate action will be inadequate. And nothing will be fixed until we get a team of competent, compassionate leaders who act with integrity.
The farce of Western regard for democracy has been revealed in several countries. Well known are the machinations of the Democratic National Commission to prevent the social democrat Bernie Sanders from becoming the leader of the so-called Democratic Party in the US. In the UK, there was the coalition of Labour Party insiders with Israeli Zionists who upended the elected party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Consider the Western support for the continuation of the corrupt government of Volodymyr Zelenskyy well past his democratic mandate; consider the abandonment of the presidential election in Romania when it appeared certain that frontrunner Călin Georgescu would win. The pretext given by the EU was that Georgescu is “a nationalist figure, known for promoting conspiracy theories, including anti-EU, anti-NATO narratives, and for previously expressing admiration for controversial authoritarian leaders. His rhetoric often echoed messages favoured by the Kremlin.” A candidate anathema to the EU, well, can’t have that. The solution was to just ban Georgescu from standing for election.
Couldn’t happen in Canada? It already has. The candidacy of Dimitri Lascaris, the progressivist defender of Palestinian rights, for the Green Party of Canada leadership was torpedoed by the incumbent leader, a staunch Zionist, Elizabeth May.
Yves Engler is a slim, bespectacled man who usually is seen wearing jeans, a button-up sleeved shirt or t-shirt. He looks like an everyday person. There is no pretentiousness. He looks like most of us. Engler epitomizes grassroots.
Engler is a writer/author/podcaster. When he writes or talks, he speaks to the aspirations of everyday people. He eschews wars, racism, and poverty. He stands for the rights of Indigenous peoples, social justice, and protecting the environment.
But the greedy hands that pull the levers that control the political scene are arrayed against him. The fear that Engler evokes among the political hierarchy causes them to try to destroy Engler’s campaign to become a revolutionary leader of Canada’s federal New Democratic Party (NDP), a party that has also been ravaged over the years by capitalism and Zionism. In so doing, the backroom elitists expose their adherence to democracy as being a Canadian value is, in fact, a farce.
So it was to be expected that the anti-capitalist candidacy of Yves Engler would incur the wrath of the Establishment.
Shortly thereafter, the NDP Establishment raised concerns. On 7 October, Engler reported on his strategy to protect democracy:
the Chief Electoral Official for the leadership race suggested to the National Post and Toronto Star that we were violating the party’s rules by fundraising. It’s untrue, as explained here and here. In his statement to the corporate media the CEO said I’ve misled people by describing my candidacy as having not “yet been approved” even though I’ve stated in a dozen public forums that we have yet to submit to party vetting because we fear that a committee of three-party insiders will quietly block our thousand strong volunteer campaign.
On 2 November, Engler declared his hope to win Hochelaga—Rosemont-Est for the NDP. It is a riding next to where the bilingual Engler lives in Montréal. Engler noted that the Electoral District Association (EDA) executive is sympathetic to his candidacy. A campaign goal of Engler is to “test support for abolishing billionaires, applying Canadian law towards Israel, bucking Trump on war spending, shuttering the tar sands and massively investing in co-op and public housing.”
On 10 November, the Globe and Mail published an article that quoted Engler explaining, “party vetting is a threat to democracy. Differences of political opinion should be determined by the membership, not a three-person back-room committee. NDP members should be allowed to decide whether they support or oppose a candidate calling for the party to vote down a budget that plows tens of billions of dollars more into a military that is structured to assist the U.S. war machine.”
Engler reported on 14 October:
A rightist columnist recently labeled me “repellent” while a left-establishment commentator publicly proclaimed, “f*** Yves Engler”. Canada’s ideological apparatus is whipped into a frenzy over my multilayered challenge to Canadian foreign policy and my campaign’s activist anti-capitalism.
On 14 November, an email from Engler stated,
Ben Mulroney doesn’t like me. On his radio program Wednesday he called me an “agitator extraordinaire, troublemaker, rabble rouser, generally unproductive member of society, antisemite of the highest order … A toxic and terrible human being.”
I guess Mulroney’s still mad I asked him in March for a comment on the killing of Palestinian children.
Mulroney’s intemperate words spoke to the simplistic strategy to preclude candidates deemed unacceptable by the Establishment: ad hominem and lies.
There have also been attempts to block Team Engler from campaign venues. CTV quoted the Sarnia mayor rejecting a bid to shut down the Team Engler event. Engler was quoted, “it’s those who promote apartheid and genocide that are the racists” not critics of Zionism. The Sarnia Observer reported that the Engler campaign campaign is “challenging genocide, militarism, and corporate power” while seeking to build a “bold, grassroots left alternative.”
*****
Engler is no weak-kneed Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn. The Establishment will do whatever it can to undermine a grassroots movement led by Engler. And whatever the outcome of the Team Engler campaign, this writer firmly believes that Engler will continue to stand and fight for everyday people. He will oppose poverty, capitalism, imperialism, and genocide. He has already been jailed by Montreal police for his social media posts criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza. Engler is a candidate that will breathe new life into the moribund NDP and give more than just hope for progressivists.
Disclosure: I have never met Yves Engler. I have communicated by email over the years. I am not and never have been a member of the NDP — nor any other political party for that matter.
French minister for overseas Naïma Moutchou left New Caledonia at the weekend after a 5-day stay, with an announcement regarding a re-scheduled referendum-like consultation on a project for the French Pacific territory’s political future — but few pledges regarding further French commitment to tackle a dire financial situation.
Her visit also coincided with another formal announcement from one major “moderate” component of the pro-independence movement to officialise an already existing split with the now hard-line FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front).
On Friday, November 14, the PALIKA (Kanak Liberation Party) revealed the outcome of its 50th Congress held six days earlier, which now makes official its withdrawal from the FLNKS (a platform it was part of since the FLNKS was set up in 1984).
It originally comprised PALIKA, UPM (Progressist Union in Melanesia), Union Calédonienne (UC) and Wallisian-based Rassemblement démocratique océanien (RDO).
The PALIKA said it decided to formally split from FLNKS because it had disagreed with the FLNKS approach since the May 2024 riots.
Since the announcement on Friday, PALIKA spokesman Charles Washetine told several local media his party was still supporting a project of “full sovereignty” with France, through negotiation and dialogue.
But “it’s certainly not through destruction that we will build something for our children”, he stressed.
He admitted the Bougival text was “perfectible”.
Distanced from FLNKS
At the time, especially after the FLNKS Congress held in August 2024, two of its significant components, PALIKA and UPM had already distanced itself from the FLNKS and the CCAT, saying it “did not recognise itself”.
The CCAT (Field Action Coordinating Cell) is a group that was then tasked to organise protests against a planned Constitutional change that later degenerated into the riots claimed the lives of 14 people.
At its August 2024 Congress, at which neither PALIKA nor UPM took part, FLNKS also resolved that such “mobilisation tools” as CCAT and several other groups, were officially accepted into the party’s fold.
Christian Téin, who was at the time the CCAT leader, was also elected president of the FLNKS in absentia.
He had been arrested two months earlier and flown to Paris, where he served one year behind bars before judges ruled he could be released, pending his trial at a yet undetermined date.
He is still facing crime-related charges in relation to his alleged role during the May 2024 riots.
UPM held its congress at the weekend and it is widely believed it will make similar announcements regarding its formal withdrawal from FLNKS.
‘I’m not interfering’
“I’m not interfering in local politics, but PALIKA has been a major player in terms of dialogue, forever . . . What matters to me is to know who my interlocutors are,” Moutchou said on PALIKA’s split from FLNKS.
She noted however that in its latest communiqué, FLNKS had still expressed the wish to pursue dialogue.
“But they are rejecting the Bougival agreement, they’re rejecting it in block. They just don’t want to talk on this basis. So the door should stay open.”
During talks with the French minister last week, most of the topics revolved around the so-called Bougival political compromise that resulted in the signing, on July 12 of a document, initially by all political parties, under the auspices of former French Overseas Minister Manuel Valls.
The Bougival text envisages the creation of a “State of New Caledonia”, its collateral “New Caledonian Nationality” and the transfer of a number of French key powers (such as foreign affairs) to the Pacific territory.
But FLNKS, on August 9, formally rejected the text, saying their negotiators’ signatures were now null and void because the text was regarded as a “lure of independence” and that it did not satisfy the party’s demands in terms of short-term full sovereignty.
Since then, as part of a new cabinet let by French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, Manuel Valls was replaced in October by Naïma Moutchou.
FLNKS urged to rejoin negotiation
In this capacity, she travelled to New Caledonia for the first time, saying she did not want to “do without FLNKS”, provided FLNKS did not want to “do without the other (parties)”.
Parties supporting the Bougival document have also urged FLNKS to re-join the negotiating process, even if this means the original July 2025 document has to be modified according to their demands.
During her stay last week, separate meetings (locally described as “bilateral”) were held with every political force in New Caledonia, including FLNKS, and other pro-independence movements (such as the PALIKA and the UPM, regarded as “moderates”), but also the pro-France parties (such as Les Loyalistes, Rassemblement-LR, Calédonie Ensemble and Wallisian-based Eveil Océanien).
The FLNKS declined to join a final roundtable with other political stakeholders on Thursday and Friday last week, saying it was not mandated to negotiate.
True to her approach of “listening first and replying after”, Moutchou refrained from making any comment or announcement during the first three days of her mission.
De facto referendum now comes first But as she prepared to leave on Friday, she spoke to announce that the project of a “citizen’s consultation” (a de facto referendum) would take place sometime in February 2026 to ask the local population whether they supported the Bougival document’s implementation.
The consultation was already in the pipeline as part of the Bougival document, but it was originally planned to happen after a Constitutional review purposed to incorporate the text, ideally before the end of 2025.
But the Constitutional process, which would require the approval of votes from both the French Senate (Upper House) and National Assembly (Lower House), was delayed by instability in the French politic, including the demise of former Prime Minister François Bayrou and the subsequent advent of his successor Sébastien Lecornu.
On Friday, Moutchou also issued a brief communiqué saying that “pro-Bougival” parties had agreed to confirm their support in the implementation of the text and to “hold an anticipated citizens’ consultation”.
“We’re going to ask New Caledonians for their opinion first. This will give more power to what is being discussed”, she told public broadcaster NC la 1ère last Friday.
She said this was to “give back New Caledonians their voice in a moment of tension, because we indeed are in a moment of tension, when political choices are not always understood”.
In a media statement released the same day, the FLNKS reiterates its stance, saying “the so-called Bougival project cannot constitute a working base because it goes against (New Caledonia’s) decolonisation process”.
‘Written in black and white’
“It’s written in black and white in the Bougival agreement project: the decolonisation process goes on”, Moutchou told local media.
The party also warns against “any attempt of forceful passage (passage en force) risks bringing the country to a situation of durable instability”.
In terms of security, Moutchou said “to be very clear, it will be zero tolerance”.
“Security forces will stay as long as needed. We currently have 20 gendarmerie squadrons (more than 2500 personnel). This is 20 out of the 120 squads available for the whole of France”, she told NC la 1ère.
“I’m very attached to the authority of the State. There are rules and they must be respected. You can demonstrate, you can say you don’t agree. But you don’t cross the red line,” she told Radio Rythme Bleu on Friday.
The FLNKS said during the minister’s visit, they had handed over a project for a “framework agreement” that would serve as a basis for “future discussions”.
Favourable reaction
On the pro-France side, several leaders have reacted favourably to Moutchou’s parting release.
“The minister’s visit concludes on a positive note”, Rassemblement-LR leader Virginie Ruffenach wrote on social networks, saying this citizen consultation project will “turn New Caledonians into judges of peace”.
“At this stage, FLNKS does not seem to want to find an agreement with the (French) State and New Caledonia’s political forces. The other forces have therefore made the choice to submit the Bougival agreement to New Caledonians before the (French) Parliament approves a Constitutional Bill”, wrote Les Loyalistes leader Sonia Backès.
However, it remains unclear on what basis this de facto local referendum will be held in terms of electoral role and who will be qualified to vote.
No new economic pledge In the brief communiqué on Friday last week, a “plan to re-launch New Caledonia’s economy” to “address the challenges” is also mentioned as one of the agreed goals.
But there was no announcement regarding further financial assistance from France to salvage New Caledonia’s economy, still bearing the consequences of the May 2024 insurrectional riots and that has caused material losses of over 2 billion euros (about NZ$4 billion), an estimated drop of 13.5 percent of its GDP and thousands of unemployed.
There are also increasingly strident calls to convert the 1 billion euro French loan (bringing New Caledonia to an estimated 360 percent indebtedness rate regarded as “unbearable”) into a grant.
Moutchou said this was currently “not on the agenda”.
The crucial mining industry, which was already suffering industrial issues even before the May 2024 riots, compounded with emerging regional competition, needed to be re-structured in order to overhaul its business model and production costs, she said.
‘We don’t have the financial means to build the new prison’ A 500 million euro project to build a new prison, initially announced in early 2024 for scheduled completion in 2032, will no longer take place, despite numerous condemnations due to the appalling living conditions for prisoners in the current Camp Est prison complex in Nouméa.
The Camp Est suffers an overpopulation ratio of 140 percent.
“I’m not going to tell you stories, in the current (French) budgetary conditions, we don’t have the financial means to build the new prison”, she told NC la 1ère.
Instead, it was now envisaged to set a semi-freedom centre for host inmates serving moderate jail sentences, thus relieving the overcrowded Camp Est premises of an estimated one hundred people.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
As you know, there’s a tiny group of Dame Jacinda Ardern haters in New Zealand who are easily triggered by facts and the ongoing success of the former prime minister on the world stage.
The tiny eeny weeny group is made to look bigger online by an automated army of fake profile bots who all say the same five or six things and all leave a space before a comma.
This automation is imported into New Zealand so many of the profiles are in other countries and simply are not real humans.
Naturally this illusion of “flooding the zone” programmatically on social media causes the non-critical minded to assume they are a majority when they have no such real evidence to support that delusion.
Yet here’s some context and food for thought.
None of the haters have run a public hospital, been a director-general of health during a pandemic, been an epidemiologist or even a GP and many struggle to spell their own name properly let alone read anything accurately.
None of them have read all the Health Advice offered to the government during the covid-19 pandemic. They don’t know it at all.
Know a lot more
Yet they typically feel they do know a lot more than any of those people when it comes to a global pandemic unfolding in real time.
None of the haters can recite all 39 recommendations from the first Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19, less than three of them have read the entire first report, none have any memory of National voting for the wage subsidy and business support payments when they accuse the Labour government of destroying the economy.
Most cannot off the top of their heads tell us how the Reserve Bank is independent of government when it raises the OCR and many think Jacinda did this but look you may be challenged to a boxing match if you try to learn them.
The exact macro economic state of our economy in terms of GDP growth, the size of the economy, unemployment and declining inflation forecasts escape their memory when Jacinda resigned, not that they care when they say she destroyed the economy.
They make these claims without facts and figures and they pass on the opinions of others that they listened to and swallowed.
It’s only a tiny group, the rest are bots.
The bots think making horse jokes about Jacinda is amusing, creative and unique and it’s their only joke now for three years — every single day they marvel at their own humour. In ten years they will still be repeating that one insult they call their own.
Bots on Nuremberg
The bots have also been programmed to say things about Nuremberg, being put into jail, bullets, and other violent suggestions which speaks to a kind of mental illness.
The sources of these sorts of sentiments were imported and fanned by groups set up to whip up resentment and few realise how they have been manipulated and captured by this programme.
The pillars of truth to the haters rest on being ignorant about how a democracy necessarily temporarily looks like a dictatorship in a public health emergency in order to save lives.
We agreed these matters as a democracy, it was not Jacinda taking over. We agreed to special adaptations of democracy and freedom to save lives temporarily.
The population of the earth has not all died from covid vaccines yet.
There is always some harm with vaccines, but it is overstated by Jacinda haters and misunderstood by those ranting about Medsafe, that is simply not the actual number of vaccine deaths and harm that has been verified — rather it is what was reported somewhat subject to conjecture.
The tinfoil hats and company threatened Jacinda’s life on the lawn outside Parliament and burnt down a playground and trees and then stamp their feet that she did not face a lynch mob.
No doors kicked in
Nobody’s door was kicked in by police during covid 19.
Nobody was forced to take a jab. No they chose to leave their jobs because they had a choice provided to them. The science was what the Government acted upon, not the need to control anyone.
Mandates were temporary and went on a few weeks too long.
Some people endured the hardship of not being present when their loved ones died and that was very unfortunate but again it was about medical advice.
Then Director-General of Health Sir Ashly Bloomfield said the government acted on about 90 percent of the Public Health advice it was given. Jacinda haters never mention that fact.
Jacinda haters say she ran away, but to be fair she endured 50 times more abuse than any other politician, and her daughter was threatened by randoms in a café, plus Jacinda was mentally exhausted after covid and all the other events that most prime ministers never have to endure, and she thought somebody else could give it more energy.
We were in good hands with Chris Hipkins so there was no abandoning as haters can’t make up their minds if they want her here or gone — but they do know they want to hate.
Lost a few bucks
The tiny group of haters include some people who lost a few bucks, a business, an opportunity and people who wanted to travel when there was a global pandemic happening.
Bad things happen in pandemics and every country experienced increased levels of debt, wage subsidies, job losses, tragic problems with a loss of income, school absenteeism, increased crime, and other effects like inflation and a cost of living crisis.
Haters just blame Jacinda because they don’t get that international context and the second Royal Commission of Inquiry was a political stunt, not about being more prepared for future pandemics but more about feeding the haters.
All the information it needed was provided by Jacinda, Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins but right wing media whipped up the show trial despite appearances before a demented mob of haters being thought a necessary theatre for the right wing.
A right wing who signed up to covid lockdowns and emergency laws and then later manipulated short term memories for political gain.
You will never convince a hater not to hate with facts and context and persuasion, even now they are thinking how to rebut these matters rather than being open minded.
Pandemics suck and we did pretty well in the last one but there were consequences for some — for whom I have sympathy, sorry for your loss, I also know people who died . . . I also know people who lost money, I also know people who could not be there at a funeral . . . but I am not a hater.
Valuing wanting to learn
Instead, I value how science wants to learn and know what mistakes were made and to adapt for the next pandemic. I value how we were once a team of five million acting together with great kotahitanga.
I value Jacinda saying let there be a place for kindness in the world, despite the way doing the best for the common good may seem unkind to some at times.
The effects of the pandemic in country by country reports show the same patterns everywhere — lockdowns, inflation, cost of living increases, crime increase, education impacts, groceries cost more, petrol prices are too high, supply chains disrupted.
When a hater simplistically blames Jacinda for “destroying the economy and running away” it is literally an admission of their ignorance.
It’s like putting your hand up and screaming, ‘look at me, I am dumb’.
The vast majority get it and want Jacinda back if she wants to come back and live in peace — but if not . . . that is fine too.
Sad, ignorant minority
A small sad and ignorant minority will never let it go and every day they hate and hate and hate because they are full of hate and that is who they really are, unable to move on and process matters, blamers, simple, under informed and grossly self pitying.
I get the fact your body is your temple and you want medical sovereignty, I also get medical science and immunity.
It’s been nearly three years now, is it time to be a little less hysterical and to actually put away the violent abuse and lame blaming? Will you carry on sulking like a child for another three years?
It’s okay to disagree with me, but before you do, and I know you will, without taking onboard anything I write, just remember what Jacinda said.
In a global pandemic with people’s lives at stake, she would rather be accused of doing too much than doing too little.
Gerard Otto is a digital creator, satirist and independent commentator on politics and the media through his G News column and video reports. This article is republished with permission.
Israel and the US are now dictating their terms over Palestine, and Hamas and various Arab partners are at the receiving end of this diktat, says Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara.
The UN Security Council gained 13-0 votes, opening the way for the crucial next steps for the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
However, both China and Russia were highly critical and abstained, citing the vague details of the resolution.
Russia had also circulated a rival resolution stressing that the occupied West Bank and Gaza must be joined as a contiguous state under the Palestinian Authority and underlining the importance of a Security Council role to provide security in Gaza and for implementing the ceasefire.
Bishara said that the stabilisation force would be from countries friendly to Israel and the US.
‘Complicated job’
“And that means their job is not just going to be to keep the peace on the borders but to also find a way to disarm Hamas,” he said.
“I think that’s going to be a complicated job because that also involves Israel acting on its own commitments, which means withdrawing to a narrow corridor on the eastern part of Gaza and so on.
“All of this will be very difficult to implement.”
Bishara said the US would be involved but only from the outside.
“The US doesn’t want to get involved in terms of troops or money. But those countries who are going to contribute soldiers and money, they are going to need guarantees – in terms of a safe passage forward in relation to Hamas.
“This is really important.”
The breakdown of the UN Security Council vote on the US-sponsored Gaza resolution. Image: UN
Bishara said no Arab or Muslim-majority country wanted to be put in a position — even under pressure — of doing Israel’s bidding in Gaza or “doing Israel’s dirty work because Israel failed”.
“After two years of genocide, of killing tens of thousands of people, it failed to disarm Hamas directly on the battlefield.”
‘Important step’
A spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the Gaza resolution as “an important step in the consolidation of the ceasefire” and called for the diplomatic momentum to be translated into “concrete and urgently needed steps on the ground”.
Stephane Dujarric said the UN was committed to its role in implementing the US resolution, including “scaling up humanitarian assistance” in Gaza and “supporting all efforts to move the parties toward the next phase of the ceasefire”.
He also said Guterres “commends the continued diplomatic efforts of Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, the United States and regional states”.
The secretary-general also “underlines the importance of moving to the next phase of the US plan, leading to a political process for the achievement of the two-state solution in line with previous United Nations resolutions,” he added.
However, the Russian ambassador said this was no day of celebration for the Security Council, and he added thatthe integrity of the council was now in question.
The Chinese ambassador said the resolution that was adopted was vague and unclear.
‘Day of shame for UN’
Craig Mokhiber, a former senior UN human rights official, described the vote as a “day of shame for the United Nations”.
“Not a single member of the Council had the courage, principle, or respect for international law to vote against this US-Israel colonial outrage,” Mokhiber said in a post on X.
“This proposal has been rejected by Palestinian civil society and factions, and defenders of human rights and international law everywhere,” he said, adding that the “struggle for Palestinian freedom will continue”.
Mokhiber was the former director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and left his post in 2023 in protest over the UN’s failure to prevent Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The UN Security Council has just adopted the horrific US resolution with 13 yes votes and 2 abstentions. Not a single member of the Council had the courage, principle, or respect for international law to vote against this US-Israel colonial outrage. This proposal has been…
The Algerian ambassador, who voted for the resolution, warned that it was explicit against Israeli annexation, and forced displacement.
Ambassador Amar Bendjama said his country was particularly grateful to Trump “whose personal engagement has been instrumental in establishing and maintaining the ceasefire in Gaza”, which ended almost two years of “unbearable suffering” for the Palestinians.
“But we underline that genuine peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without justice, justice for the Palestinians who have waited for decades for the establishment of their independent state,” he said.
Bendjama also said the resolution needed to be read in its entirety.
“It clearly affirms no annexation, no occupation, no forced displacement,” he said.
He went on to say that humanitarian aid must be distributed in Gaza “without interference” from Israel.
Israel and the US are now dictating their terms over Palestine, and Hamas and various Arab partners are at the receiving end of this diktat, says Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst Marwan Bishara.
The UN Security Council gained 13-0 votes, opening the way for the crucial next steps for the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
However, both China and Russia were highly critical and abstained, citing the vague details of the resolution.
Russia had also circulated a rival resolution stressing that the occupied West Bank and Gaza must be joined as a contiguous state under the Palestinian Authority and underlining the importance of a Security Council role to provide security in Gaza and for implementing the ceasefire.
Bishara said that the stabilisation force would be from countries friendly to Israel and the US.
‘Complicated job’
“And that means their job is not just going to be to keep the peace on the borders but to also find a way to disarm Hamas,” he said.
“I think that’s going to be a complicated job because that also involves Israel acting on its own commitments, which means withdrawing to a narrow corridor on the eastern part of Gaza and so on.
“All of this will be very difficult to implement.”
Bishara said the US would be involved but only from the outside.
“The US doesn’t want to get involved in terms of troops or money. But those countries who are going to contribute soldiers and money, they are going to need guarantees – in terms of a safe passage forward in relation to Hamas.
“This is really important.”
The breakdown of the UN Security Council vote on the US-sponsored Gaza resolution. Image: UN
Bishara said no Arab or Muslim-majority country wanted to be put in a position — even under pressure — of doing Israel’s bidding in Gaza or “doing Israel’s dirty work because Israel failed”.
“After two years of genocide, of killing tens of thousands of people, it failed to disarm Hamas directly on the battlefield.”
‘Important step’
A spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the Gaza resolution as “an important step in the consolidation of the ceasefire” and called for the diplomatic momentum to be translated into “concrete and urgently needed steps on the ground”.
Stephane Dujarric said the UN was committed to its role in implementing the US resolution, including “scaling up humanitarian assistance” in Gaza and “supporting all efforts to move the parties toward the next phase of the ceasefire”.
He also said Guterres “commends the continued diplomatic efforts of Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye, the United States and regional states”.
The secretary-general also “underlines the importance of moving to the next phase of the US plan, leading to a political process for the achievement of the two-state solution in line with previous United Nations resolutions,” he added.
However, the Russian ambassador said this was no day of celebration for the Security Council, and he added thatthe integrity of the council was now in question.
The Chinese ambassador said the resolution that was adopted was vague and unclear.
‘Day of shame for UN’
Craig Mokhiber, a former senior UN human rights official, described the vote as a “day of shame for the United Nations”.
“Not a single member of the Council had the courage, principle, or respect for international law to vote against this US-Israel colonial outrage,” Mokhiber said in a post on X.
“This proposal has been rejected by Palestinian civil society and factions, and defenders of human rights and international law everywhere,” he said, adding that the “struggle for Palestinian freedom will continue”.
Mokhiber was the former director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and left his post in 2023 in protest over the UN’s failure to prevent Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The UN Security Council has just adopted the horrific US resolution with 13 yes votes and 2 abstentions. Not a single member of the Council had the courage, principle, or respect for international law to vote against this US-Israel colonial outrage. This proposal has been…
The Algerian ambassador, who voted for the resolution, warned that it was explicit against Israeli annexation, and forced displacement.
Ambassador Amar Bendjama said his country was particularly grateful to Trump “whose personal engagement has been instrumental in establishing and maintaining the ceasefire in Gaza”, which ended almost two years of “unbearable suffering” for the Palestinians.
“But we underline that genuine peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without justice, justice for the Palestinians who have waited for decades for the establishment of their independent state,” he said.
Bendjama also said the resolution needed to be read in its entirety.
“It clearly affirms no annexation, no occupation, no forced displacement,” he said.
He went on to say that humanitarian aid must be distributed in Gaza “without interference” from Israel.
The results of the popular consultation and referendum in Ecuador, held this Sunday, gave a clear advantage to the “No” option on the four key questions promoted by the government of US backed President Daniel Noboa, in a day characterized by high citizen participation. The initiatives promoted by President Noboa, supposedly focused on “protecting national sovereignty”.
According to data from the National Electoral Council (CNE), with more than 90% of the votes counted, the “No” vote exceeds 52% of the votes. This rejection is concentrated on the proposals to allow the installation of foreign military bases, eliminate state funding for political parties, reduce the number of assembly members, and convene a Constituent Assembly.
For six years, Alternative Jewish Voices has spoken in an aspirational voice. This is intentional. Research shows, the voice that mobilises new political engagement is a voice of moral clarity which invites others to join the work of making a better world.
We ground our voice in facts, and today’s facts are shattering. We share the outrage that we hear. However, outrage alone does not make change. It has to be channeled forward into principled action.
Hope is resistance. AJV met last week to ask where we find that hope now, while grief and anger feel overwhelming.
With unprecedented Western permission and complicity, Israel’s genocide is ongoing. The IDF has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians and decimated the built environment of Gaza.
Bombed half a dozen countries
Along the way, Israel has bombed half a dozen countries which are not at war with it.
The silence of governments like ours imagines this dystopia as a new baseline. They will settle for negotiating the speed of Israel’s new crimes against the survivors of Palestine.
We utterly reject their selective amnesia — but each time we call out our complicit government, we need to call them forward and judge them against something better.
We do that by placing the value of human life at the centre of our understanding. People have laboured for a century and a half to embed a rights-based vision of human dignity and equality.
Rights are not an opinion; rights are the basis of international law and institutions. That today’s governments spit on Palestinians’ rights does not invalidate Palestinians’ rights. It raises the stakes.
Now we must fight for the vision even as we wield it.
Our baseline is a world in which people flourish with their basic needs and dignity ensured. We protest the deficits from that standard. We judge Israel and its powerful accomplices against the standard of an accountable, just peace for all who live between the river and the sea.
Daily erosion of our democracy
Even as our allies have taken the step of recognising Palestine, Luxon, Seymour and Peters cosy up to Donald Trump. We are reeling from their daily erosion of our democracy.
Our government’s position on Palestine and the value it places on our own lives follow from a single agenda. This government is harming far more people than it is benefiting. We find hope in the work that brings together a majority for change.
While Palestine has become the cement of a broad global movement, Zionism is shifting. Israel used its years of Zionist-Jewish permission to consolidate new sources of support. It is no longer dependent upon Jewish social licence.
Christian Zionism, long the majority of Zionism, is now an insider shaping American policy. Israel dedicates new budgets to influencing American Christians.
In Aotearoa, Israel’s deputy foreign minister has met with Christian nationalist Brian Tamaki and Alfred Ngaio. There are five rabbis in this country, while 130 Christian Zionist clergy wrote together of their representatives’ time with Winston Peters before Peters declined to recognise Palestine.
In order to lend effective support to the liberation of Palestine, our protest needs to target the evolving structures and financial flows of Aotearoa’s Zionism.
This does not relieve the Zionist-Jewish community of responsibility. Globally, Zionist-Jewish institutions have eagerly wrapped Israel’s violence in the guise of Jewish identity, in order to place Israel’s genocidal actions beyond challenge.
Peace of the graveyard
Aotearoa’s Zionist-Jewish spokespeople still imagine only the peace of the graveyard, after which there might be a nicer Zionism.
A significant segment of Liberal-Zionist Jews seems to have turned against the war — although not against Zionism. That speaks to some capacity for change despite the institutions.
We welcome every effort to end this genocide. However, as principled anti-Zionists our goal is greater than the cessation of firing. In our own community and in Palestine, we must change the conditions that give rise to genocide. We need to decolonise the Jewishness that taught us to stake our future on the oppression and slaughter of others. There is no nicer Zionism.
To realise a liberatory Jewishness, we need new institutions with genuinely new communal leadership. We work for a future without Jewish supremacy or exceptionalism. Two-thirds of Jewish New Yorkers aged 18-44 just voted for Mayor Mamdani in one such act of qualitative, visionary change.
We will not displace this toxic new Right power by emulating their perpetual outrage. That would only turn us into the thing we oppose.
Outrage alone leaves one numb with grief and alienation. It stokes the identity politics which deny that we can live together. It leads to the despair which hardens the status quo.
We will only displace this power with an aspirational, broadly based vision of something better. We learn from the long, great works of our time: the works of peace, Indigenous rights, the common cause of dignified life in the hardest places.
Tangled roots of colonisation
That quality of holistic movement has coalesced around Palestine. We have never heard so many people acknowledge that the change must reach to the tangled roots of colonisation, racism, capitalism and fascism.
AJV brings to this our Jewish inheritance which recognises that social, ecological and material justice are inextricable. Together we will place life and justice at the centre of the work that needs doing, here and there.
In this dark time, hope is resistance and these are our ways forward.
In outrage and in aroha, we are Alternative Jewish Voices of Aotearoa.
Marilyn Garson writes about Palestinian and Jewish dissent. This article was first published by Sh’ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices and is republished with permission. The original article can be read here.
They say the march toward authoritarian rule begins with one simple act: taking control of the narrative and silencing the independent press. Yesterday, Samoa witnessed a step in that direction.
Prime Minister Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt, elected by the people to serve them, has already moved to weaken one of democracy’s most essential pillars.
With barely seven full days in office, he directed his power at the Samoa Observer, the very institution tasked with holding leaders like him to account.
The Prime Minister accused this newspaper of misleading and inaccurate reporting, of disrespect and of having “no boundaries.” He went further by invoking the name of Sano Malifa, founder and owner of the Samoa Observer, suggesting that the paper had strayed from its mission, a statement he’s made countless times.
So let us clear the air.
Does the Prime Minister remember Sano Malifa’s reporting when, as Deputy Speaker, he gave a second hand car from his dealership to then Speaker of the House, Tolofuaivalelei Falemoe Leiʻataua, without cabinet approval?
It was Sano Malifa who wrote extensively about the matter and helped ensure the vehicle was returned when questions were raised about improper dealings.
Does he remember the concrete wall fence he attempted to build stretching toward Parliament, a plan never sanctioned by cabinet?
Does he remember calling the Samoa Observer before the 2021 general elections seeking permission to erect FAST party tents outside its offices and being refused, because this newspaper does not trade favours for political convenience?
Does he forget that Sano Malifa stood alone to question the one party rule of the HRPP, a party he joined and one his father served in, while most of the country remained silent because they felt they could not speak?
Does he forget that the Sano Malifa he now quotes would never permit any leader to run the country unchecked?
Let this be understood. Sano Malifa’s vision remains fully intact. It demands scrutiny of whoever occupies the Prime Minister’s chair, even if that chair is fake. It demands accountability, regardless of who holds power.
It is intact in the way this newspaper was the only media organisation to question the Prime Minister’s meetings with foreign leaders while he sat on his famous chair, despite the warnings of his own advisers.
It is intact in ensuring the public knew their new leader had been quietly flown out on a private plane for medical treatment, while sick patients in an overcrowded and underfunded hospital struggled without food because of unpaid wages for kitchen staff, even as its minister announced plans for a new hospital.
It is intact in the story of a father whose pleas for justice went unanswered after his son was badly beaten and fell into a coma, until the Samoa Observer published his account and police were finally forced to act.
It is intact in the simple reporting of rubbish piling up near homes, which was cleared by the government the very next morning.
It is intact even when Sano Malifa’s own village and family appeared on the front page during a dispute, because he believed in accountability for all, including himself.
So why would the Prime Minister believe he is entitled to special treatment?
As the elected Prime Minister, whose salary, car and expenses are paid for by the public through their hard earned taxes, he should know that the media’s fundamental role is to keep him honest.
If the Prime Minister is truly concerned about the vision of journalists, he need only look at those closest to him. A JAWS executive, Angie Kronfield, publicly declared she wished the Observer editor’s face had been disfigured during the assault carried out by the Prime Minister’s own security guards.
Better still, her husband, Apulu Lance Pulu, a long-time journalist and owner of Talamua Media, was charged alongside the Prime Minister and later convicted of fraud in a 2020 court case. Yet he now seems to enjoy the Prime Minister’s favour as a preferred media voice. Let that sink in.
So if the Prime Minister wants proof of a failed vision, he need not search far.
Lastly, the Prime Minister’s other claim that an outsider writes for this newspaper is a fiction of his own making.
The Samoa Observer remains under the same ownership, grounded in nearly 50 years of service to the public. And since he has made his wish clear that this newspaper is no longer welcome at his press conferences or those of his ministers, let us state this without hesitation. The same people stand behind this newspaper, and our promise to our readers has never wavered.
The Samoa Observer editorial published on 18 November 2025.
Samoa’s Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt has banned the country’s only daily newspaper, the Samoa Observer, from all ministerial press conferences.
The move has raised serious concerns among industry stakeholders about media freedom as he faces growing political and legal pressure.
La’aulialemalietoa announced the ban on Monday at his first press conference in two months, held just days after returning from medical treatment in New Zealand.
He told journalists that the ban also applies to his cabinet ministers. The decision follows a tense confrontation on Saturday, when journalists from the Samoa Observer and the BBC went to the Prime Minister’s home to confirm his return.
The journalists said they remained on the public roadside but were approached by men from the PM’s property, who accused them of trespassing and of behaving disrespectfully.
“They don’t respect me as the Prime Minister. In my time in New Zealand, I never saw any reporters writing so disrespectfully about leaders,” La’aulialemalietoa told reporters in his office on Monday.
“I was in my home for 10 minutes when they arrived. They argued with the police. They were told to leave as I was only just reuniting with my family and trying to say a prayer. My home is a private home, not a public place.”
He said when he asked police for help, he was told to lodge a complaint at the station. He has since filed a formal report.
BBC journalist Dr Mandeep Rai, who witnessed the incident, said the Samoa Observer team acted “carefully and respectfully”, and that the hostile response was surprising. She said the difficulty in simply confirming a national leader’s safe arrival raised questions about transparency and access.
The Prime Minister linked the ban to what he described as “wrong” and “disrespectful” reporting, including stories published during his medical leave.
“When I was away, I saw numerous reports that were wrong . . . especially the story about a meeting between the Deputy PM and my CEOs. A meeting that never happened.”
La’aulialemalietoa said that as Faatuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) chairperson, he had previously banned the Observer from party events, but lifted that ban when he became Prime Minister at the request of senior government officials.
The ban intensifies an already tense political climate in Samoa.
In October, former Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa filed a ST$1.1 million ($NZ698,000) defamation case against him, alleging he falsely linked her to interference in the murder investigation of American Samoan academic Dr Caroline Sinavaiana-Gabbard. The case is now before the Supreme Court.
Regional pressure also rising
There are also ongoing election-related disputes, public service tensions, and growing scrutiny about the government’s commitment to transparency.
La’aulialemalietoa’s return to Samoa follows an unofficial meeting with New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in Auckland earlier this month, his first public political engagement in weeks.
The two leaders discussed major issues, including health infrastructure, drug-trafficking in the Pacific, and labour mobility.
La’aulialemalietoa confirmed plans for new hospitals in Tuanaimato and Savai’i and reiterated his support for the Pacific Justice campaign, which seeks visa-on-arrival access to New Zealand for Pacific citizens.
At the start of Monday’s press conference, La’aulialemalietoa asked the Samoa Observer’s reporter to leave his office. The exchange happened in front of the president of the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS) and other senior media members.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZand with PMN News permission.
Housing secretary Steve Reed is expected to announce that local councils will lose their power to prevent large-scale housing developments. The move is part of Labour’s plan to build 1.5 million new homes before the next general election. However, the proposed changes have already come under fire for their perceived erosion of local democracy.
The changes we are making today will strengthen the seismic shift already under way through our landmark Bill.
We will ‘build, baby, build’ with 1.5 million new homes and communities that working people desperately want and need.
Labour ‘back in the driving seat’, apparently…
The Labour government is clearly rattled. To meet their target, they’ll need to build around 300,000 houses a year over their 5-year term. However, construction was completed on fewer than 197,000 houses in 2024. That’s actually down 24,500 for the 221,000 completed in 2023.
We know the powers at our disposal have their limits so it’s only right that we look again and put ministers back in the driving seat if councils are standing in the way of good developments. This has always been about how, not if, new homes are built, and the housing secretary is clear we are leaving no stone unturned to build 1.5 million homes. The message is clear: go big, go bold, go build.
The housing secretary will issue a legally binding instruction to local councils: they must inform his office if they intend to block any new development of 150 houses or more. Then, Reed will send in an unelected planning inspector to determine whether the project should continue. The housing secretary will then have the power to make the final decision, completely overriding any local opposition.
Local government criticism
Inevitably, Labour’s plans have drawn criticism from councillors and local-government representatives. The national representative body for local authorities, the Local Government Association, stated that:
Councils are central to addressing the housebuilding crisis across the country and are ready to play their part, already approving nine out of ten planning applications which come before them.
Councils know their communities best and should remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.
Conversely, the Home Builders Federation (HBF) – the trade association for domestic builders in England and Wales – hailed the decision. It stated that the change will:
help ensure more larger sites come forward and prevent unnecessary delays to sites appropriate for development. If the government can [also] reduce taxes on housebuilding and regulatory costs so more sites are viable, and ensure more people are able to buy, the move could help drive housing supply.
Help to Buy is desperately needed
The HBF last month warned the government that it was being overly optimistic in its forecasts of economic growth from housebuilding. It also called on finance minister Rachel Reeves to use this week’s upcoming Autumn Budget to help first-time buyers by reintroducing a variation on ‘Help to Buy’:
We are calling on Government to introduce a new homeownership scheme, part-funded by developers – Freedom to Buy.
The end of Help to Buy left the market without meaningful government support for home ownership for the first time in decades.
Combined with high interest rates, stretched affordability, and limited access to high loan-to-value mortgages for new builds, the sales environment has become increasingly fragile, particularly in London and other high-cost regions.
The HBF’s urging here is a useful reminder for the Labour government. Without an actual plan to help first-time buyers, building all the houses in the world will do nothing to help the UK’s housing crisis. It will, however, provide plenty of second homes for people who are already on the property ladder – or lucrative investments for major firms which buy up such developments wholesale. But surely such a suggestion is far too cynical, hey?
Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) on Monday sentencedousted prime minister Sheikh Hasina and former home minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death for crimes against humanity committed during the 2024 July Uprising.
Guilty
An international crimes tribunal made up of three judges found Sheikh Hasina guilty of several crimes, including incitement, orders to kill and inaction to prevent atrocities during protests in July and August last year, which brought down her government. Clashes between protesters and security forces escalated, resulting in over 1,000 deaths and widespread injuries in the weeks leading to Hasina’s ousting.
Bangladesh created the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT-BD) under the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act of 1973. This statute provides the legal foundation for the trials, which is aligned with the nation’s international commitments under the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, it reflects the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, which empowers domestic courts to prosecute international crimes when they have the capacity and willingness to do so.
British lawyers acting on behalf of Hasina, had filed an urgent appeal with the UN last week, stating that the trial of Sheikh Hasina is “manifestly unfair.” They argued that proceeding with a death sentence after such a flawed process would amount to a “summary execution”
While the new interim leader of Bangladesh, Nobel Peace laureate Muhammad Yunus’s promised accountability, in the aftermath of Hasina’s fall, violent reprisals against her supporters have been reported.
Sheikh Hasina’s historical links to the UK
According to this paper, after India gained independence from Britain in 1947, the partition created significant political and social challenges, especially as India lay geographically between East and West Pakistan, complicating governance and logistics.
The call for independence in 1971 was led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, father of Sheikh Hasina.
Hasina has many international links. Her son, Sajeeb Wajed Joy, is a dual citizen of Bangladesh and the United States. In the United Kingdom, her niece, Tulip Siddiq, is a Labour MP in the UK. Also, her nephew, Radwan Mujib Siddiq, is married to a Finnish national,
In September, Britain’s FTreported that over $200bn was allegedly plundered from Bangladesh during Sheikh Hasina’s time as prime minister – some of which ended up in the UK.
According to the FT in the UK, Siddiq, faced scrutiny over property and family connections which led to her resignation as a City minister in January. She acquired a London flat in her early 20s from a developer linked to Hasina’s government.
Saifuzzaman Chowdhury, Land Minister during Hasina’s government was identified by the FT as the owner of a vast portfolio of over 300 UK properties.
US denies wrongdoing
According to a May 2024 report in The Diplomat, Sheikh Hasina publicly alleged that a “white man,” understood to be from the US, offered her a guaranteed re-election in exchange for allowing a foreign airbase in Bangladesh.
US has denied any wrongdoing. “We have had no involvement at all. Any reports or rumors that the United States government was involved in these events is simply false,” White House spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing when asked about reported claims of US involvement in Hasina’s August ousting. .
According to The Economist in June, the IMF and ADB have approved multi-billion dollar loans to Bangladesh recently and made some “low hanging fruit” reforms.
“Bangladesh still depends heavily on exports of textiles, has woeful infrastructure and is not creating enough jobs for its youngsters. These issues have grown urgent now that America is waging tariff wars,” according to the Economist.
It also warned that Bangladesh aligning with China could hurt relations with the US. The interim leader, Yunus, was in China in March for his first big bilateral trip, where he “signed a handful of agreements.”
The latest regional assembly in St Helens is a shining example of grassroots organisers’ perseverance and a clear lesson that needs to be heeded by Your Party.
Your Party in St Helens: a litany of issues
A team of voluntary grassroots organisers worked hard to deliver this northwest regional assembly, securing venues, facilitators and raising local awareness ahead of the event. However, this dedication was met with a very fraught final week, marked by invoice and resource delays and the team scrambling to ensure it went off without a hitch. This included attempts to personally print the thousands of documents required, only for the printer to die mid-print.
The toll this has taken cannot be understated, alongside everything individuals are juggling personally or professionally. This event must be seen as a wake-up call for the executive to better support and empower grassroots organising if they want success, rather than depending on them entirely to deliver events and drum up local support alone.
Emails weren’t even sent to members until 3 days prior to the event. Considering there were 138 in attendance, when the aim was 500, this shortfall arguably speaks to the lack of notice people were given in the region.
To make matters even more challenging, the venue was cancelled with little over 24 hours to spare until the event itself. This is despite there being full clarity as to the purpose of the booking at all times, according a member of the local organising group.
Cancelling venues
One of the organiser’s informed that the lettings agency, Progressive Lettings, confirmed the booking the afternoon prior to the event, however 20 minutes later, they rang back to inform that Hope Academy cancelled the event due to being of a ‘political nature’.
The fact that the event was always known to be of a political nature, only to be cancelled at the very last point, within 24-hours notice, could suggest local, undue pressure to thwart local organising for Your Party. It is also worth noting, the first to report that the event was cancelled entirely, categorically untrue, was a local Independent councillor for Newton Le Willows, Terry Maguire. When asked how he became aware and if there were any other reasons behind the school’s decision that he may be aware of, Maguire was quick to suggest I take that up with the school.
When Hope Academy were asked for more reasoning for their cancellation, they denied any involvement and insisted bookings and cancellations were at the discretion of the lettings agency. No response has been received after relaying the position of the lettings agency and our enquiry into any other pressures applied to the school affecting its decision.
Some concerns – but a lot of positivity
Thankfully, a venue was secured by a very committed local Your Party member and organiser, but it should not be understated that this assembly was saved by the grassroots. The grassroots are the bedrock and fuel behind this movement, and empowering them to be the strongest they can be is how Your Party will ensure its success in challenging the far-right.
It is also imperative for Your Party to appreciate those who have volunteered to help organise are risking their own reputations and the trust they hold in their communities, when they become the local ‘face’ of the movement. The anxiety and distrust that has grown over the last few weeks is having to be answered by grassroots members, who are equally none the wise, and often share the same concerns. Repairing this broken trust must be a priority for the executive Your Party team, focusing on improving transparency, humility and honesty at all levels, or it risks giving a bad name to all involved.
One of the local organisers, Anthony Lafferty, stated:
Your Party central has to make Assembly organisation and founding documents creation more transparent. Members, volunteers and local activists shouldn’t be having to answer these questions. And more importantly, be accused of not being 100% transparent within our activity. It’s very clear how people can volunteer their skills and join facilitator courses upon signing up to the party. However, some members are not feeling listened to and are deeply worried about top down politics. I was personally questioned numerous times at the assembly, as if I was one of the points of official contact within the Party.
A number of members in attendance raised concerns about how the founding documents were created in the first place, who was responsible for them, and generally, how accountable to membership the executive team will be in practice. These answers could not be answered, which inevitably leads to disappointment and disenfranchisement from the movement, seeing instead, many flock to the Green Party and the hope that they are blossoming.
Your Party can do this – but communities must be central to it
A facilitator at the assembly, Jennifer Savage, found the afternoon to be overwhelmingly positive:
Whilst acknowledging the challenges which have arisen in these early days, there was a wealth of experience available in these groups, amounting to hundreds of years of passionate and determined support for all socialist values and an excitement that these can be realised by Your Party.
Jennifer added her favourite quote of the event from a member long fighting for a socialist agenda, in response to the structure and guidance outlined in the section on how people are selected to the core team, in a very frank and quintessentially northern ‘to-the-point’ tone:
With a few changes, this is good enough for now… really we just want to know: who you are, what you stand for, and how we get rid of you if you don’t uphold the party values!
This event shows us that the backbone of this movement is the work in our communities, the activism and efforts put in at the grassroots, and this movement will be a success if we centre that progress and empowerment. People don’t need people around a table telling them what to think, they’re ready to take a seat at that table, and make sure they are heard.
Your Party must pull them up a seat at that table.
Featured image and additional images via the Canary
With negotiations in their second week here at the COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil, we get an update on the United Nations talks from Asad Rehman, chief executive of Friends of the Earth. He says COP30 is taking place against a backdrop of rising far-right authoritarianism, climate denial, and genocide in Gaza, which are all testing the “rules-based system” underpinning the U.N. climate framework. “How do you celebrate 10 years of Paris, 30 years of COP, to show that, actually, multilateralism matters and implementation matters?” says Rehman of the central challenge of the talks.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
At the 50th annual Teamsters for a Democratic Union convention, 550 Teamsters talked about building power in their workplaces, from UPS barns to school bus yards to the San Diego Zoo. They swapped tips on running for local union office and debated TDU’s strategic priorities.
A major theme at the convention, held in Chicago November 7-9, was the union’s renewed militancy. Teamsters elected Sean O’Brien in 2021 to head the 1.3-million member union; the TDU-backed O’Brien-Zuckerman Teamsters United slate ran under the slogan “new leadership and a new direction.”
