Category: Democracy

  • On Monday, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America – Peoples’ Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP) congratulated Venezuela for successfully holding regional and parliamentary elections.

    Earlier, on Sunday night, the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced that the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) had won 23 out of 24 governorships.

    The Bolivarian Revolution also secured 40 out of 50 seats in the National Assembly. Among the new legislators will be current ALBA Secretary Jorge Arreaza.

    “The ALBA member states applaud and congratulate the people and government of the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the resounding success of the legislative and regional elections held this Sunday, May 25, 2025.

    The post ALBA-TCP Congratulates Venezuela On Successful Elections appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • As-of now, 80% of the 100 U.S. Senators — that’s 80 U.S. Senators — are co-sponsors of the bill that was written by the U.S. Senate’s arch-neoconservative (i.e., pro-MIC or pro Military Industrial Complex) U.S. Senator, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), to blockade shipments of Russian oil, and to punish all nations which refuse to comply with the blockade. This bill is written as an economic, not a military, blockade; it is a sanctions bill with secondary sanctions (or “penalties”) against nations that violate the U.S. sanctions against Russia. However, the UK and EU are now contemplating military enforcement as well, so that violators of the proposed U.S. measure would be at hot war against Russia, which is warning that it will protect vessels carrying their oil on the high seas. This could be the shortest way to get to a hot war between Russia and NATO. Of course, whichever side would lose that conventional war would then face the decision of whether to escalate to the nuclear level, and this would mean a blitz nuclear attack against the decision-making central command that would then be making the determination of how to retaliate against the blitz attack. Once that central-command center would be obliterated, we would already be in WW3, which would kill an estimated half of the world’s human population within two years.

    Short of that (i.e., short of a full blockade or even merely the economic sanctions), what is now being put into place is the establishment, by “The West” (the U.S. and its colonies or ‘allies’), of a new “Iron Curtain,” but this time walling-off commerce between The East and The West. This is what the neoconservatives (such as almost all of the U.S. Senate and House) are driving us toward. For example: the proposed legislation would impose a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other products. The goal is to force countries NOT to make those purchases from Russian suppliers, or even from resellers of those Russian products. It’s a 500% tariff upon goods from any country that buys those Russian products; and, so, is extremely hostile toward any country that is NOT hostile to Russia. Similarly, U.S. President George W. Bush said to the world’s nations — and instructed America’s military that their task is to enforce — “You’re either with us or against us.” Every nation is either an ‘ally’, or an enemy. If the future now belongs to The East — basically Asia, which is the largest of all continents and by far the richest both in natural resources and in human resources, and which is led by such nations as China and Russia — then The West’s Iron Curtain will be bringing us to an impoverished West. Since capital is far easier moved (relocated) than people are, our billionaires might lose little or nothing, but everyone else (whose main property is NOT corporate stocks, bonds, etc.) will lose vastly more. Those U.S. Senators represent only their billionaires — not us. The basic myth is that they represent us. Those Senators represent their mega-donors’ corporations, NOT their voters — less still the general public. What we have is NOT democracy; it is instead an aristocracy of pure wealth. It is a system in which a person’s worth is that person’s wealth, or “net worth.” (For example, the poor are merely a burden that needs to be gotten rid of; and, in foreign affairs, the Gazans should be eliminated altogether.)

    The basic problem is that elected Governmental officials have actually been s‘elected’ by the billionaires who had funded their political careers by being the mega-donors to, and the controllers of the corporations that advertise in, the ‘news’-media so as to control what the voters will know, and thus how they will vote in those ‘democratic’ ‘elections’ (that are actually billionaires’ s‘elections’). I have further documented this problem here. At the end of that article, its last link is to my proposed solution to the problem.

    To merely continue on the path toward which we are heading is unacceptable. Although it is extremely profitable for billionaires, it is heading toward global suicide. The billionaires, left to their own devices, will not change their ways. An off-ramp from the present system must be taken now; and the only real question is: which one, and where to? Those are the two questions addressed in those two articles (each one of which contradicts the virtually universally-believed myths about what the term “democracy” fundamentally MEANS: re-DEFINING that term is crucial in order in order to get out of that rut — the rut that flows toward WW3).

    The post 80% of U.S. Senators Now Back Blockade of Russia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg3 lamar 2

    As part of our Memorial Day special, we speak with death row inmate Keith LaMar live from the Ohio State Penitentiary, after the release of The Injustice of Justice, a short film about his case that just won the grand prize for best animated short film at the Golden State Film Festival. “I had to find out the hard way that in order for my life to be mine, that I had to stand up and claim it,” says LaMar, who has always maintained his innocence. LaMar was sentenced to death for participating in the murder of five fellow prisoners during a 1993 prison uprising. His trial was held in a remote Ohio community before an all-white jury. On January 13, 2027, the state intends to execute him, after subjecting him to three decades in solitary confinement. LaMar’s lawyer, Keegan Stephan, says his legal team has “discovered a lot of new evidence supporting Keith’s innocence” that should necessitate new legal avenues for LaMar to overturn the conviction.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Ryancoogler sinners

    We begin our Memorial Day special with acclaimed director Ryan Coogler about his latest film Sinners, which is set to be one of the biggest box office hits of the year. Starring Michael B. Jordan, the genre-bending horror film is set in the Mississippi Delta during Jim Crow and is a “cinematic gumbo” of various influences and themes, Coogler tells Democracy Now!

    “I wanted to make a film that was kind of raging against the concept of genre and making the audience constantly question it, even while they were watching it,” he says. In particular, the film celebrates Delta blues, music made by Black artists “living under a back-breaking form of American apartheid,” and what Coogler describes as “our country’s most important contribution to global popular culture.”

    Coogler also discusses his family connection to Mississippi, producing the film with his wife Zinzi Coogler, his highly publicized contract with Warner Bros. and more. Coogler’s previous films include Black Panther, Creed and Fruitvale Station.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Democracy Now! Monday, May 26, 2025


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! Audio and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • By Te Aniwaniwa Paterson of Te Ao Māori News

    Eighty years after the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the Second World War, the threat of nuclear fallout remains.

    Last Monday, the UN Human Rights Council issued a formal communication to the Japanese government regarding serious concerns raised by Pacific communities about the dumping of 1.3 million metric tonnes of treated Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the ocean over 30 years.

    The council warned that the release could pose major environmental and human rights risks.

    Protest against the release of Fukushima treated radioactive water in Tokyo
    A protest against the release of Fukushima treated radioactive water in Tokyo, Japan, in mid-May 2023. Image: TAM News/Getty.

    Te Ao Māori News spoke with Mari Inoue, a NYC-based lawyer originally from Japan and co-founder of the volunteer-led group The Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World.

    Recently, at the UN, they called for global awareness, not only about atomic bomb victims but also of the Fukushima wastewater release, and nuclear energy’s links to environmental destruction and human rights abuses.

    Formed a year after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the group takes its name from the original Manhattan Project — the secret Second World War  US military programme that raced to develop the first atomic bomb before Nazi Germany.

    A pivotal moment in that project was the Trinity Test on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico — the first successful detonation of an atomic bomb. One month later, nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people.

    Seeking recognition and justice
    Although 80 years have passed, victims of these events continue to seek recognition and justice. The disarmament group hopes for stronger global unity around the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and more support for victims of nuclear exposure.

    Mari Inoue attended the UN as a representative of the Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World
    Mari Inoue attended the UN as a representative of the Manhattan Project for a Nuclear-Free World as an interpreter for an atomic bomb survivor. Image: TAM News/UN WebTV.

    The anti-nuclear activists supported the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Their advocacy took place during the third and final preparatory committee for the 2026 NPT review conference, where a consensus report with recommendations from past sessions will be presented.

    Inoue’s group called on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to declare Japan’s dumping policy unsafe, and believes Japan and its G7 and EU allies should be condemned for supporting it.

    Hanford Site is a decommissioned nuclear production complex established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project
    Hanford Site is a decommissioned nuclear production complex established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project . . . The contaminated site once belonged to several Native American tribes. Image: TAM News/Jeff T. Green/Getty

    Nuclear energy for the green transition?
    Amid calls to move away from fossil fuels, some argue that nuclear power could supply the zero-emission energy needed to combat climate change.

    Inoue rejects this, saying that despite not emitting greenhouse gases like fossil fuels, nuclear energy still harms the environment.

    She said there was environmental harm at all processes in the nuclear supply chain.

    Beginning with uranium mining, predominantly contaminating indigenous lands and water sources, with studies showing those communities face increased cancer rates, sickness, and infant mortality. And other studies have shown increased health issues for residents near nuclear reactors.

    Protests at TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power Company, on August 24, 2023
    Protests at TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power Company, in Tokyo in August 2023. Image: bDavid Mareuil/Anadolu Agency

    “Nuclear energy is not peaceful and it‘s not a solution to the climate crisis,” Inoue stressed. “Nuclear energy cannot function without exploiting peoples, their lands, and their resources.”

    She also pointed out thermal pollution, where water heated during the nuclear plant cooling process is discharged into waterways, contributing to rising ocean temperatures.

    Inoue added, “During the regular operation, [nuclear power plants] release radioactive isotopes into the environment — for example tritium.”

    She referenced nuclear expert Dr Arjun Makhijani, who has studied the dangers of tritium in how it crosses the placenta, impacting embryos and foetuses with risks of birth defects, miscarriages, and other problems.

    Increased tensions and world forum uniting global voices
    When asked about the AUKUS security pact, Inoue expressed concern that it would worsen tensions in the Pacific. She criticised the use of a loophole that allowed nuclear-powered submarines in a nuclear-weapon-free zone, even though the nuclear fuel could still be repurposed for weapons.

    In October, Inoue will co-organise the World Nuclear Victims Forum in Hiroshima, with 2024 Nobel Peace Prize winner Nihon Hidankyo as one of the promoting organisations.

    The forum will feature people from Indigenous communities impacted by nuclear testing in the US and the Marshall Islands, uranium mining in Africa, and fisheries affected by nuclear pollution.

    Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Asia Pacific Report editor David Robie was honoured with Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit (MNZM) at the weekend by the Governor-General, Dame Cindy Kiro, in an investiture ceremony at Government House Tāmaki Makaurau.

    He was one of eight recipients for various honours, which included Joycelyn Armstrong, who was presented with Companion of the King’s Service Order (KSO) for services to interfaith communities.

    Dr Robie’s award, which came in the King’s Birthday Honours in 2024 but was presented on Saturday, was for “services to journalism and Asia-Pacific media education”.

    His citation reads:

    Dr David Robie has contributed to journalism in New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific region for more than 50 years.

    Dr Robie began his career with The Dominion in 1965 and worked as an international journalist and correspondent for agencies from Johannesburg to Paris. He has won several journalism awards, including the 1985 Media Peace Prize for his coverage of the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

    He was Head of Journalism at the University of Papua New Guinea from 1993 to 1997 and the University of the South Pacific in Suva from 1998 to 2002. He founded the Pacific Media Centre in 2007 while professor of journalism and communications at Auckland University of Technology.

    He developed four award-winning community publications as student training outlets. He pioneered special internships for Pacific students in partnership with media and the University of the South Pacific. He has organised scholarships with the Asia New Zealand Foundation for student journalists to China, Indonesia and the Philippines.

    He was founding editor of Pacific Journalism Review journal in 1994 and in 1996 he established the Pacific Media Watch, working as convenor with students to campaign for media freedom in the Pacific.

    He has authored 10 books on Asia-Pacific media and politics. Dr Robie co-founded and is deputy chair of the Asia Pacific Media Network/Te Koakoa NGO.


    The investiture ceremony on 24 May 2025.      Video: Office of the Governor-General  

    In an interview with Global Voices last year, Dr Robie praised the support from colleagues and students and said:

    “There should be more international reporting about the ‘hidden stories’ of the Pacific such as the unresolved decolonisation issues — Kanaky New Caledonia, ‘French’ Polynesia (Mā’ohi Nui), both from France; and West Papua from Indonesia.

    “West Papua, in particular, is virtually ignored by Western media in spite of the ongoing serious human rights violations. This is unconscionable.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In this image from video, Bruce Springsteen performs during a Celebrating America concert on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021, part of the 59th Inauguration Day events for President Joe Biden sworn in as the 46th president of the United States. (Biden Inaugural Committee via AP)

    Donald Trump went off the rails again early in the morning of Monday, May 19, calling for a “major investigation” of Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé and other celebrities who endorsed Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, accusing them of taking illegal payments from Harris’ campaign for their endorsement.

    “Monday’s post was different in that it actually calls for retribution in the form of an investigation against Springsteen and Beyoncé, as well as Oprah Winfrey and U2 singer Bono,” the Arizona Republic’s Bill Goodykoontz reported. “I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter. Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment. In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT’S NOT LEGAL!”

    How will Attorney General Pam Bondi respond?

    It wasn’t long after Bruce Springsteen lashed out at what the singer/songwriter called the “treasonous” Trump in Manchester, England, on the first stop of his “Land of Hope and Dreams” tour, Trump responded on his social media platform, calling Springsteen “just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country“.

    Trump added: “Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock,’ and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare.’ Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

    Trump and Springsteen represent two very different faces of American culture, one forged in the boardrooms, gold-plated towers of Manhattan, and realty television, while Springsteen made his bones in dive bars of New Jersey. Trump, with his bombast and branding, rose to political power by channeling discontent, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and racism into a populist wave. With Springsteen, “The Boss,” who also spent decades giving voice to that same discontent through gritty lyrics and blue-collar anthems, there is always a sense of positivity; that America can live up to its lofty ideals.

    The contrast is more than stylistic, it’s visceral and philosophical. Trump, a wannabe emperor, has often spoken of winning, power, loyalty from his acolytes, and spectacle. Springsteen sings about struggle, working-class dignity, and the quiet resilience of ordinary people. During Trump’s presidency, Springsteen became an outspoken critic, saying the country had lost its soul. Trump, meanwhile, has dismissed artists like Springsteen as out of touch elites.

    While Trump was mainly focusing on Springsteen’s remarks, for some inexplicable reason, he renewed his attack on Taylor Swift. Minutes before his Springsteen rant, he wrote: “Has anyone noticed that, since I said ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT,’ she’s no longer ‘HOT?’” MSNBC noted that “Swift, the top-selling global artist of 2024, has stepped away from the spotlight in recent months after wrapping her record-breaking international ‘Eras Tour’ in December. Trump lashed out at her during the 2024 election cycle after she endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris.

    “The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada will not remain silent as two of our members − Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift − are singled out and personally attacked by the President of the United States,” the group said. “Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift are not just brilliant musicians, they are role models and inspirations to millions of people in the United States and across the world. … Musicians have the right to freedom of expression, and we stand in solidarity with all our members.”

    At a performance after Trump’s rant, The Boss repeated his remarks about Trump at the E Street Band’s May 17 show at the Co-op Live in Manchester, England. Springsteen also repeated his statement on free speech before “My City of Ruins”: “There’s some very weird, strange, and dangerous (expletive) going on out there right now. In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now.”

    The Arizona Republic’s Goodykoontz pointed out that “according to Verify, as long as candidates disclose payment [it is legal]. The Harris campaign paid Winfrey’s production company $1 million for helping produce a campaign rally in 2024. The Harris campaign also paid Beyoncé’s production company $165,000 after the singer appeared at a campaign event (Beyoncé didn’t perform).

    “The campaign has denied that it made personal payments to any artist or performer, with a spokesperson telling Deadline, ‘We do not pay. We have never paid any artist and performer.’ Payments to production companies and crews are routine.”

    In 2003, at a concert in London, The Dixie Chicks (now known as The Chicks) spoke out against George W. Bush and the Iraq War, triggering a backlash that had an enormous effect on the group’s career. The Dixie Chicks were at the time one of the country’s most popular acts. The statement triggered a backlash from American country listeners, and the group was blacklisted by many country radio stations, received death threats and was criticized by other country musicians.

    Was Trump threatening Springsteen by telling him that “we’ll all see how it goes for him!” when he returns to this country?

    The post Trump Calls For Investigations of Springsteen, Beyoncé, Oprah and U2’s Bono for Endorsing Harris first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Samoan-Kiwi filmmaker Tuki Laumea checks in with indigenous communities in 10 Pacific nations for a new Al Jazeera documentary series, reports RNZ Saturday Morning.

    RNZ News

    As the Pacific region becomes a battleground for global power-play, many island nations are still fighting for basic sovereignty and autonomy, says Pacific filmmaker Tuki Laumea.

    Pacific leaders are smart, well-educated and perfectly capable of making their own decisions, the Fight for the Pacific filmmaker told RNZ Saturday Morning, so they should be allowed to do that.

    “Pacific nations all want to be able to say what it is they need without other countries coming in and trying to manipulate them for their resources, their people, and their positioning.”


    Fight for the Pacific: Episode 1 – The Battlefield.       Video: Al Jazeera

    Laumea knew the Pacific was a “poor place” but filming Fight for the Pacific, he was shocked by the extreme poverty of New Caledonia’s indigenous Kanak population.

    While indigenous people generally have what they need in countries like Samoa and Tonga, it is a different story in Kanaky New Caledonia, Laumea says.

    Laumea and fellow journalist Cleo Fraser — who produced the series — discovered that the country was home to two divided worlds.

    In the prosperous French south, people sip coffee and smoke cigarettes and seem to be “basically swimming in money”.

    Pacific filmmaker Tuki Laumea
    Pacific filmmaker Tuki Laumea . . .Kanaky New Caledonia home to two divided worlds. Image: RNZ/Nine Island Media

    Living in extreme poverty
    But just over the hill to the north, the Kanak people — who are 172 years into a fight for independence from French colonisers – live in extreme poverty, he says.

    “People don’t have enough, and they don’t have access to the things that they really needed.”

    Kanak community leader Jean Baptiste
    Kanak community leader Jean Baptiste . . . how New Caledonia has been caught up in the geopolitical dynamics between the United States, China and France. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    “They’re so close to us, it’s crazy. But because they’re French, no-one really speaks English much.”

    The “biggest disconnect” he saw between life there and life in NZ was internet prices.

    “Internet was so, so expensive. We paid probably 100 euros [around NZ$190] for 8 to 10 gig of data.

    “These guys can’t afford a 50-cent baguette so we’re not going to get lots and lots of videos coming out of Kanaky New Caledonia of what their struggle looks like. We just don’t get to hear what they’ve got to say.”

    Over the years, the French government has reneged on promises made to the Kanak people, Laumea says, who just want what all of us want — “a bit of a say”.

    Struggling for decades
    “They’ve been struggling for decades for independence, for autonomy, and it’s been getting harder. I think it’s really important that we listen now.”

    With a higher rate of homelessness than any US state, the majority of dispossessed people on Hawai'i are indigenous
    With a higher rate of homelessness than any US state, the majority of dispossessed people on Hawai’i are indigenous. Image: RNZ/Nine Island Media/Grassroot Institute of Hawai’i

    With a higher rate of homelessness than any US state, the majority of dispossessed people are indigenous, he says.

    “You leave Waikiki — which probably not a lot of people do — and the beaches are just lined with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of homeless people, and they’re all sick, and they’re all not eating well.”

    Indigenous Hawai’ians never ceded national sovereignty, Laumea says. During World War II, the land was “just taken” by the American military who still reign supreme.

    “The military personnel, they all live on subsidised housing, subsidised petrol, subsidised education. All of the costs are really low for them, but that drives up the price of housing and food for everyone else.

    “It’s actually devastating, and we all need to maybe have a little look at that when we’re going to places like that and how we contribute to it.”

    Half of the Marshall Islands’ 50,000-strong population live in the capital city of Majuro
    Half of the Marshall Islands’ 50,000-strong population live in the capital city of Majuro. Image: Public domain/RNZ

    Treated poorly over nuclear tests
    Laumea and Fraser also visited the Marshall Islands for Fight for the Pacific, where they spoke to locals about the effects of nuclear testing carried out in the Micronesian nation between 1946 and 1958.

    The incredibly resilient indigenous Marshall Islanders have been treated very poorly over the years, and are suffering widespread poverty as well as intergenerational trauma and the genetic effects of radiation, Laumea says.

    “They had needles stuck in them full of radiation . . .  They were used as human guinea pigs and the US has never, ever, ever apologised.”

    Laumea and Fraser — who are also partners in life — found that getting a series made about the Pacific experience wasn’t easy because Al Jazeera’s huge international audience does not have much interest in the region, Laumea says.

    “On the global stage, we’re very much voiceless. They don’t really care about us that much. We’re not that important. Even though we know we are, the rest of the world doesn’t think that.”

    Journalist Cleo Fraser and filmmaker Tuki Laumea at work
    Journalist Cleo Fraser and filmmaker Tuki Laumea at work. Image: Matt Klitscher/Nine Island Media/RNZ

    To ensure Fight for the Pacific (a four-part series) had “story sovereignty”, Laumea ensured the only voices heard are real Pacific residents sharing their own perspectives.

    Sovereign storytellers
    “We have the skills, we’re smart enough to do it, and the only thing that people should really be acknowledging are sovereign storytellers, because they’re going to get the most authentic representation of it.”

    Being Pasifika himself, the enormous responsibility of making a documentary series that traverses the experiences of 10 individual Pacific cultures loomed large for Laumea.

    Editing hundreds of hours of footage was often very overwhelming, he says, yet the drive to honour and share the precious stories he had gathered was also his fuel.

    “That was the thing that I found the most difficult about making Fight for the Pacific but also probably the most rewarding in the end.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • On 14 June, independent socialists from across Merseyside will hold a rally in Liverpool. It will bring people together to challenge Labour. And ahead of the event, the Canary spoke to two of the people involved – councillors Alan Gibbons and Sean Halsall.

    “The Labour Party needs sinking”

    Gibbons explained that the rally will bring together independent groups from across Merseyside in a spirit of unity. And the hope is for the event to be “a stepping stone to the foundation of a new political party of the left to challenge… the ruinous hegemony of Starmer’s rightward-moving Labour Party”. There’ll be a range of speakers at the Liner hotel in central Liverpool, including Jeremy Corbyn, and “some really good musicians”. And as Halsall explained, it will be “open to anyone” because:

    Politics should be about everyone. Everyone should engage. We should give them a reason to engage.

    And in a rallying call, Halsall insisted:

    the Labour Party needs sinking. Them and the Tories should never be in charge of this country again.

    ‘Starmer’s party isn’t in charge in Merseyside anymore’

    The rally, Halsall argued, is “laying down a marker in Merseyside” that:

    in Labour’s strongest stronghold, … they’re not in charge anymore. They’ve given up the right to represent the people of this region in this county. And we’re coming for them.

    In Liverpool, Gibbons stressed, there’s:

    a sense of palpable panic amongst many Labour councillors

    Why? Because traditionally ultra-safe seats are now “marginal”. And in some places, it’s Reform UK that’s giving Labour a run for its money.

    Challenging not just Labour, but also Reform

    As Gibbons explained, part of bringing independent socialists together in the region with the 14 June event is to set the bloc up to be “a bulwark against the advance of Reform”. And he was clear that:

    to stand against them, you actually need to take them on on class grounds

    That means not just debating the issue of immigration with Reform-leaning voters, but reminding them that Reform’s leaders:

    are people born with a silver spoon up their jacksies. These leadership public-school millionaires ascribed to the Thatcherite process, owning property development companies, … and commodity brokers. And their television, GB News, is funded by a hedge-fund millionaire. These are not your friends… They want to wreck your NHS, wreck your welfare state, and oppose workers’ rights.

    You need to be in communities not just having those discussions respectfully with ordinary people, he said, but also actively and visibly participating in struggles on important local issues.

    Halsall agreed, talking about the importance of local assemblies to give people a much-needed forum to:

    talk about what matters to them, and then talk about how we’re going to fix that together through collective action

    “Using human language” and “meeting people where they are is massive”, he stressed. That’s what can end isolation and division while helping to “rebuild community”.

    “People distrust mainstream politics” but real alternatives can and do stop Reform capitalising on that

    Halsall emphasised the role the right-wing leadership of Labour has had on empowering Reform, saying:

    I don’t think we’d have Reform without Keir Starmer leading the Labour Party now.

    But if Starmer keeps disastrously pandering to Reform, he said, the situation could get even worse, with “overt fascist parties” benefiting from the normalisation of Reform’s positions, which are likely to get more and more extreme.

    In response to this situation, we need to understand how people are feeling. And Halsall asserted:

    I don’t for a moment believe that everyone who votes Reform is a racist. I think that would be absolute lunacy to believe. I think the issue we’ve found ourselves in is people distrust mainstream politics. They distrust these parachuted-in, suited and booted idiots who haven’t got a clue, have never worked, never had sort of any prominent role in their communities, just appear out of nowhere, like my current MP, Patrick Hurley.

    The hope, he stressed, lies in the fact that, “when there is… another option, people will take it”. For example:

    in Preston, in the local elections there, three anti-welfare-cuts candidates won on a pro-Palestine platform in a… county council where Reform just swept the board.

    Independent anti-establishment candidates Michael Lavalette, Yousuf Motala, and Almas Razakazi beat both Labour and Reform to become councillors in Preston. While Reform dominate the Lancashire council, independents now stand in third place. And they’ve now joined a Progressive Lancashire alliance with Green councillors to make their voices even louder.

    What’s the story with the Greens?

    Speaking about the Greens and their role in resisting the pro-war, pro-austerity establishment, Gibbons said a new party of the left would definitely need to have “discussions” and “non-aggression pacts” with the Greens. However, while the Green Party has its own internal struggle now with many seeking a broad shift to the left, the fact remains that:

    You virtually never see a Green councillor on the picket line… there’s lots of Green activists who I just couldn’t see carrying credibility in most working-class areas… [and] the natural gravitation in crisis for the Greens is still to look towards Liberals, not towards Socialists.

    Halsall agreed, saying:

    They’re also never going to form a government. Their sort of ceiling’s probably 70 seats. They’ll be kingmakers at best at some point.

    “Powering up class politics unites 99% of us” – that must be the focus

    Bringing together a broad alliance to have success nationally, Halsall stressed, requires us to “make it about class” because:

    Powering up class politics unites 99% of us in this country. Why would we want to divide ourselves?

    Gibbons added that connected issues include workers’ rights, council-house building, a Green New Deal, reducing inequalities, having a “mass trade-union-recruitment process”, and standing in solidarity with workers from other countries (whose loss in Britain “would cause a catastrophe in the care home sector”).

    As Halsall said, however, Labour is very much a part of the problem – especially as it gifts arms industry profiteers billions of pounds while taking billions away from chronically ill and disabled people:

    we’ve seen decades upon decades of people being taken for granted… I’d struggle to find more than… 10 to 15 people in that Labour group in parliament who do the right thing – and local councils even less. They are whipped beyond belief, where they will actively vote against their residents’ interests.

    Both Halsall and Gibbons refused to follow the whip under Starmer and became independent. And both have seen a positive response because they’ve stuck by their principles. Halsall stressed that:

    when you do take a principled stance, people recognise it and respect that… That says to me how little of it there is in politics now that that’s such a massive thing—that I would resign over a genocide. That tells me how far we’ve gone off the deep end.

    Community action and organisation has already begun

    Halsall predicts that, amid Labour’s NHS cuts:

    we’re going to see NHS strikes, and rightly so. I will stand with those workers until I drop over the next year or so

    And the government’s attacks on disabled people will only add to the pressure, he said:

    People are going to get sicker, not be able to keep their head above water. Nutrition is going to go down – kids driven into poverty, then given lifelong medical conditions.

    Gibbons added that “Starmer’s attack on the most vulnerable people in society” is a key issue that has come up when he’s spoken to people locally. The winter fuel payment, disability cuts, two-child benefit cap, the lack of council and social housing, and the “ticking time bomb” of the NHS. “Real working-class campaigning politics”, he insisted, means standing with working-class communities like Garston where a site originally destined for social housing was turned into a source of corporate pollution, defending the important Marie Curie hospice, and attending dozens of protests against the genocide in Gaza.

    Halsall echoed those sentiments, saying:

    Support workers at Livv Housing. Support workers in the NHS when they find themselves in struggle. Any worker on a picket line deserves your support.

    “Internationalism always”

    Regarding Starmer’s ongoing attempts to pander to the far-right diversion tactics of attacking people who’ve come to Britain from other countries, Gibbons insisted “internationalism always!” And he emphasised that:

    the asylum seekers up the road from me… I’ve got more in common with them than I have with the likes of [Nigel] Farage and Dubai Dicky Tice and all these bloody spivs that were born with millions in their pockets.

    Referring to Starmer’s embrace of Enoch Powell’s divisive “strangers’ rhetoric, meanwhile, Halsall asserted:

    my grandmother would have been one of those “strangers” who came over to work in the NHS back in the 1940s

    He added:

    I would much rather have a refugee fleeing a war zone living next to me — and probably much easier to get along with and understand and see eye-to-eye with than some guy who’s playing at being working class, banging on about his dad being a toolmaker, who’s never experienced a day of struggle in his life, who gets gifts from all over the place. Lord Alli’s never offered me £20,000 or a stay in his gaff. These people do not represent us. And we’ve got to stop letting them speak for us.

    To hear more about what’s going on in Merseyside to resist both Labour and Reform wings of establishment politics, you can register for the 14 June event at the Liner Hotel.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  •  

    Intercept: Trump Is Prosecuting a Congressional Democrat for Doing Her Job. The Media’s Response: No Big Deal.

    Natasha Lennard (Intercept (5/20/25): “News organizations should…have long ago stopped affording the Trump administration such credulous coverage.”

    A FAIR post (5/22/25) on New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger’s selective defense of press freedom (New York Times, 5/13/25) referred to him as someone who “clings to the false god of journalistic neutrality at all costs.” Natasha Lennard’s piece in the Intercept (5/20/25) on media coverage of the Trump administration’s arrest of Rep. LaMonica McIver (D–N.J.) illustrates what we mean by this.

    McIver, Lennard wrote, was charged with “assaulting” an ICE officer when she “attempted to conduct an oversight visit earlier this month at a massive, new ICE detention facility in her hometown of Newark, New Jersey.” Such oversight is part of representatives’ constitutional duty, and is specifically authorized by law in the case of ICE facilities. Lennard noted that if this had happened in a different country—one not favored by Washington—this would have been reported, accurately enough, as something like, “Regime targets opposition politician with fabricated charges for carrying out oversight.”

    But as it happened in the United States, that’s not how leading US news outlets—including the New York Times (5/19/25)—reported it. “Rep. McIver Charged With Assault Over Clash Outside Newark ICE Center” was the Times headline over an article that followed the Times‘ he said/she said stylebook. “Both sides have pointed to videos from the chaotic scuffle…to accuse each other of instigating the altercation.”

    As the Intercept‘s subhead remarked, “You’d never know reading the New York Times that charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver are nothing but an authoritarian attack.” The Times article did not provide the context that ICE has been seizing immigrants without due process and shipping them to foreign prisons in violation of court orders—background that is critical to judging whether the prosecution of a lawmaker that attempted to investigate the agency is in good faith.

    NYT: Rep. McIver Charged With Assault Over Clash Outside Newark ICE Center

    “Clash” is a useful word if you want to make an unarmed legislator sound like an evenly matched adversary for Homeland Security commandos (New York Times, 5/19/25).

    In his essay, Sulzberger warned that without press freedom, people might not know when their rights are being taken away, or democratic structures undermined:

    Without a free press, how will people know if their government is acting legally and in their interest? How will people know if their leaders are telling the truth? How will people know if their institutions are acting to the benefit of society? How will people know if their freedoms are being sustained, defended and championed—or eroded by forces that seek to replace truth and reality with propaganda and misinformation?

    But if you follow the Times‘ approach to journalism, in which you must never say that something is happening if someone in power claims it is not happening, then your audience won’t know when their government is acting illegally, or denying truth and reality. (“You can’t just say the president is lying,” Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller told a DC panel—Extra!, 1–2/05—expressing an actual rule that was enforced even on the paper’s opinion columnists.)

    Journalists inevitably, inescapably, have values, and those values necessarily affect what they communicate to their audiences. If they value democracy, then they communicate to their audience that arrests of opposition lawmakers are dangerous. If, on the other hand, they value the appearance of neutrality above all else, then the message readers will get is: Who’s to say?


    ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com or via Bluesky: @NYTimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Growing up in a conservative, deeply patriotic Thai family, Nutchanon Pairoj (Nut) dreamt of being a soldier, serving his country and his king. But when he lost his leg in a motorcycle accident at 16, his life took a drastically different path. He enrolled in Thailand’s famed Thammasat University to study political science, and quickly …

    Source

    This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.

  • In one episode of the Simpsons, Marge Simpson tells Homer that one day he’ll regret not spending time with the kids.
    “That’s a problem for Future Homer,” he dismisses. “Man, I don’t envy that guy.” Before mixing himself a vodka and mayonnaise drink.
    Behavioural economists call it “discounting the future”. Smokers choose endorphins now over the health risks later. Most of us know we should do more exercise. And I think every parent has told their kids, “do you homework now and get it out of the way.”
    It’s in our DNA to think a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Our Stone Age ancestors faced death daily. Predators, food shortages, and sepsis from wounds made living for today a sound long-term strategy. In short, we often make decisions because they feel good, rather than because we’ve checked the facts.

    Corbyn hinted at it – but is a new political party realistic?

    So when it comes to building a new political party – as Jeremy Corbyn recently mentioned – we should check we’re not just after a quick emotional fix. First, let’s have some sober thinking, and examine some of our assumptions.

    I worry for my kids. Potentially catastrophic climate breakdown. The rise of government oppression. An extreme wealth gap driving us towards fascism. We owe it to all the future Homers to get this right.

    So let’s ask ourselves some tough questions.

    Are we serious about winning state power? Is it enough that someone is speaking for the politics you believe? If so, launching a progressive party will be easy. If fact, you’re spoilt for choice. You could join Transform, the Communist Party, or any of a dozen Trotskyist parties. I know good people in all of them.

    Do you just want a party you can vote for? Workers Party GB stood 152 candidates in the 2024 general election.

    Victory or change?

    Do you want hope from some victories? In Majority, we are targeting Newcastle City Council in the 2026 all-out local elections as part of a progressive alliance. Last May, I polled 25,000 votes, to Labour’s 26,000. If we win control of a major UK city, people will start to believe in a big way. And although we’re concentrated in the North East, we have members as far as the South Coast, the Welsh Valleys, and Glasgow.

    Or do you want to actually change the world in a big way? Matthew Brown has worked wonders with the Preston Model. Joe Cullinane did something similar in North Ayreshire. Modesty aside, I achieved a lot in the North of Tyne. But you have to go back to 1945 for anything that could reasonably be called transformative.

    Wealth taxes, public ownership of utilities, ethical foreign policy, and serious climate action all require the levers in No 10. We have to walk before we can run, but we are not doing this to let off steam. A handful of MPs is not enough, nor is a few dozen. The LibDems went from 12 to 72 MPs in 2024, but are no closer to government.

    Ask yourself, are you willing to run the marathon of delayed gratification that this requires? Building an electoral project of that magnitude requires money and professionalism.

    Will a new party even work?

    In 2023, a non-election year, Labour spent £59 million. The Tories £41 million. LibDems £8 million. SNP and the Greens £4 million each. No US healthcare company is going to give us large donations. Our money will come from members. Allowing for a proportion of low income members, £5 a month needs 1.3 million members to match Labour. That’s not going to happen.

    For all the talk of 300,000 people leaving Labour after Corbyn, there’s no guarantee they’ll give money to a new project. Workers Party GB reported 7,469 members. The CPGB, 1,308. At its peak, Momentum never passed 40,000 paying members, even when belief and excitement was at its highest in 2017, and annual membership was £10.

    It took Reform years to build up to winning some councils. That’s an argument for getting on with it. It’s also an argument for sound planning. They get £millions from dodgy donors.  They have their own TV station. They have a season ticket on Question Time.

    Will we get a free run from the press? Not a chance. We are out-funded and outgunned. If we try electoralism – publishing a programme, and waiting for people to vote for us – we will lose. People don’t trust political parties. We will have to do the hard yards of community engagement, building trust and relationships.

    Like the hundreds we had in our Newcastle People’s Manifesto event. Food Poverty campaigners, public transport users, disabled rights activists. Sean Halsall in Southport also makes the case for listening to people. Faiza Shaheen builds community power in her constituency.

    Optics, politics, and ideology

    So that’s another decision we have to make. Will we go out and tell people we have the answers to their problems if only they will vote for us? Or will we listen to them and ask what they want? I’m in touch with independent socialist councillors up and down the country, and I’ve heard both sides.

    “If we have a bold socialist programme, people will flock to us.”

    I wish it were that easy.

    The evidence suggests otherwise. The 2015 Green Party manifesto called for a Wealth Tax and more radical investment than Corbyn’s Labour 2017 manifesto. They still only returned one MP. TUSC had the definition of a bold socialist programme. They averaged 285 votes per candidate, losing their deposits.

    Liking your programme is not enough. Remember the Funny Tinge Party? They called themselves Change UK. Launched in February 2019. In theory, they had a large voter coalition.  Moderate Labour, moderate Tory, Lib Dems. All the People’s vote/second referendum supporters. They said “politics is broken” and that parties should work together.  73% of people agreed with them. They started with 11 MPs. Their press launch was a car crash. They were dissolved after 10 months.

    You get one chance to make a first impression. We have to decide, is this party of the left, for the left? Or is it a party with left policies that intends to win support across the board?  Including the five million self-employed and small business owners.

    Corbyn may have hinted – but the wheels may well be in motion

    Boil it down, and voters want two things. Almost no one reads manifestos. They will look instead at political leaders and ask two questions. One, can these people run the country? And two, do these people have my back?

    At the moment, millions think no one can run the country. So they vote for those shouting the loudest, or no one at all. To win with a socialist programme, against a hostile media, you have to look credible. Wish lists won’t get you very far.

    When Nick Robinson asks you on the Today programme, “how will you pay for this?”, you need the figures at your fingertips. You need to articulate how we will build council homes, and support that with evidence. How we will overcome the legal barriers to public ownership of water. How we will stop billionaires dodging a wealth tax. That needs movement-wide political education and training, so our members can be our human microphone.

    Building a new party in a single bound, from whole cloth, with a rule book and democratic structures is not realistic. Corbyn knows this. It will have to start as an alliance, so independents can come in and build trust. So you can join and shape it.

    Many watching, including trade unions, want to see that it is professional before they will commit. If you want to get cracking now, and be on the front foot, you can join Majority.

    Featured image via the Canary

    By Jamie Driscoll

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    A punitive defamation charge filed against one of Samoa’s most experienced and trusted journalists last week has sparked a flurry of criticism over abuse of power and misuse of a law that has long been heavily criticised as outdated.

    Talamua Online senior journalist Lagi Keresoma, who is also president of the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS), was charged with one count of defamation under Section 117A of Samoa’s Crimes Act 2013 on May 18.

    She was elected in 2021 as the first woman to hold the presidency.

    The charge followed an article she had published more than two weeks earlier on May 1 alleging that a former police officer had appealed to Samoa’s Head of State to have charges against him withdrawn.

    The accused was charged with “allegedly forging the signature of the complainant as guarantor to secure a $200,000 loan from the Samoa National Provident Fund”. He denies the allegation.

    It was reported that the complainant was another senior police officer.

    Police Commissioner Auapaau Logoitino Filipo reportedly said the officer had filed a complaint over the May 1 article, claiming its contents were false and amounted to defamation.

    Criminal libel removed, then restored
    The criminal libel law was removed by the Samoan government in 2013, but was revived four years later in 2017. It was claimed at the time that it was needed to deal with issues triggered by social media.

    JAWS immediately defended their president, saying it stood in “full solidarity” with Keresoma and calling for an immediate repeal of the law.

    The association said the provision was a “troubling development for press freedom in Samoa” and added that it “should not be used to silence journalists and discourage investigative reporting”.

    “It is deeply concerning that a journalist of Lagi Keresoma’s integrity and professionalism is being prosecuted under a law that has long been criticised for its negative effect on press freedom,” said the association.

    Talamua Online editor Lagi Keresoma
    Talamua Online senior journalist Lagi Keresoma . . . charged with criminal defamation over a report earlier this month. Image: Samoa Observer

    Keresoma told Talamua Online she had been summoned twice to the police station and the police suggested that she apologise publicly and to the complainant and the complaint would be withdrawn.

    However, she said: “To apologise is an admission that the story is wrong, so after speaking to my lawyer and my editor, it was decided to have the police file their charges, but no apology from my end.”

    Her lawyer also contacted the police investigating officer informing that her client was not making a statement but to prepare the charges against her.

    Keresoma was summoned to the police headquarters on Saturday and Sunday and the charges were only finalised on Monday morning before she was released.

    She is due to appear in court next month.

    Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson, the JAWS gender spokesperson with the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), said in a statement Keresoma was a veteran Samoan journalist with “decades of service” to the public and media.

    ‘Outdated and controversial provision’
    “Her arrest under this outdated and controversial provision raises serious concerns about the misuse of legal tools to silence independent journalism. The action appears heavy-handed and disproportionate, and risks being perceived as an abuse of power to suppress public scrutiny and dissent,” Lagipoiva said.

    “The United Nations Human Rights Committee and UN Special Rapporteurs, particularly the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, have repeatedly called for defamation to be treated as a civil matter, not a criminal one.

    “The continued application of criminal defamation in Samoa contradicts international standards and poses a chilling threat to press freedom, particularly for women journalists who already face systemic risks and intimidation.”

    Pacific Media Watch notes: “This is a disturbing development in Pacific media freedom trends. Clearly it is a clumsy attempt to intimidate and silence in-depth investigation and reporting on Pacific governance.

    “For years, Samoa has been a beacon for media freedom in the region, but it has fared badly in the latest World Press Freedom Index and this incident involving alleged criminal libel, a crime that should have been struck from the statutes years ago, is not going to help Samoa’s standing.

    “Journalism is not a crime.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Alakihihifo Vailala of PMN News

    Funding for New Zealand’s Ministry for Pacific Peoples (MPP) is set to be reduced by almost $36 million in Budget 2025.

    This follows a cut of nearly $26 million in the 2024 budget.

    As part of these budgetary savings, the Tauola Business Fund will be closed. But, $6.3 million a year will remain to support Pacific economic and business development through the Pacific Business Trust and Pacific Business Village.

    The Budget cuts also affect the Tupu Aotearoa programme, which supports Pacific people in finding employment and training, alongside the Ministry of Social Development’s employment initiatives.

    While $5.25 million a year will still fund the programme, a total of $22 million a year has been cut over the last four years.

    The ministry will save almost $1 million by returning funding allocated for the Dawn Raids reconciliation programme from 2027/28 onwards.

    There are two years of limited funding left to complete the ministry Dawn Raids programmes, which support the Crown’s reconciliation efforts.

    Funding for Pasifika Wardens
    Despite these reductions, a new initiative providing funding for Pasifika Wardens will introduce $1 million of new spending over the next four years.

    The initiative will improve services to Pacific communities through capacity building, volunteer training, transportation, and enhanced administrative support.

    Funding for the National Fale Malae has ceased, as only $2.7 million of the allocated $10 million has been spent since funding was granted in Budget 2020.

    The remaining $6.6 million will be reprioritised over the next two years to address other priorities within the Arts, Culture and Heritage portfolio, including the National Music Centre.

    Foreign Affairs funding for the International Development Cooperation (IDC) projects, particularly focussed on the Pacific, is also affected. The IDC received an $800 million commitment in 2021 from the Labour government.

    The funding was time-limited, leading to a $200 million annual fiscal cliff starting in January 2026.

    Budget 2025 aims to mitigate this impact by providing ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year to cover half of the shortfall. An additional $5 million will address a $10 million annual shortfall in departmental funding.

    Support for IDC projects
    The new funding will support IDC projects, emphasising the Pacific region without being exclusively aimed at climate finance objectives. Overall, $367.5 million will be allocated to the IDC over four years.

    Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the Budget addressed a prominent fiscal cliff, especially concerning climate finance.

    “The Budget addresses this, at least in part, through ongoing, baselined funding of $100 million a year, focused on the Pacific,” she said in her Budget speech.

    “Members will not be surprised to know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made a case for more funding, and this will be looked at in future Budgets.”

    More funding has been allocated for new homework and tutoring services for learners in Years nine and 10 at schools with at least 50 percent Pacific students to meet the requirements for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA).

    About 50 schools across New Zealand are expected to benefit from the initiative, which will receive nearly $7 million over the next four years, having been reprioritised from funding for the Pacific Education Programme.

    As a result, funding will be stopped for three programmes aimed at supporting Tu’u Mālohi, Pacific Reading Together and Developing Mathematical Inquiry Communities.

    Republished from Pacific Media Network News with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • A forthcoming new edition of David Robie’s Eyes of Fire honours the ship’s final mission and the resilience of those affected by decades of radioactive fallout.

    PACIFIC MORNINGS: By Aui’a Vaimaila Leatinu’u

    The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior III ship returns to Aotearoa this July, 40 years after the bombing of the original campaign ship, with a new edition of its landmark eyewitness account.

    On 10 July 1985, two underwater bombs planted by French secret agents destroyed the Rainbow Warrior at Marsden Wharf in Auckland, killing Portuguese-born Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira and sparking global outrage.

    The Rainbow Warrior was protesting nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, specifically targeting French atmospheric and underground nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls.

    The vessel drew international attention to the environmental devastation and human suffering caused by decades of radioactive fallout.

    The 40th anniversary commemorations include a new edition of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior by journalist David Robie, who was on board the ship during its historic mission in the Marshall Islands.

    The Rainbow Warrior’s final voyage, Operation Exodus, helped evacuate the people of Rongelap after years of US nuclear fallout made their island uninhabitable.

    The vessel arrived at Rongelap Atoll on 15 May 1985.

    The 30th anniversary edition of Eyes of Fire in 2015
    The 30th anniversary edition of Eyes of Fire in 2015. Image: Little Island Press

    Dr Robie, who joined the Rainbow Warrior in Hawai‘i as a journalist at the end of April 1985, says the mission was unlike any other.

    “The fact that this was a humanitarian voyage, quite different in many ways from many of the earlier protest voyages by Greenpeace, to help the people of Rongelap in the Marshall Islands . . . it was going to be quite momentous,” Dr Robie says.

    “A lot of people in the Marshall Islands suffered from those tests. Rongelap particularly wanted to move to a safer location. It is an incredible thing to do for an island community where the land is so much part of their existence, their spirituality and their ethos.”

    PMN is US
    PMN NEWS

    He says the biggest tragedy of the bombing was the death of Pereira.

    “He will never be forgotten and it was a miracle that night that more people were not killed in the bombing attack by French state terrorists.

    “What the French secret agents were doing was outright terrorism, bombing a peaceful environmental ship under the cover of their government. It was an outrage”.

    PMN News interview with Dr David Robie on 20 May 2025
    PMN News interview with Dr David Robie on 20 May 2025.

    Russel Norman, executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa, calls the 40th anniversary “a pivotal moment” in the global environmental struggle.

    “Climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat,” Dr Norman says.

    “As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

    “Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French Government’s military programme and colonial power.”

    As the only New Zealand journalist on board, Dr Robie documented the trauma of nuclear testing and the resilience of the Rongelapese people. He recalls their arrival in the village, where the locals dismantled their homes over three days.

    “The only part that was left on the island was the church, the stone, white stone church. Everything else was disassembled and taken on the Rainbow Warrior for four voyages. I remember one older woman sitting on the deck among the remnants of their homes.”

    Robie also recalls the inspiring impact of the ship’s banner for the region reading: “Nuclear Free Pacific”.

    An elderly Rongelap woman on board the Rainbow Warrior with her "home" and possessions
    PMN News interview with Dr David Robie on 20 May 2025.

    “That stands out because this was a humanitarian mission but it was for the whole region. It’s the whole of the Pacific, helping Pacific people but also standing up against the nuclear powers, US and France in particular, who carried out so many tests in the Pacific.”

    Originally released in 1986, Eyes of Fire chronicled the relocation effort and the ship’s final weeks before the bombing. Robie says the new edition draws parallels between nuclear colonialism then and climate injustice now.

    “This whole renewal of climate denialism, refusal by major states to realise that the solutions are incredibly urgent, and the United States up until recently was an important part of that whole process about facing up to the climate crisis.


    Nuclear Exodus: The Rongelap Evacuation.      Video: In association with TVNZ

    “It’s even more important now for activism, and also for the smaller countries that are reasonably progressive, to take the lead. It looks at what’s happened in the last 10 years since the previous edition we did, and then a number of the people who were involved then.

    “I hope the book helps to inspire others, especially younger people, to get out there and really take action. The future is in your hands.”

    Aui’a Vaimaila Leatinu’u is a multimedia journalist at Pacific Media Network. Republished with permission.

    Rongelap Islanders
    Rongelap Islanders with their belongings board the Rainbow Warrior for their relocation to Mejatto island in May 1985 weeks before the ship was bombed by French secret agents in Auckland, New Zealand. Image: David Robie/Eyes of Fire

    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

  • We have been handed a long and protracted recession with few signs of growth and prosperity. Budget 2025 signals more of the same, writes Susan St John.

    ANALYSIS: By Susan St John

    With the coalition government’s second Budget being unveiled, we should question where New Zealand is heading.

    The 2024 Budget laid out the strategy. Tax cuts and landlord subsidies were prioritised with a focus on cuts to social and infrastructure spending. Most of the tax package went to the well-off, while many low-income households got nothing, or very little.

    Even the tiny bit of the tax package directed to low-income people fell flat. Family Boost has significantly helped only a handful of families, while the increase of $25 per week (In Work Tax Credit) was denied all families on benefits, affecting about 200,000 of the very poorest children.

    In the recession, families that lost paid work also lost access to full Working for Families, an income cut for their children of about $100 per week.

    No one worked out how the many spending cuts would be distributed, but they have hurt the poor the most. These changes are too numerous to itemise but include increased transport costs; the reintroduction of prescription charges; a disastrous school lunch system; rising rents, rates and insurance; fewer budget advisory services; cuts to foodbank funding and hardship grants; stripping away support programmes for the disabled; inadequately adjusted benefits and minimum wage; and reduced support for pay equity and the living wage.

    The objective is to save money while ignoring the human cost. For example, a scathing report of the Auditor General confirms that Oranga Tamariki took a bulldozer to obeying the call for a 6.5 percent cut in existing social services with no regard to the extreme hurt caused to children and struggling parents.

    Budget 2025 has already indicated that Working for Families will continue to go backwards with not even inflation adjustments. The 2025 child and youth strategy report shows that over the year to June 2024 the number of children in material poverty continued to increase, there were more avoidable hospitalisations, immunisation rates for babies declined, and there was more food insecurity.

    Human costs all around us
    We can see the human costs all around us in homelessness, food insecurity, and ill health. Already we know we rank at the bottom among developed countries for child wellbeing and suicide rates.

    Abject distress existing alongside where homes sell for $20 million-$40 million is no longer uncommon, and neither are $6 million helicopters of the very rich.

    Changes in suicide rates
    Changes in suicide rates (three-year average), ages 15 to 19 from 2018 to 2022 (or most recent four-year period available). Source: WHO mortality database

    At the start of the year, Helen Robinson, CEO of the Auckland City Mission, had a clear warning: “I am pleading with government for more support, otherwise what we and other food relief agencies in Auckland can provide, will dramatically decrease.

    “This leaves more of Auckland hungry and those already there become more desperate. It is the total antithesis of a thriving city.”

    The theory held by this government is that by reducing the role of government and taxes, the private sector will flourish, and secure well-paid jobs will be created. Instead, as basic economic theory would predict, we have been handed a long and protracted recession with few signs of growth and prosperity.

    Budget 2025 signals more of the same.

    It would be a mistake to wait for simplistic official inequality statistics before we act. Our current destination is a sharply divided country of extreme wealth and extreme poverty with an insecure middle class.

    Underfunded social agencies
    Underfunded and swamped social agencies cannot remove the relentless stress on the people who are invisible in the ‘fiscally responsible’ economic narrative. The fabricated bogeyman of outsized net government debt is at the core, as the government pursues balanced budgets and small government-size targets.

    A stage one economics student would know the deficit increases automatically in a recession to cushion the decline and stop the economy spiralling into something that looks more like a depression. But our safety nets of social welfare are performing very badly.

    Rising unemployment has exposed the inadequacy of social protections. Working for Families, for instance, provides a very poor cushion for children. Many “working” families do not have enough hours of work and face crippling poverty traps.

    Future security is undermined as more KiwiSavers cash in for hardship reasons. A record number of the talented young we need to drive the recovery and repair the frayed social fabric have already fled the country.

    The government is fond of comparing its Budget to that of a household. But what prudent household would deliberately undermine the earning capacity of family members?

    The primary task for the Budget should be to look after people first, to allow them to meet their food, dental and health needs, education, housing and travel costs, to have a buffer of savings to cushion unexpected shocks and to prepare for old age.

    A sore thumb standing
    In the social security part of the Budget, NZ Super for all at 65, no matter how rich or whether still in full-time well-paid work, dominates (gross $25 billion). It’s a sore thumb standing out alongside much less generous, highly targeted benefits and working for families, paid parental leave, family boost, hardship provisions, accommodation supplement, winter energy and other payments and subsidies.

    Given the political will, research shows we can easily redirect at least $3 billion from very wealthy superannuitants to fixing other payments to greatly improve the wellbeing of the young. This will not be enough but it could be a first step to the wide rebalancing needed.

    New Zealand has become a country of two halves whose paths rarely cross: a social time bomb with unimaginable consequences. It is a country beguiled by an egalitarian past that is no more.

    Susan St John is an associate professor in the Pensions and Intergenerational Equity hub and Economic Policy Centre, Business School, University of Auckland. This article was first published by Newsroom before the 2025 Budget and is republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A $5 million gold card. A reality show for migrants. A birthright under assault.

    Let us be very clear: the Trump Administration does not want citizenship to be a right. They want it to be a reward for the loyal, the rich, or the compliant.

    To this end, President Trump’s bid to unilaterally end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants is a modern-day Trojan horse masquerading as a concern for national security.

    This is not about protecting America, but redefining America from the top down.

    That redefinition is already underway.

    The Trump Administration’s plans to sell $5 million “gold cards” to wealthy investors as a path to citizenship and consideration of a pitch for a reality show that would “pit immigrants against each other for a chance at a fast-tracked path to citizenship” are not just absurd—they’re obscene.

    They reveal a government willing to reduce constitutional rights to commodities, auctioned off to the highest bidder or trivialized for ratings.

    This governing by performance turns a constitutional guarantee into a privilege for sale or spectacle. It’s part of a calculated effort to recast citizenship as conditional, transactional, and exclusionary. Whether by wealth, loyalty, or ideology, this emerging framework decides who is “deserving” of rights—and who is not.

    It is fear-based nationalism that disguises a deeper threat: the normalization of government power to decide who is entitled to rights and who is not.

    We see this in action with the Trump Administration’s stance on childbirth and citizenship.

    It’s a contradiction: while the Trump Administration decries falling birthrates and offers financial incentives for childbirth, it demonizes birthright citizenship for the very communities that are actually having children and contributing significantly to the economy without any guarantee of anything in return.

    Yet this brazenly hypocritical double standard is just a distraction, part of the political theater designed to pit Americans against each other while the power brokers rewrite the rules behind closed doors.

    The real power play rests in the Trump Administration’s efforts to gut the Fourteenth Amendment, sidestep the courts, and redefine who qualifies as American—all by executive fiat.

    Redefining citizenship by executive order is not governance. It is a bloodless coup—one that overthrows a constitutional republic founded on the rule of law—to reconfigure the face of the nation in the image of the unelected Deep State and its machinery of control.

    Enacted in the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure that all persons born on U.S. soil would be recognized as full citizens—a direct rebuke to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, which held that Black Americans could not be citizens. Its language is unambiguous: all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens.

    This principle was upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals are entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

    That precedent still stands.

    Yet that legacy—of constitutional protections prevailing over prejudice—is now at risk.

    Some have recently argued—including the Trump Administration in legal filings—that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended solely to grant citizenship to the children of former slaves after the Civil War, and thus no longer applies to children born to undocumented immigrants. But if that logic is taken seriously, it undermines the citizenship of everyone born in America.

    After all, if the government—not the Constitution—gets to decide who qualifies as a citizen, then no one’s status is secure.

    If your citizenship depends on government approval, your rights aren’t inalienable—they’re transitory privileges.

    That’s not just bad law. It’s tyranny in the making.

    Despite Trump’s attempts to rule by fiat and executive order, presidents cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they will honor.

    Yet perhaps even more concerning than Trump’s war on birthright citizenship itself is the administration’s underlying legal strategy to test the limits of judicial authority—specifically, to restrict the power of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions against unconstitutional actions.

    You see, this is not just an immigration battle, nor is it only a challenge to the Fourteenth Amendment.

    It is a calculated attempt to strip the judiciary of its ability to check executive abuse and a full-frontal assault on the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government entrusted with interpreting the law and defending individual rights against majoritarian overreach.

    If successful, it would mark a seismic shift in the balance of powers, subordinating the courts to the whims of the executive branch.

    As James Madison wrote, the accumulation of all powers in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

    The same unchecked power used to deny citizenship to the children of immigrants today could just as easily be turned against you to strip you of your citizenship, based on your political beliefs, religious views, or failure to toe the party line.

    This is the danger the Founders warned against: a government that grants rights only to the loyal, the favored, or the compliant.

    And make no mistake: what we’re witnessing is another point along the slippery slope of the effort to recast birthright citizenship—not as a right—but as a privilege, subject to political approval and ideological purity tests.

    In this emerging framework, being born in America is no longer enough—you must also prove your worth, allegiance, and compliance.

    Worse still, this would set a precedent that constitutional rights can be rewritten by executive whim, paving the way for even greater erosions of liberty.

    If we do not hold the line here, this erosion of liberty will only accelerate.

    Birthright citizenship is more than a legal technicality. It is a cornerstone of American democracy and equality. The attempt to destroy it through executive power is a direct threat to the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and the future of liberty in America.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, if the government can erase one constitutional right today, it can erase another tomorrow.

    This is exactly why the Founders drafted a Constitution that limits power and protects individuals, not just the popular or the powerful.

    Once we allow the government to decide who is “deserving” of rights, we’ve already surrendered the rule of law. What remains is not a constitutional republic, but an empire of arbitrary rule.

    The post They’re Coming for Your Birthright: Citizenship as Spectacle, Transaction, or Privilege first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Al Jazeera

    How global power struggles are impacting in local communities, culture and sovereignty in Kanaky, New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands and Samoa.

    In episode one, The Battlefield, broadcast today, tensions between the United States and China over the Pacific escalate, affecting the lives of Pacific Islanders.

    Key figures like former Malaita Premier Daniel Suidani and tour guide Maria Loweyo reveal how global power struggles impact on local communities, culture and sovereignty in the Solomon Islands and Samoa.

    The episode intertwines these personal stories with the broader geopolitical dynamics, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of the Pacific’s role in global diplomacy.

    Fight for the Pacific, a four-part series by Tuki Laumea and Cleo Fraser, showcases the Pacific’s critical transformation into a battleground of global power.

    This series captures the high-stakes rivalry between the US and China as they vie for dominance in a region pivotal to global stability.

    The series frames the Pacific not just as a battleground for superpowers but also as a region with its own unique challenges and aspirations.

    Republished from Al Jazeera.

  • On 18 May, Newcastle held a people’s assembly with former North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll. The Canary went along to the exciting and packed event, where people living locally discussed the issues they’re facing and what potential solutions could be.

    Driscoll spoke to the Canary after the event. And the plan is clear: listen, prepare, and act.

    Jamie Driscoll: planning, fighting, and winning for Newcastle in 2026

    Candidates with Jamie Driscoll’s majority party are “intending to fight and win” next year’s local council elections in Newcastle. And he said that, while it’s important to be angry about what’s going on both at home and abroad, the really key question is “what are we going to do about it?”

    That’s why a clear plan is essential. Because the idea isn’t to ask voters locally to “agree with us that you should be angry”; it’s to say “vote for us because this is what we’re going to do”. And if you actually want to deliver for people, he stressed:

    the best way is to have the people right at the heart of it. Because if you want to know how to speed up the buses, ask a bus driver – they do it for a living every day!

    As mayor, Driscoll listened to people living locally and, where he had “the power and the funds”, he took action. Even when it wasn’t his role, he spoke up. Where the council had the power, for example, he worked with councillors to encourage action. And on bigger national issues, he spoke up and lobbied.

    If he and his team “take control of Newcastle City Council next year and the Labour government isn’t gonna stump up the cash that is needed and it’s not gonna tax billionaires”, he promised they won’t stay quiet:

    What you won’t get from us is a lot of hand wringing, ‘oh it’s terrible’, ‘oh national government’s made us do it’… What you’ll get is a 40ft banner down the side of the Civic Centre saying ‘these are the people responsible’. And you know what? If you wanna take our school crossing safety off us, we’re all gonna get in a bus as councillors and we’re gonna lie down outside parliament. We’re gonna make a fuss. So you’ll still get a fight back.

    Putting people at the heart of the movement

    Driscoll asserted that:

    the role of a councillor is to be a shop steward for the community inside the Council, not a cheerleader for the Council inside the community

    And the idea of community assemblies is precisely to make sure people living locally have a central role in determining what the priorities are and how to address them.

    The 18 May assembly brought together many dozens of people who were passionate about participating and sharing their lived experiences locally. They discussed insights into the problems and potential solutions to the challenges facing them. And this collaborative agenda will become the key message ahead of the local elections next year. Campaigners will then use that to “get out there, get a coalition together, and win, and then implement it”.

    One key issue that came up for people was the urgent national need for a wealth tax – something that has widespread support across the country. But people also discussed local issues that had a clear connection to elite plunder via “big corporations lobbying government” and “billionaires’ wealth extraction”.

    Jamie Driscoll: we have the same concerns, and mustn’t let grifters exploit our differences

    Though we all have much in common, there are clearly cultural divides in Britain. And that can create tension sometimes. But we can diffuse that tension and come together around shared goals, Driscoll stressed, if we listen to people with an open mind. We need to focus on “hearing what they’re saying and not projecting your opinions onto them”, he said.

    Recently, Driscoll explained, he was talking to someone in a neglected nearby town. And the feeling of “why is no one listening to us?” was clear. As he said:

    you talk to them and actually they’ve got exactly the same concerns. Why isn’t my bus on time? Why is it so bloody expensive? Why is it there’s so much month left at the end of the money? Looking in their supermarket trolley thinking, ‘I used to be able to buy twice this much’.

    Another person he spoke to said he was thinking of voting for Reform, despite disagreeing with the party on immigration. Why? Because he felt Nigel Farage was “the only one shouting”. And that’s something to take stock of. Sometimes, people just appreciate someone who’ll stand up and fight, whether they agree on everything or not.

    Driscoll knows that Reform will disappoint people. Because it won’t actually fix any of the key issues affecting people’s daily lives. And fixing things is “what really matters”. As he argued:

    when they look at politicians, what the voting public want is two things: 1) Do I think these people could run the country? 2) Have these people got my back?…

    And that’s the whole point of the detailed manifesto. It’s gotta fix something…

    So yes, be angry, but have a plan that works.

    Watch the full interview below:

    By Ed Sykes

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    New Caledonia and French Polynesia have sent strong delegations this week to the United Nations Pacific regional seminar on the implementation of the Fourth International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in Timor-Leste.

    The seminar opened in Dili today and ends on Friday.

    As French Pacific non-self-governing territories, the two Pacific possessions will brief the UN on recent developments at the event, which is themed “Pathways to a sustainable future — advancing socioeconomic and cultural development of the Non-Self-Governing Territories”.

    New Caledonia and French Polynesia are both in the UN’s list of non-self-governing territories to be decolonised, respectively since 1986 and 2013.

    Nouméa-based French Ambassador for the Pacific Véronique Roger-Lacan is also attending.

    After the Dili meeting this week, the UN’s Fourth Commission is holding its formal meeting in New York in July and again in October in the margins of the UN General Assembly.

    As New Caledonia marks the first anniversary this month of the civil unrest that killed 14 people and caused material damage to the tune of 2.2 billion euros last year (NZ$4.1 billion), the French Pacific territory’s political parties have been engaged for the past four months in political talks with France to define New Caledonia’s political future.

    However, the talks have not yet managed to produce a consensual way forward between pro-France and pro-independence groups.

    French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls, at the end of the most recent session on May 8, put a project of “sovereignty with France” on the table which was met by strong opposition by the pro-France Loyalists (anti-independence) camp.

    This year again, parties and groups from around the political spectrum are planning to travel to Dili to plead their respective cases.

    New Caledonia’s newly-installed government has elected pro-France Alcide Ponga as its President.
    New Caledonia territorial President Alcide Ponga . . . pro-France groups have become more aware of the need for them to be more vocal and present at regional and international fora. Image: Media pool/RNZ Pacific

    Topping the list is New Caledonia’s government President Alcide Ponga, who chairs the pro-France Rassemblement party and came to power in January 2025.

    Other represented institutions include New Caledonia’s customary (traditional) Senate, a kind of Great Council of Chiefs, which also sends participants to ensure the voice of indigenous Kanak people is heard.

    Over the past two years, pro-France groups have become more aware of the need for them to be more vocal and present at regional and international fora.

    French Polynesia back on the UN list since 2013
    In French Polynesia, the pro-independence ruling Tavini Huiraatira party commemorated the 12th anniversary of re-inscription to the UN list of territories to be decolonised on 17 May 2013.

    This week, Tavini also sent a strong delegation to Timor-Leste, which includes territorial Assembly President Antony Géros.

    However, the pro-France parties, locally known as “pro-autonomy”, also want to ensure their views are taken into account.

    One of them is Moerani Frébault, one of French Polynesia’s representatives at the French National Assembly.

    “Contrary to what the pro-independence people are saying, we’re not dominated by the French Republic,” he told local media at a news conference at the weekend.

    Frébault said the pro-autonomy parties now want to invite a UN delegation to French Polynesia “so they can see for themselves that we have all the tools we need for our development.

    “This is the message we want to get across”.

    [L to R] Pro-autonomy Tapura party leaders Tepuaraurii Teriitahi, Edouard Fritch and Moerani Frébault, at a press conference in Papeete on 17 May 2025 – PHOTO Radio 1
    Pro-autonomy Tapura Party leaders Tepuaraurii Teriitahi (from left), Edouard Fritch and Moerani Frébault, at a press conference in Papeete last week . . . . “We want to counter those who allege that the whole of [French] Polynesians are sharing this aspiration for independence.” Image: Radio 1/RNZ Pacific

    Territorial Assembly member Tepuaraurii Teriitahi, from the pro-autonomy Tapura Huiraatira party, is also travelling to Dili.

    “The majority of (French) Polynesians is not pro-independence. So when we travel to this kind of seminar, it is because we want to counter those who allege that the whole of (French) Polynesians is sharing this aspiration for independence,” she said.

    ‘Constitution of a Federated Republic of Ma’ohi Nui’
    On the pro-independence side in Pape’ete, the official line is that it wants Paris to at least engage in talks with French Polynesia to “open the subject of decolonisation”.

    For the same purpose, the Tavini Party, in April 2025, officially presented a draft for what could become a “Constitution of a Federated Republic of Ma’ohi Nui”.

    The document is sometimes described as drawing inspirations from France and the United States, but is not yet regarded as fully matured.

    Earlier this month, French Polynesia’s President Moetai Brotherson was in Paris for a series of meetings with several members of the French cabinet, including Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls and French Foreign Affairs Minister Yannick Neuder.

    Valls is currently contemplating visiting French Polynesia early in July.

    Brotherson came to power in May 2023. Since being elected to the top post, he has stressed that independence — although it remained a longterm goal — was not an immediate priority.

    He also said many times that he wished relations with France to evolve, especially on the decolonisation.

    “I think we should put those 10 years of misunderstanding, of denial of dialogue behind us,” he said.

    In October 2023, for the first time since French Polynesia was re-inscribed on the UN list, France made representations at the UN Special Political and Decolonisation Committee (Fourth Committee), ending a 10-year empty chair hiatus .

    But the message delivered by the French Ambassador to the UN, Nicolas De Rivière, was unambiguous.

    He said French Polynesia “has no place” on the UN list of non-autonomous territories because “French Polynesia’s history is not the history of New Caledonia”.

    He also voiced France’s wish to have French Polynesia withdrawn from the UN list.

    The UN list of non-self-governing territories currently includes 17 territories worldwide and six of those are located in the Pacific — American Samoa, Guam, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Pitcairn Islands and Tokelau.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Gordon Campbell

    Since last Thursday, intensified Israeli air strikes on Gaza have killed more than 500 Palestinians, and a prolonged Israeli aid blockade has led to widespread starvation among the territory’s two million residents.

    Belatedly, Israel is letting in a token amount of food aid that UN Under-Secretary Tom Fletcher has called a “a drop in the ocean”.

    Meanwhile, the IDF is intensifying its air and ground attacks on the civilian population and on the few remaining health services. Al Jazeera is also reporting that the IDF has issued “a forward displacement order” for the entirety of Khan Younis, the second largest city in Gaza.

    The escalation of the Israeli onslaught has been condemned by UN human rights chief Volker Türk, who has likened the IDF campaign as an exercise in ethnic cleansing:

    “This latest barrage of bombs … and the denial of humanitarian assistance underline that there appears to be a push for a permanent demographic shift in Gaza that is in defiance of international law and is tantamount to ethnic cleansing,” he said.

    If the West so wished, it could be putting more economic pressure on Israel to cease committing its litany of atrocities. Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war has been sparking mass demonstrations across Europe.

    In the Netherlands at the weekend, a massive demonstration culminated in calls for the Netherlands government to formally ask the EU to suspend its free trade agreement with Israel.

    Until now, the world’s relative indifference to the genocide in Gaza has been mirrored by Palestine’s Arab neighbours. As Gaza burned yet again, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates were lavishly entertaining US President Donald Trump — Israel’s chief enabler — and showering him with gifts.

    In the wake of these meetings, Trump and his hosts have signed arms deals and AI technology transfers that reportedly contain no guard rails to prevent these AI advances being passed on to China.

    In addition, Qatar has bought $96 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. Reportedly, this purchase has huge potential implications for the airline industry in our part of the world.

    In all, economic joint ventures worth hundreds of billions of dollars were signed and sealed last week between the US and the Middle East region, despite the misery being inflicted right next door.

    Footnote: Directly and indirectly, Big Tech firms such as Microsoft and Intel continue to enable and enhance the IDF war machine’s actions in Gaza. This is an extension of the long time support given to Israel by Silicon Valley firms via the supply of digital infrastructure, advanced chips, software and cloud computing facilities.

    Yesterday, several Microsoft staff had the courage to interrupt a speech by their CEO to protest about how the company’s Azure cloud computing platform was being used to enable Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

    The extinction of hope
    As the Ha’aretz newspaper reported this week, “The three pillars of hope for the Palestinians have collapsed: armed struggle has lost legitimacy, state negotiations have stalled, and faith in the international community has faded. Now, they face one question: ‘Where do we go from here?’

    As Ha’aretz concluded, the Palestinians seem to have vanished into a diplomatic Bermuda Triangle. What would it take, one wonders, for the New Zealand government — and Foreign Minister Winston Peters — to wake up from their moral slumber?

    Whenever the Luxon government does talk about this conflict, it still calls for a “two state solution” even though, as a leading Israeli journalist Gideon Levy says, this ceased to be a viable option more than 25 years ago.

    “We crossed the point of no return a long time ago. We crossed the point at which there was any room for a Palestinian state, with 700,000 settlers who will not be evacuated, because nobody will have the political power to do so. The West Bank is practically annexed for many, many years . . . Nobody can take this discourse seriously anymore. But, you know, those who want to believe in it, believe in it.”

    Conveniently, the two state waffle does provide Peters and Luxon with cover for their reluctance to — for example — call in, or expel the Israeli ambassador. Or impose a symbolic trade boycott. Or impose targeted sanctions on the extremists within the Netanyahu Cabinet who are driving Israeli policy.

    Instead of those options, the “negotiated two state” fantasy has been encouraged to take on a life of its own. Yet do we really think that Israel would entertain for a moment the expulsion of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers illegally occupying the land on the West Bank required for a viable Palestinian state?

    The Netanyahu government has long had plans to double that number, with the settler influx growing at a reported rate of about 12,000 a year.

    The backlash
    Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon is finally creating a backlash, in Europe at least. The public outrage being expressed in demonstrations in the UK, France and Germany finally seems to be making some governments feel a need to be seen to be doing more.

    Not before time. At the drop of a hat, Western nations — New Zealand included — will bang on endlessly about the importance of upholding the norms of international law. So you have to ask . . . why have we/they chosen to remain all but mute about the repeated violations of human rights law and the Geneva Conventions being carried out by the IDF in Gaza on a daily basis?

    “In [Khan Younis’] Nasser Hospital, Safaa Al-Najjar, her face stained with blood, wept as the shroud-wrapped bodies of two of her children were brought to her: [18 month old] Motaz Al-Bayyok and [six weeks old] Moaz Al-Bayyok.

    “The family was caught in the overnight airstrikes. All five of Al-Najjar’s other children, ranging in ages from 3 to 12, were injured, while her husband was in intensive care. One of her sons, 11-year-old Yusuf, his head heavily bandaged, screamed in grief as the shroud of his younger sibling was parted to show his face.

    Ultimately, Israel’s moral decline will be for its own citizens to reckon with, in future. For now, New Zealand is standing around watching in silence, while a blood-soaked campaign of ethnic cleansing unmatched in recent history is being carried out.

    Republished with permission from Gordon Campbell’s column in partnership with Scoop.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.