radiofree.asia

Category: Featured

  • Historic ICJ climate ruling ‘just the beginning’, says Vanuatu’s Regenvanu

    By Ezra Toara in Port Vila

    Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Ralph Regenvanu, has welcomed the historic International Court of Justice (ICJ) climate ruling, calling it a “milestone in the fight for climate justice”.

    The ICJ has delivered a landmark advisory opinion on states’ obligations under international law to act on climate change.

    The ruling marks a major shift in the global push for climate justice.

    Vanuatu — one of the nations behind the campaign — has pledged to take the decision back to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to seek a resolution supporting its full implementation.

    Climate Change Minister Regenvanu said in a statement: “We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations’ political interests that have dominated climate action.

    “This moment will drive stronger action and accountability to protect our planet and peoples.”

    The ICJ confirmed that state responsibilities extend beyond voluntary commitments under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement.

    It ruled that customary international law also requires states to prevent environmental and transboundary harm, protect human rights, and cooperate to address climate change impacts.

    Duties apply to all states
    These duties apply to all states, whether or not they have ratified specific climate treaties.

    Violations of these obligations carry legal consequences. The ICJ clarified that climate damage can be scientifically traced to specific polluter states whose actions or inaction cause harm.

    As a result, those states could be required to stop harmful activities, regulate private sector emissions, end fossil fuel subsidies, and provide reparations to affected states and individuals.

    “The implementation of this decision will set a new status quo and the structural change required to give our current and future generations hope for a healthy planet and sustainable future,” Minister Regenvanu added.

    He said high-emitting nations, especially those with a history of emissions, must be held accountable.

    Despite continued fossil fuel expansion and weakening global ambition — compounded by the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement — Regenvanu said the ICJ ruling was a powerful tool for campaigners, lawyers, and governments.

    “Vanuatu is proud and honoured to have spearheaded this initiative,” he said.

    ‘Powerful testament’
    “The number of states and civil society actors that have joined this cause is a powerful testament to the leadership of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and youth activists.”

    The court’s decision follows a resolution adopted by consensus at the UNGA on 29 March 2023. That campaign was initiated by the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change and backed by the Vanuatu government, calling for greater accountability from high-emitting countries.

    The ruling will now be taken to the UNGA in September and is expected to be a central topic at COP30 in Brazil this November.

    Vanuatu has committed to working with other nations to turn this legal outcome into coordinated action through diplomacy, policy, litigation, and international cooperation.<

    “This is just the beginning,” Regenvanu said. “Success will depend on what happens next. We look forward to working with global partners to ensure this becomes a true turning point for climate justice.”

    Republished from the Vanuatu Daily Post with permission.

    Vanuatu's Climate The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its historic climate ruling
    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its historic climate ruling in The Hague on Tuesday. Image: VDP

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Israel waging ‘horror show’ starvation campaign in Gaza, says UN chief

    Democracy Now!

    This is Democracy Now!. I’m Amy Goodman.

    More than 100 humanitarian groups are demanding action to end Israel’s siege of Gaza, warning mass starvation is spreading across the Palestinian territory.

    The NGOs, including Amnesty International, Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders, warn, “illnesses like acute watery diarrhea are spreading, markets are empty, waste is piling up, and adults are collapsing on the streets from hunger and dehydration.”

    Their warning came as the Palestinian Ministry of Health said the number of starvation-related deaths has climbed to at least 111 people.

    This is Ghada al-Fayoumi, a displaced Palestinian mother of seven in Gaza City.

    GHADA AL-FAYOUMI: “[translated] My children wake up sick every day. What do I do? I get saline solution for them. What can I do?

    “There’s no food, no bread, no drinks, no rice, no sugar, no cooking oil, no bulgur, nothing. There is no kind of any food available to us at all.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Thousands of antiwar protesters marched on Tuesday in Tel Aviv outside Israel’s military headquarters, demanding an end to Israel’s assault and a lifting of the Gaza siege. This is Israeli peace activist Alon-Lee Green with the group Standing Together.

    ALON-LEE GREEN: “We are marching now in Tel Aviv, holding bags of flour and the pictures of these children that have been starved to death by our government and our army.

    “We demand to stop the starvation in Gaza. We demand to stop the annihilation of Gaza. We demand to stop the daily killing of children and innocent people in Gaza.

    “This cannot go on. We are Israelis, and this does not serve us. This only serves the Messianic people that lead us.”

    AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the World Health Organisation has released a video showing the Israeli military attacking WHO facilities in central Gaza’s Deir al-Balah. A WHO spokesperson condemned the attack, called for the immediate release of a staff member abducted by Israeli forces.

    TARIK JAŠAREVIĆ: “Male staff and family members were handcuffed, stripped, interrogated on the spot and screened at gunpoint.

    “Two WHO staff and two family members were detained.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, health officials in Gaza say Israeli attacks over the past day killed more than 70 people, including five more people seeking food at militarised aid sites. Amid growing outrage worldwide, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on Tuesday the situation in Gaza right now is a “horror show”.

    UN SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTÓNIO GUTERRES: “We need look no further than the horror show in Gaza, with a level of death and destruction without parallel in recent times.

    “Malnourishment is soaring. Starvation is knocking on every door.”

    AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Michael Fakhri, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. He is a professor of law at University of Oregon, where he leads the Food Resiliency Project.


    Israel waging ‘fastest starvation campaign’ in modern history    Video: Democracy Now!

    Dr Michael Fakhri, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can respond to what’s happening right now, the images of dying infants starving to death, the numbers now at over 100, people dropping in the streets, reporters saying they can’t go on?

    Agence France-Presse’s union talked about they have had reporters killed in conflict, they have had reporters disappeared, injured, but they have not had this situation before with their reporters starving to death.

    DR MICHAEL FAKHRI: Amy, the word “horror” — I mean, we’re running out of words of what to say. And the reason it’s horrific is it was preventable. We saw this coming. We’ve seen this coming for 20 months.

    Israel announced its starvation campaign back in October 2023. And then again, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced on March 1 that nothing was to enter Gaza. And that’s what happened for 78 days. No food, no water, no fuel, no medicine entered Gaza.

    And then they built these militarised aid sites that are used to humiliate, weaken and kill the Palestinians. So, what makes this horrific is it has been preventable, it was predictable. And again, this is the fastest famine we’ve seen, the fastest starvation campaign we’ve seen in modern history.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, can you talk about what needs to be done at this point and the responsibility of the occupying power? Israel is occupying Gaza right now. What it means to have to protect the population it occupies?

    DR FAKHRI: The International Court of Justice outlined Israel’s duties in its decisions over the last year. So, what Israel has an obligation to do is, first, end its illegal occupation immediately. This came from the court itself.

    Second, it must allow humanitarian relief to enter with no restrictions. And this hasn’t been happening. So, usually, we would turn to the Security Council to authorise peacekeepers or something similar to assist.

    But predictably, again, the United States keeps vetoing anything to do with a ceasefire. When the Security Council is in a deadlock because of a veto, the General Assembly, the UN General Assembly, has the authority to call for peacekeepers to accompany humanitarian convoys to enter into Gaza and to end Israel’s starvation campaign against the Palestinian people.

    AMY GOODMAN: People actually protested outside the house of UN Secretary-General António Guterres yesterday. People protested all over the world yesterday against the Palestinians being starved and bombed to death. Those in front of the UN Secretary-General’s house said they don’t dispute that he has raised this issue almost every day, but they say he can do more.

    Finally, Michael Fakhri, what does the UN need to do — the US, Israel, the world?

    DR FAKHRI: So, as I mentioned, first and foremost, they can authorise peacekeepers to enter to stop the starvation. But, second, they need to create consequences.

    The world has a duty to prevent this starvation. The world has a duty to prevent and end this genocide. And as a result, then, what the world can do is impose sanctions.

    And again, this is supported by the International Court of Justice. The world needs to impose wide-scale sanctions against the state of Israel to force it to end the starvation and genocide of civilians, of Palestinian civilians in Gaza today.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much for being with us, Michael Fakhri, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, speaking to us from Eugene, Oregon.

    Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Licence.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • UN’s highest court finds countries can be held legally responsible for emissions

    By Jamie Tahana in The Hague for RNZ Pacific

    The United Nations’ highest court has found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions, in a ruling highly anticipated by Pacific countries long frustrated with the pace of global action to address climate change.

    In a landmark opinion delivered yesterday in The Hague, the president of the International Court of Justice, Yuji Iwasawa, said climate change was an “urgent and existential threat” that was “unequivocally” caused by human activity with consequences and effects that crossed borders.

    The court’s opinion was the culmination of six years of advocacy and diplomatic manoeuvring which started with a group of Pacific university students in 2019.

    They were frustrated at what they saw was a lack of action to address the climate crisis, and saw current mechanisms to address it as woefully inadequate.

    Their idea was backed by the government of Vanuatu, which convinced the UN General Assembly to seek the court’s advisory opinion on what countries’ obligations are under international law.

    The court’s 15 judges were asked to provide an opinion on two questions: What are countries obliged to do under existing international law to protect the climate and environment, and, second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts — or lack of action — have significantly harmed the climate and environment?

    The International Court of Justice in The Hague
    The International Court of Justice in The Hague yesterday . . . landmark non-binding rulings on the climate crisis. Image: X/@CIJ_ICJ

    Overnight, reading a summary that took nearly two hours to deliver, Iwasawa said states had clear obligations under international law, and that countries — and, by extension, individuals and companies within those countries — were required to curb emissions.

    Iwasawa said the environment and human rights obligations set out in international law did indeed apply to climate change.

    ‘Precondition for human rights’
    “The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights,” he said, adding that sea-level rise, desertification, drought and natural disasters “may significantly impair certain human rights, including the right to life”.

    To reach its conclusion, judges waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments in what the court said was the ICJ’s largest-ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations providing testimony.

    They also examined the entire corpus of international law — including human rights conventions, the law of the sea, the Paris climate agreement and many others — to determine whether countries have a human rights obligation to address climate change.

    The president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Yuji Iwasawa,
    The president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Yuji Iwasawa, delivering the landmark rulings on climate change. Image: X/@CIJ_ICJ

    Major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, had argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, were sufficient to address climate change.

    But the court found that states’ obligations extended beyond climate treaties, instead to many other areas of international law, such as human rights law, environmental law, and laws around restricting cross-border harm.

    Significantly for many Pacific countries, the court also provided an opinion on what would happen if sea levels rose to such a level that some states were lost altogether.

    “Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”

    Significant legal weight
    The ICJ’s opinion is legally non-binding. But even so, advocates say it carries significant legal and political weight that cannot be ignored, potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation and claims for compensation or reparations for climate-related loss and damage.

    Individuals and groups could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the court’s opinion, and states could also return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account.

    The opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries greater weight in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

    Outside the court, several dozen climate activists, from both the Netherlands and abroad, had gathered on a square as cyclists and trams rumbled by on the summer afternoon. Among them was Siaosi Vaikune, a Tongan who was among those original students to hatch the idea for the challenge.

    “Everyone has been waiting for this moment,” he said. “It’s been six years of campaigning.

    “Frontline communities have demanded justice again and again,” Vaikune said. “And this is another step towards that justice.”

    Vanuatu's Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (centre) speaks to the media
    Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu (cenbtre) speaks to the media after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings on climate change in The Hague yesterday. Image: X/CIJ_ICJ

    ‘It gives hope’
    Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu said the ruling was better than he expected and he was emotional about the result.

    “The most pleasing aspect is [the ruling] was so strong in the current context where climate action and policy seems to be going backwards,” Regenvanu told RNZ Pacific.

    “It gives such hope to the youth, because they were the ones who pushed this.

    “I think it will regenerate an entire new generation of youth activists to push their governments for a better future for themselves.”

    Regenvanu said the result showed the power of multilateralism.

    “There was a point in time where everyone could compromise to agree to have this case heard here, and then here again, we see the court with the judges from all different countries of the world all unanimously agreeing on such a strong opinion, it gives you hope for multilateralism.”

    He said the Pacific now has more leverage in climate negotiations.

    “Communities on the ground, who are suffering from sea level rise, losing territory and so on, they know what they want, and we have to provide that,” Regenvanu said.

    “Now we know that we can rely on international cooperation because of the obligations that have been declared here to assist them.”

    The director of climate change at the Pacific Community (SPC), Coral Pasisi, also said the decision was a strong outcome for Pacific Island nations.

    “The acknowledgement that the science is very clear, there is a direct clause between greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and the harm that is causing, particularly the most vulnerable countries.”

    She said the health of the environment is closely linked to the health of people, which was acknowledged by the court.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Indonesian military set to complete Trans-Papua Highway under Prabowo’s rule

    By Julian Isaac

    The Indonesian Military (TNI) is committed to supporting the completion of the Trans-Papua Highway during President Prabowo Subianto’s term in office.

    While the military is not involved in construction, it plays a critical role in securing the project from threats posed by pro-independence Papuan resistance groups in “high-risk” regions.

    Spanning a total length of 4330 km, the Trans-Papua road project has been under development since 2014.

    However, only 3446 km of the national road network has been connected after more than a decade of construction.

    “Don’t compare Papua with Jakarta, where there are no armed groups. Papua is five times the size of Java, and not all areas are secure,” TNI spokesman Major-General Kristomei Sianturi told a media conference at the Ministry of Public Works on Monday.

    One of the currently active segments is the Jayapura–Wamena route — specifically the Mamberamo–Elim section, which stretches 50 km.

    The project is being carried out through a public-private partnership and was awarded to PT Hutama Karya, with an investment of Rp3.3 trillion (about US$202 million) and a 15-year concession. The segment is expected to be completed within two years, targeting finalisation next year.

    Security an obstacle
    General Kristomei said that one of the main obstacles was security in the vicinity of construction sites.

    Out of 50 regencies/cities in Papua, at least seven are considered high-risk zones. Since its inception, the Trans-Papua road project has claimed 17 lives, due to clashes in the region.

    In addition to security challenges, the delivery of construction materials remains difficult due to limited infrastructure.

    “Transporting goods from one point to another in Papua is extremely difficult because there are no connecting roads. We’re essentially building from scratch,” General Kristomei said.

    In May 2024, President Joko Widodo convened a limited cabinet meeting at the Merdeka Palace to discuss accelerating development in Papua. The government agreed on the urgent need to improve education, healthcare, and security in the region.

    The Minister of National Development Planning, Suharso Monoarfa, announced that the government would ramp up social welfare programmes in Papua in coordination with then Vice-President Ma’ruf Amin, who chairs the Agency for the Acceleration of Special Autonomy in Papua (BP3OKP).

    ‘Welfare based approaches’
    “We are gradually implementing welfare-based approaches, including improvements in education and health, with budgets already allocated to the relevant ministries and agencies,” Suharso said in May last year.

    As of March 2023, the Indonesian government has disbursed Rp 1,036 trillion for Papua’s development.

    This funding has supported major infrastructure initiatives such as the 3462 km Trans-Papua Highway, 1098 km of border roads, the construction of the 1.3 km Youtefa Bridge in Jayapura, and the renovation of Domine Eduard Osok Airport in Sorong.

    Republished from the Indonesia Business Post.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  •  [Statement] THAILAND: Stop the judicial harassment against Anchana Heemmina, defend freedom of expression

    GENEVA, Switzerland (22 July 2025) – The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and Front Line Defenders strongly condemn the Thai Government’s intensified judicial harassment against women human rights defender Anchana Heemmina.

    On 17 June 2025, additional charges were filed against Heemmina under Section 14(1) of the 2007 Computer Act for allegedly importing false or distorted data into a computer system. The charges stem from a Facebook post Heemmina made in May 2024, in which she raised concerns about a military camp’s alleged failure to pay its water bill.

    FORUM-ASIA and Front Line Defenders jointly urge Thai authorities to immediately and unconditionally drop all charges against Heemmina.

    Under the Computer Crime Act of 2007, Thai authorities can block or remove websites and online content. Amended in 2017, the Act grants authorities expanded powers to limit free speech, enforce surveillance, censor, and retaliate against activists.

    The Act has been frequently used to intimidate and silence critics. It is also being weaponized to pursue libel charges aimed at suppressing public participation, commonly referred to as “strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP).

     

    What happened

    Heemina advocates for peacebuilding and gender justice in Thailand’s Deep South.

    On 8 May 2024, Heemmina made a Facebook post about a mosque demanding 20,000 baht (USD 616) from a military camp that had sourced water from its property. Heemmina initially misidentified the location but later corrected it to Sai Buri District in Pattani Province. In her post, she was asking whom she should complain to.

    The military unit allegedly involved in the dispute subsequently issued a public statement explaining the reason for the delayed payment, and Heemmina thanked them for the clarification.

    The Thai Navy in Ba Cho District then filed a defamation complaint against Heemmina, arguing that her post had caused reputational harm to military units stationed in the area.

    On 14 October 2024, Heemmina met with investigators to formally acknowledge the defamation charge under Section 328 of the Thai Criminal Code.

    On 21 January 2025, the police forwarded her case to the Narathiwat Provincial Prosecutor. Since then, Heemmina has been required to report to the prosecutor on a monthly basis. On 17 June, Heemmina was notified of an additional charge under the 2007 Computer Crime Act for misinformation. The Narathiwat Provincial Prosecutor had also officially indicted her for violating the said law.

    On 3 July, Heemmina submitted a letter of appeal to the Office of the Attorney General in Bangkok, asserting that her Facebook post was made in good faith and merely intended to raise awareness regarding local community concerns. She emphasized that her actions served public interest and were a legitimate and necessary exercise of her right to freedom of expression.

    On 15 July, the Narathiwat provincial prosecutor proceeded with filing charges against Heemmina under the Computer Crimes Act of 2007.

     

    Judicial harassment

    Judicial harassment happens when  state authorities repeatedly use civil, criminal, or administrative legal actions to intimidate or silence individuals, including journalists and human rights defenders. Such tactic entangles targets in prolonged legal proceedings, disrupting both their personal and professional lives.

    For expressing political opinions, Heemmina has been facing a series of judicial harassment.

    In 2016, the Internal Security Operations Command—a Thai military agency tasked with national security—filed defamation charges against Heemmina and fellow human rights defenders from Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), Pornpen Khongkachonkie and Somchai Homlaor. Following sustained pressure from civil society and international supporters, the military dropped the charges in 2017.

    The three defenders were prosecuted for creating and publishing a human rights report titled “Torture and Ill-treatment in the Deep South Documented in 2014–2015,” which was co-edited and released by CrCF, DuayJai Group, and the Patani Human Rights Organization Network in 2016. They believe that the charges were made in retaliation for their efforts to document and expose human rights violations by security forces in Thailand’s Deep South.

    In 2019, Heemmina became the target of a coordinated online smear campaign using fake social media accounts. Despite initial inaction, Facebook and Twitter removed the accounts in March 2020. Facebook later confirmed that the accounts were linked to the Thai military.

     

    Call to action 

    FORUM-ASIA and Front Line Defenders call on Thai authorities to stop weaponizing laws to suppress freedom of expression. Likewise, we urge the government to cease all forms of judicial harassment against human rights defenders like Heemmina.

    As a current member of the Human Rights Council, Thailand must show its utmost commitment to promote and protect human rights, including that of human rights defenders like Heemmina.

    Heemmina’s situation adds to the long list of strategic lawsuits against public participation involving women human rights defenders.

    Criminalizing free speech and human rights advocacy undermines democratic principles and threatens the protection of fundamental freedoms in Thailand.

     

    **

     

    The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a network of 90 member organisations across 23 countries, mainly in Asia. Founded in 1991, FORUM-ASIA works to strengthen movements for human rights and sustainable development through research, advocacy, capacity development and solidarity actions in Asia and beyond. It has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and consultative relationship with the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. The FORUM-ASIA Secretariat is based in Bangkok, with offices in Jakarta, Geneva and Kathmandu. www.forum-asia.org

     

    Front Line Defenders was founded in Dublin in 2001 with the specific aim of protecting human rights defenders at risk (HRDs), people who work, non-violently, for any or all of the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Front Line Defenders addresses the protection needs identified by HRDs themselves. Front Line Defenders maintains its headquarters in Dublin, an EU Office in Brussels, and regionally-based field staff in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe & Central Asia, and the Middle East. www.frontlinedefenders.org

    For media inquiries, please contact:

     

    The post  [Statement] THAILAND: Stop the judicial harassment against Anchana Heemmina, defend freedom of expression first appeared on FORUM-ASIA.

    This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

  • ICJ climate crisis ruling: Will world’s top court back Pacific-led call to hold governments accountable?

    By Jamie Tahana in The Hague for RNZ Pacific

    In 2019, a group of law students at the University of the South Pacific, frustrated at the slow pace with which the world’s governments were moving to address the climate crisis, had an idea — they would take the world’s governments to court.

    They arranged a meeting with government ministers in Vanuatu and convinced them to take a case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ top court, where they would seek an opinion to clarify countries’ legal obligations under international law.

    Six years after that idea was hatched in a classroom in Port Vila, the court will today (early Thursday morning NZT) deliver its verdict in the Dutch city of The Hague.

    The International Court of Justice hearings which began earlier this month.
    More than 100 countries – including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific – have testified before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations. Image: UN Web TV/screengrab

    If successful — and those involved are quietly confident they will be — it could have major ramifications for international law, how climate change disputes are litigated, and it could give small Pacific countries greater leverage in arguments around loss and damage.

    Most significantly, the claimants argue, it could establish legal consequences for countries that have driven climate change and what they owe to people harmed.

    “Six long years of campaigning have led us to this moment,” said Vishal Prasad, the president of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, the organisation formed out of those original students.

    “For too long, international responses have fallen short. We expect a clear and authoritative declaration,” he said.

    “[That] climate inaction is not just a failure of policy, but a breach of international law.”

    More than 100 countries — including New Zealand, Australia and all the countries of the Pacific — have testified before the court, alongside civil society and intergovernmental organisations.

    And now today they will gather in the brick palace that sits in ornate gardens in this canal-ringed city to hear if the judges of the world’s top court agree.

    What is the case?
    The ICJ adjudicates disputes between nations and issues advisory opinions on big international legal issues.

    In this case, Vanuatu asked the UN General Assembly to request the judges to weigh what exactly international law requires states to do about climate change, and what the consequences should be for states that harm the climate through actions or omissions.

    Over its deliberations, the court has heard from more than 100 countries and international organisations hoping to influence its opinion, the highest level of participation in the court’s history.

    That has included the governments of low-lying islands and atolls in the Pacific, which say they are paying the steepest price for a crisis they had little role in creating.

    These nations have long been frustrated with the current mechanisms for addressing climate change, like the UN COP conferences, and are hoping that, ultimately, the court will provide a yardstick by which to measure other countries’ actions.

    Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu speaks at the annual meeting of the International Seabed Authority assembly in Kingston, Jamaica, pictured on July 29, 2024.
    Vanuatu’s Minister of Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu . . . “This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity.” Image: IISD-ENB

    “I choose my words carefully when I say that this may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,” Vanuatu’s Minister for Climate Change Ralph Regenvanu said in his statement to the court last year.

    “Let us not allow future generations to look back and wonder why the cause of their doom was condoned.”

    But major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, have argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, are sufficient to address climate change.

    “We expect this landmark climate ruling, grounded in binding international law, to reflect the critical legal flashpoints raised during the proceedings,” said Joie Chowdhury, a senior attorney at the US-based Centre for International Environmental Law (which has been involved with the case).

    “Among them: whether States’ climate obligations are anchored in multiple legal sources, extending far beyond the Paris Agreement; whether there is a right to remedy for climate harm; and how human rights and the precautionary principle define States’ climate obligations.”

    Pacific youth climate activist at a demonstration at COP27. 13 November 2022
    Pacific youth climate activist at a demonstration at COP27 in November 2022 . . . “We are not drowning. We are fighting.” Image: Facebook/Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change

    What could this mean?
    Rulings from the ICJ are non-binding, and there are myriad cases of international law being flouted by countries the world over.

    Still, the court’s opinion — if it falls in Vanuatu’s favour — could still have major ramifications, bolstering the case for linking human rights and climate change in legal proceedings — both international and domestic — and potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation, where individuals, groups, Indigenous Peoples, and even countries, sue governments or private companies for climate harm.

    An advisory opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries a powerful cudgel in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

    “This would empower vulnerable nations and communities to demand accountability, strengthen legal arguments and negotiations and litigation and push for policies that prioritise prevention and redress over delay and denial,” Prasad said.

    In essence, those who have taken the case have asked the court to issue an opinion on whether governments have “legal obligations” to protect people from climate hazards, but also whether a failure to meet those obligations could bring “legal consequences”.

    At the Peace Palace today, they will find out from the court’s 15 judges.

    “[The advisory opinion] is not just a legal milestone, it is a defining moment in the global climate justice movement and a beacon of hope for present and future generations,” said Vanuatu Prime Minister Jotham Napat in a statement ahead of the decision.

    “I am hopeful for a powerful opinion from the ICJ. It could set the world on a meaningful path to accountability and action.”

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Gaza – an open question for NZ’s foreign minister Winston Peters

    OPEN QUESTION: By Bryan Bruce

    Dear Rt Hon Winston Peters,

    There was a time when New Zealanders stood up for what was morally right. There are memorials around our country for those who died fighting fascism, we wrote parts of the UN Charter of Human Rights, we took an anti-nuclear stance in 1984, and three years prior to that, many of us stood against apartheid in South Africa by boycotting South African products and actively protesting against the 1981 Springbok Rugby Tour.

    To call out the Israeli government for genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not to be antisemitic. Nor is it to be pro- Hamas. It is to simply to be pro-human.

    While acknowledging the peace and humanitarian initiatives on the Foreign Affairs website, I note there is no calling out of the genocide and ethnic cleansing that cannot be denied is happening in Gaza.

    The Israeli government is systematically demolishing whole towns and cities — including churches, mosques, even removing trees and vegetation — to deprive the Palestinian people the opportunity to return to their homeland; and there have been constant blocks to humanitarian aid as part of a policy forced starvation.

    There is no doubt crimes against international law have been committed, which is why the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defence minister, for alleged crimes against humanity.

    So, my question to you is: why are you not pictured standing in this photograph (below) alongside the representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá?

    The nations that took part in the Gaza emergency summit in were:

    Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Colombia, South Africa, Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay and Venezuela.

    representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá
    Representatives from 33 nations at the July 16 2025 Gaza emergency conference in Bogotá. Image: bryanbruce.substack.com

    Is your policy simply to fall in behind the USA denying there is genocide and ethnic cleansing happening in Gaza?

    If not, are you prepared to endorse the six coordinated diplomatic, legal and economic measures already signed up to by 12 of the participating countries in the Bogetà summit, to restrain Israel’s assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories and defend international law at large?

    Remaining countries, which could still include New Zealand, have a deadline of September 20, to coincide with the 80th UN General Assembly, for additional states to join them.

    The 6 agreed measures are:
    Prevent the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel.

    Prevent the transit, docking, and servicing of vessels at any port
     in all cases where there is a clear risk of the vessel being used to carry arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel

    Prevent the carriage of arms, munitions, military fuel, related military equipment, and dual-use items to Israel on vessels bearing our flag . . .  and ensure full accountability, including de-flagging, for non-compliance with this prohibition.

    Commence an urgent review of all public contracts, to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory and entrenching its unlawful presence.

    Comply with obligations to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law, through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes.

    Support universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in national legal frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for victims of international crimes committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

    In addition, are you prepared to specifically support the enforcement of the International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued last year for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defence minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza including murder and forced starvation, in a war that has left more than 211,000 Palestinians, including many children, dead, maimed, or missing since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry? (That’s a figure that is approximately the entire population of Hamiton and Rotorua).

    What then is the NZ government’s policy? Are we going to support International Law and call out the Israeli government’s acts of genocide in Gaza, or not?

    Yours sincerely,

    Bryan Bruce
    Investigative documentary maker, journalist and podcaster.
    Auckland.

    Bryan Bruce is a New Zealand investigative journalist and documentary maker. Republished from Bruce’s substack page.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Veteran Bougainville politician wants new approach to independence and development

    By Don Wiseman, RNZ Pacific senior journalist

    A longtime Bougainville politician, Joe Lera, wants to see widespread changes in the way the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG) is run.

    The Papua New Guinea region, which is seeking independence from Port Moresby, is holding elections in the first week of September.

    Seven candidates are running for president, including Lera.

    He held the regional seat in the PNG national Parliament for 10 years before resigning to contest the presidency in the 2020 election.

    This time around, Lera is campaigning on what he sees as faults in the approach of the Ishmael Toroama administration and told RNZ Pacific he is offering a different tack.

    JOE LERA: This time, people have seen that the current government is the most corrupt. They have addressed only one side of independence, which is the political side, the other two sides, They have not done it very well.

    DON WISEMAN: What do we mean by that? We can’t bandy around words like corruption. What do you mean by corruption?

    JL: What they have done is huge. They are putting public funds into personal members’ accounts, like the constituency grant – 360,000 kina a year.

    DW: As someone who has operated in the national parliament, you know that that is done there as well. So it’s not corrupt necessarily, is it?

    JL:Well, when they go into their personal account, they use it for their own family goods, and that development, it should be development funds. The people are not seeing the tangible outcomes in the number two side, which is the development side.

    All the roads are bad. The hospitals are now running out of drugs. Doctors are checking the patients, sending them to pharmaceutical shops to buy the medicine, because the hospitals have run out.

    DW: These are problems that are affecting the entire country, aren’t they, and there’s a shortage of money. So how would you solve it? What would you do differently?

    JL: We will try to make big changes in addressing sustainable development, in agriculture, fishing, forestry, so we can create jobs for the small people.

    Instead of talking about big, billion dollar mining projects, which will take a long time, we should start with what we already have, and develop and create opportunities for the people to be engaged in nation building through sustainable development first, then we progress into the higher billion dollar projects.

    Now we are going talking about mining when the people don’t have opportunity and they are getting poorer and poorer. That’s one area, the other area, to create change we will try to fix the government structure, from ABG to community governments to village assemblies, down to the chiefs.

    At the moment, the policies they have have fragmented the conduit of getting the services from the top government down to to the village people.

    DW: In the past, you’ve spoken out against the push for independence, suggesting I think, that Bougainville is not ready yet, and it should take its time. Where do you stand at the moment on the independence question?

    JL: The independence question? We are all for it. I’m not against it, but I’m against the process. How they are going about it. I think the answer has been already given in the Bougainville Peace Agreement, which is a joint creation between the PNG and ABG government, and the process is very clear.

    Now, what the current government is doing is they are going outside of the Peace Agreement, and they are trying to shortcut based on the [referendum] result.

    But the Peace Agreement doe not say independence will be given to us based on the result. What it says is, after we know the result, the two governments must continue to dialogue, consult each other and find ways of how to improve the economy, the law and order issues, the development issues.

    When we fix those, the nation building pillars, we can then apply for the ratification to take place.

    DW: So you’re talking about something that would be quite a way further down the line than what this current government is talking about?

    JL: The issue is timing. They are putting deadlines themselves, and they are trying to push the PNG government to swallow it. The PNG government is a sovereign nation already.

    We should respect and honestly, in a family room situation, negotiate, talk with them, as the Peace Agreement says, and reach understanding on the timing and other related issues, but not to even take a confrontational approach, which is what they are doing now, but take a family room approach, where we sit and negotiate in the spirit of the Peace Agreement.

    This transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity. Don Wiseman is a senior journalist with RNZ Pacific. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Gaza not a religious issue – it’s a massive violation of international law, say accord critics

    Asia Pacific Report

    Groups that have declined to join the government-sponsored “harmony accord” signed yesterday by some Muslim and Jewish groups, say that the proposed new council is “misaligned” with its aims.

    The signed accord was presented at Government House in Auckland.

    About 70 people attended, including representatives of the New Zealand Jewish Council, His Highness the Aga Khan Council for Australia and New Zealand and the Jewish Community Security Group, reports RNZ News.

    The initiative originated with government recognition that the consequences of Israel’s actions in Gaza are impacting on Jewish and Muslim communities in Aotearoa, as well as the wider community.

    While agreeing with that statement of purpose, other Muslim and Jewish groups have chosen to decline the invitation, said some of the disagreeing groups in a joint statement.

    They believe that the council, as formulated, is misaligned with its aims.

    “Gaza is not a religious issue, and this has never been a conflict between our faiths,” Dr Abdul Monem, a co-founder of ICONZ said.

    ‘Horrifying humanitarian consequences’
    “In Gaza we see a massive violation of international law with horrifying humanitarian consequences.

    “We place Israel’s annihilating campaign against Gaza, the complicity of states and economies at the centre of our understanding — not religion.

    “The first action to address the suffering in Gaza and ameliorate its effects here in Aotearoa must be government action. Our government needs to comply with international courts and act on this humanitarian calamity.

    “That does not require a new council.”

    The impetus for this initiative clearly linked international events with their local impacts, but the document does not mention Gaza among the council’s priorities, said the statement.

    “Signatories are not required to acknowledge universal human rights, nor the courts which have ruled so decisively and created obligations for the New Zealand government. Social distress is disconnected from its immediate cause.”

    The council was open to parties which did not recognise the role of international humanitarian law in Palestine, nor the full human and political rights of their fellow New Zealanders.

    ‘Overlooks humanitarian law’
    Marilyn Garson, co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices said: “It has broad implications to overlook our rights and international humanitarian law.

    “As currently formulated, the council includes no direct Palestinian representation. That’s not good enough.

    “How can there be credible discussion of Aotearoa’s ethnic safety — let alone advocacy for international action — without Palestinians?

    “Law, human rights and the dignity of every person’s life are not opinions. They are human entitlements and global agreements to which Aotearoa has bound itself.

    “No person in Aotearoa should have to enter a room — especially a council created under government auspices — knowing that their fundamental rights will not be upheld. No one should have to begin by asking for that which is theirs.”

    The groups outside this new council said they wished to live in a harmonious society, but for them it was unclear why a new council of Jews and Muslims should represent the path to harmony.

    “Advocacy that comes from faith can be a powerful force. We already work with numerous interfaith community initiatives, some formed at government initiative and waiting to really find their purpose,” said Dr Muhammad Sajjad Naqvi, president of ICONZ.

    Addressing local threats
    “Those existing channels include more of the parties needed to address local threats, including Christian nationalism like that of Destiny Church.

    “Perhaps government should resource those rather than starting something new.”

    The groups who declined to join the council said they had “warm and enduring relationships” with FIANZ and Dayenu, which would take seats at this council table.

    “All of the groups share common goals, but not this path,” the statement said.

    ICONZ is a national umbrella organisation for New Zealand Shia Muslims for a unified voice. It was established by Muslims who have been born in New Zealand or born to migrants who chose New Zealand to be their home.

    Alternative Jewish Voices is a collective of Aotearoa Jews working for Jewish pluralism and anti-racism. It supports the work of Palestinians who seek liberation grounded in law and our equal human rights.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • [Statement] SEANF must strengthen effectiveness, credibility, and collaboration

    BANGKOK, Thailand (22 July 2025) – The Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) and the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) encourage the Southeast Asia National Human Rights Institutions Forum (SEANF) to strengthen its network during its Technical Working Group Meeting in Yogyakarta.

    From 21 to 25 July 2025, SEANF members are attending its second Technical Working Group Meeting this year, as chaired by the National Human Rights Commission of Indonesia. The meeting will review the implementation of decisions from the previous Annual Meeting and prepare for the upcoming Annual Meeting and Conferences.

    Established in 2007, SEANF consists of six national human rights institutions (NHRIs)  members from across the region, including Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, and Myanmar.  SEANF members promote regional cooperation on transnational human rights concerns like migration, statelessness, and governance.

    Five out of the six SEANF members received an “A” status as NHRIs, which is the highest international accreditation from the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). An “A” status means that an NHRI has fully complied with the Paris Principles, the minimum international standards for independent, credible, and effective NHRIs.

    “SEANF continues to play a key role in the region’s human rights landscape. ANNI and FORUM-ASIA urge SEANF members to strengthen their  credibility, independence, and collaboration in line with the ASEAN’s Vision 2045 of fostering responsive, agile, and adaptive institutions,” said Mary Aileen Diez-Bacalso, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA which serves as the Secretariat to ANNI.

     

    Call to action

    Finalize amendments to the Rules of Procedure

    We urge SEANF to finalize pending amendments to its Rules of Procedure, clarifying the definition of NHRIs in full compliance with the Paris Principles. Likewise, other proposed amendments aimed at streamlining SEANF’s decision-making processes must be finalized. Such amendments are crucial to enhancing SEANF’s effectiveness and operational integrity.

    Remove the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission

    We reiterate our strong call for SEANF to remove the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC) from its network, given the Commission’s longstanding complicity in the military junta’s atrocities. GANHRI has already expelled and removed the MNHRC’s accreditation, followed by the Asia Pacific Forum. We urge the SEANF to follow suit. Keeping the MNHRC’s membership risks lending false legitimacy to the Myanmar military junta, thereby undermining SEANF’s credibility as a regional human rights platform.

    Strengthen AICHR and civil society engagement

    We encourage the SEANF to closely engage with civil society and the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).

    On 8 July 2025, civil society organizations constructively engaged with AICHR in Kuala Lumpur, during which ANNI advocated for closer cooperation between AICHR and SEANF. We urged AICHR to disengage from the Myanmar military junta’s representatives—including the MNHRC—at the regional level.

    Malaysia is currently serving as ASEAN Chair, while its Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) will be taking over the SEANF Chairship in 2026. Meanwhile, the Philippines will be assuming the ASEAN Chairship in 2026, with its Commission on Human Rights (CHRP) likely chairing SEANF in 2027. We encourage SUHAKAM and CHRP to closely coordinate with ASEAN to ensure the continuity and consistency of its human rights agenda across different leaderships.

    ANNI and FORUM-ASIA remain committed to upholding human rights and strengthening NRHIs in Asia and beyond. We look forward to continuing our close partnership with the SEANF.

     

    **

     

    Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI)

    The Asian NGOs Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) was established in December 2006. It is a network of Asian non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders working on issues related to National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). ANNI has members that are national organisations from all over Asia. ANNI currently has 33 member organisations from 21 countries or territories. The work of ANNI members focuses on strengthening the work and functioning of Asian NHRIs to better promote and protect human rights as well as to advocate for the improved compliance of Asian NHRIs with international standards, including the Paris Principles and General Observations of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of NHRIs (GANHRI). The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) has served as the Secretariat of ANNI since its establishment in 2006. http://l.forum-asia.org/ANNI

    For the full PDF of this statement, click here

    The post [Statement] SEANF must strengthen effectiveness, credibility, and collaboration first appeared on FORUM-ASIA.

    This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.

  • Gaza: Empty rhetoric from New Zealand and other Western countries

    In a joint statement, more than two dozen Western countries, including New Zealand, have called for an immediate end to the war on Gaza. But the statement is merely empty rhetoric that declines to take any concrete action against Israel, and which Israel will duly ignore. 

    AGAINST THE CURRENT: By Steven Cowan

    The New Zealand government has joined 27 other countries calling for an “immediate end” to the war in Gaza. The joint statement says  “the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths”.

    It goes on to say that the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.

    But many of the countries that have signed this statement stand condemned for actively enabling Israel to pursue its genocidal assault on Gaza. Countries like Britain, Canada and Australia, continue to supply Israel with arms, have continued to trade with Israel, and have turned a blind eye to the atrocities and war crimes Israel continues to commit in Gaza.

    It’s more than ironic that while Western countries like Britain and New Zealand are calling for an end to the war in Gaza, they continue to be hostile toward the anti-war protest movements in their own countries.

    The British government recently classified the protest group Palestine Action as a “terrorist” group.

    In New Zealand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, has denounced pro-Palestine protesters as “left wing fascists” and “communist, fascist and anti-democratic losers”. He has pushed back against the growing demands that the New Zealand government take direct action against Israel, including the cutting of all diplomatic ties.

    The New Zealand government, which contains a number of Zionists within its cabinet, including Act leader David Seymour and co-leader Brooke van Velden, will be more than comfortable with a statement that proposes to do nothing.

    ‘Statement lacks leadership’
    Its call for an end to the war is empty rhetoric, and which Israel will duly ignore — as it has ignored other calls for its genocidal war to end.  As Amnesty International has said, ‘the statement lacks any resolve, leadership, or action to help end the genocide in Gaza.’

    "This is cruelty - this is not a war," says this young girl's placard
    “This is cruelty – this is not a war,” says this young girl’s placard quoting the late Pope Francis in an Auckland march last Saturday . . . this featured in an earlier report. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    New Zealand has declined to join The Hague Group alliance of countries that recently met in Colombia.

    It announced six immediate steps it would be taking against Israel. But since The Hague Group has already been attacked by the United States, it’s never been likely that New Zealand would join it.

    The National-led coalition government has surrendered New Zealand’s independent foreign policy in favour of supporting the interests of a declining American Empire.

    Republished from Steven Cowan’s blog Against The Current with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • NZ and allies condemn ‘inhumane’, ‘horrifying’ killings in Gaza and ‘drip feeding’ of aid

    RNZ News

    New Zealand has joined 24 other countries in calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and criticising what they call the inhumane killing of Palestinians.

    The countries — including Britain, France, Canada and Australia plus the European Union — also condemed the Israeli government’s aid delivery model in Gaza as “dangerous”.

    “We condemn the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food.”

    They said it was “horrifying” that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid, the majority at food distribution sites run by a US- and Israeli-backed foundation.

    “We call on the Israeli government to immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid and to urgently enable the UN and humanitarian NGOs to do their life saving work safely and effectively,” it said.

    Winston Peters
    Foreign Minister Winston Peters . . . “The tipping point was some time ago . . . it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience.” Image: RN/Mark Papalii

    “Proposals to remove the Palestinian population into a ‘humanitarian city’ are completely unacceptable. Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law.”

    The statement said the countries were “prepared to take further action” to support an immediate ceasefire.

    Reuters reported Israel’s foreign ministry said the statement was “disconnected from reality” and it would send the wrong message to Hamas.

    “The statement fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas’s role and responsibility for the situation,” the Israeli statement said.

    Having NZ voice heard
    Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters told RNZ Morning Report, New Zealand had chosen to be part of the statement as a way to have its voice heard on the “dire” humanitarian situation in Gaza.

    “The tipping point was some time ago . . .  it’s gotten to the stage where we’ve just lost our patience . . . ”

    Peters said he wanted to see what the response to the condemnation was.

    “The conflict in the Middle East goes on and on . . .  It’s gone from a situation where it was excusable, due to the October 7 conflict, to inexcusable as innocent people are being swept into it,” he said.

    “I do think there has to be change. It must happen now.”

    The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.

    Israel’s subsequent air and ground war in Gaza has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians — including at least 17,400 children, according to the enclave’s Health Ministry, while displacing almost the entire population of more than 2 million and spreading a hunger crisis.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Sky TV to buy channel Three owner Discovery NZ for $1

    By Anan Zaki, RNZ News business reporter

    Sky TV has agreed to fully acquire TV3 owner Discovery New Zealand for $1.

    Discovery NZ is a part of US media giant Warner Bros Discovery, and operates channel Three and online streaming platform ThreeNow.

    NZX-listed Sky said the deal would be completed on a cash-free, debt-free basis, with completion expected on August 1.

    Sky expected the deal to deliver revenue diversification and uplift of around $95 million a year.

    Sky expected Discovery NZ’s operations to deliver sustainable underlying earnings growth of at least $10 million from the 2028 financial year.

    Sky chief executive Sophie Moloney said it was a compelling opportunity for the company, with net integration costs of about $6.5 million.

    “This is a compelling opportunity for Sky that directly supports our ambition to be Aotearoa New Zealand’s most engaging and essential media company,” she said.

    Confidential advance notice
    Sky said it gave the Commerce Commission confidential advance notice of the transaction, and the commission did not intend to consider the acquisition further.

    Warner Bros Discovery Australia and NZ managing director Michael Brooks said it was a “fantastic outcome” for both companies.

    “The continued challenges faced by the New Zealand media industry are well documented, and over the past 12 months, the Discovery NZ team has worked to deliver a new, more sustainable business model following a significant restructure in 2024,” Brooks said.

    “While this business is not commercially viable as a standalone asset in WBD’s New Zealand portfolio, we see the value Three and ThreeNow can bring to Sky’s existing offering of complementary assets.”

    Sky said on completion, Discovery NZ’s balance sheet would be clear of some long-term obligations, including property leases and content commitments, and would include assets such as the ThreeNow platform.

    Sky said irrespective of the transaction, the company was confident of achieving its 30 cents a share dividend target for 2026.

    ‘Massive change’ for NZ media – ThreeNews to continue
    Founder of The Spinoff and media commentator Duncan Greive said the deal would give Sky more reach and was a “massive change” in New Zealand’s media landscape.

    He noted Sky’s existing free-to-air presence via Sky Open (formerly Prime), but said acquiring Three gave it the second-most popular audience outlet on TV.

    “Because of the inertia of how people use television, Three is just a much more accessible channel and one that’s been around longer,” Greive said.

    “To have basically the second-most popular channel in the country as part of their stable just means they’ve got a lot more ad inventory, much bigger audiences.”

    It also gave Sky another outlet for their content, and would allow it to compete further against TVNZ, both linear and online, Greive said.

    He said there may be a question mark around the long-term future of Three’s news service, which was produced by Stuff.

    No reference to ThreeNews
    Sky made no reference to ThreeNews in its announcement. However, Stuff confirmed ThreeNews would continue for now.

    “Stuff’s delivery of ThreeNews is part of the deal but there are also now lots of new opportunities ahead that we are excited to explore together,” Stuff owner Sinead Boucher said in a statement.

    On the deal itself, Boucher said she was “delighted” to see Three back in New Zealand ownership under Sky.

    “And who doesn’t love a $1 deal!” Boucher said, referring to her own $1 deal to buy Stuff from Australia’s Nine Entertainment in 2020.

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


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Why has a bill to relax NZ foreign investment rules had so little scrutiny?

    ANALYSIS: By Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    While public attention has been focused on the domestic fast-track consenting process for infrastructure and mining, Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour has been pushing through another fast-track process — this time for foreign investment in New Zealand.

    But it has had almost no public scrutiny.

    If the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill becomes law, it could have far-reaching consequences. Public submissions on the bill close tomorrow.

    A product of the ACT-National coalition agreement, the bill commits to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 “to limit ministerial decision making to national security concerns and make such decision making more timely”.

    There are valid concerns that piecemeal reforms to the current act have made it complex and unwieldy. But the new bill is equally convoluted and would significantly reduce effective scrutiny of foreign investments — especially in forestry.

    A three-step test
    Step one of a three-step process set out in the bill gives the regulator — the Overseas Investment Office which sits within Land Information NZ — 15 days to decide whether a proposed investment would be a risk to New Zealand’s “national interest”.

    If they don’t perceive a risk, or that initial assessment is not completed in time, the application is automatically approved.

    Transactions involving fisheries quotas and various land categories, or any other applications the regulator identifies, would require a “national interest” assessment under stage two.

    These would be assessed against a “ministerial letter” that sets out the government’s general policy and preferred approach to conducting the assessment, including any conditions on approvals.

    Other mandatory factors to be considered in the second stage include the act’s new “purpose” to increase economic opportunity through “timely consent” of less sensitive investments. The new test would allow scrutiny of the character and capability of the investor to be omitted altogether.

    If the regulator considers the national interest test is not met, or the transaction is “contrary to the national interest”, the minister of finance then makes a decision based on their assessment of those factors.

    Inadequate regulatory process
    Seymour has blamed the current screening regime for low volumes of foreign investment. But Treasury’s 2024 regulatory impact statement on the proposed changes to international investment screening acknowledges many other factors that influence investor decisions.

    Moreover, the Treasury statement acknowledges public views that foreign investment rules should “manage a wide range of risks” and “that there is inherent non-economic value in retaining domestic ownership of certain assets”.

    Treasury officials also recognised a range of other public concerns, including profits going offshore, loss of jobs, and foreign control of iconic businesses.

    The regulatory impact statement did not cover these factors because it was required to consider only the coalition commitment. The Treasury panel reported “notable limitations” on the bill’s quality assurance process.

    A fuller review was “infeasible” because it could not be completed in the time required, and would be broader than necessary to meet the coalition commitment to amend the act in the prescribed way.

    The requirement to implement the bill in this parliamentary term meant the options officials could consider, even within the scope of the coalition agreement, were further limited.

    Time constraints meant “users and key stakeholders have not been consulted”, according to the Treasury statement. Environmental and other risks would have to be managed through other regulations.

    There is no reference to te Tiriti o Waitangi or mana whenua engagement.

    Forestry ‘slash’ after Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023
    Forestry ‘slash’ after Cyclone Gabrielle in 2023 . . . no need to consider foreign investors’ track records. Image: Getty/The Conversation

    No ‘benefit to NZ’ test
    While the bill largely retains a version of the current screening regime for residential and farm land, it removes existing forestry activities from that definition (but not new forestry on non-forest land). It also removes extraction of water for bottling, or other bulk extraction for human consumption, from special vetting.

    Where sensitive land (such as islands, coastal areas, conservation and wahi tapu land) is not residential or farm land, it would be removed from special screening rules currently applied for land.

    Repeal of the “special forestry test” — which in practice has seen most applications approved, albeit with conditions — means most forestry investments could be fast-tracked.

    There would no longer be a need to consider investors’ track records or apply a “benefit to New Zealand” test. Regulators may or may not be empowered to impose conditions such as replanting or cleaning up slash.

    The official documents don’t explain the rationale for this. But it looks like a win for Regional Development Minister Shane Jones, and was perhaps the price of NZ First’s support.

    It has potentially serious implications for forestry communities affected by climate-related disasters, however. Further weakening scrutiny and investment conditions risks intensifying the already devastating impacts of international forestry companies. Taxpayers and ratepayers pick up the costs while the companies can minimise their taxes and send profits offshore.

    Locked in forever?
    Finally, these changes could be locked in through New Zealand’s free trade agreements. Several such agreements say New Zealand’s investment regime cannot become more restrictive than the 2005 act and its regulations.

    A “ratchet clause” would lock in any further liberalisation through this bill, from which there is no going back.

    However, another annex in those free trade agreements could be interpreted as allowing some flexibility to alter the screening rules and criteria in the future. None of the official documents address this crucial question.

    As an academic expert in this area I am uncertain about the risk.

    But the lack of clarity underlines the problems exemplified in this bill. It is another example of coalition agreements bypassing democratic scrutiny and informed decision making. More public debate and broad analysis is needed on the bill and its implications.The Conversation

    Dr Jane Kelsey is emeritus professor of law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Keep fighting for a nuclear-free Pacific, Helen Clark warns Greenpeace over global storm clouds

    Asia Pacific Report

    Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark warned activists and campaigners in a speech on the deck of the Greenpeace environmental flagship Rainbow Warrior III last night to be wary of global “storm clouds” and the renewed existential threat of nuclear weapons.

    Speaking on her reflections on four decades after the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior on 10 July 1985, she said that New Zealand had a lot to be proud of but the world was now in a “precarious” state.

    Clark praised Greenpeace over its long struggle, challenging the global campaigners to keep up the fight for a nuclear-free Pacific.

    “For New Zealand, having been proudly nuclear-free since the mid-1980s, life has got a lot more complicated for us as well, and I have done a lot of campaigning against New Zealand signing up to any aspect of the AUKUS arrangement because it seems to me that being associated with any agreement that supplies nuclear ship technology to Australia is more or less encouraging the development of nuclear threats in the South Pacific,” she said.

    “While I am not suggesting that Australians are about to put nuclear weapons on them, we know that others do. This is not the Pacific that we want.

    “It is not the Pacific that we fought for going back all those years.

    “So we need to be very concerned about these storm clouds gathering.”

    Lessons for humanity
    Clark was prime minister 1999-2008 and served as a minister in David Lange’s Labour government that passed New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation in 1987 – two years after the Rainbow Warrior bombing by French secret agents.

    She was also head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 2009-2017.

    “When you think 40 years on, humanity might have learned some lessons. But it seems we have to repeat the lessons over and over again, or we will be dragged on the path of re-engagement with those who use nuclear weapons as their ultimate defence,” Clark told the Greenpeace activists, crew and guests.

    “Forty years on, we look back with a lot of pride, actually, at how New Zealand responded to the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. We stood up with the passage of the nuclear-free legislation in 1987, we stood up with a lot of things.

    “All of this is under threat; the international scene now is quite precarious with respect to nuclear weapons. This is an existential threat.”


    Nuclear-free Pacific reflections with Helen Clark         Video: Greenpeace

    In response to Tahitian researcher and advocate Ena Manuireva who spoke earlier about the legacy of a health crisis as a result of 30 years of French nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa, she recalled her own thoughts.

    “It reminds us of why we were so motivated to fight for a nuclear-free Pacific because we remember the history of what happened in French Polynesia, in the Marshall Islands, in the South Australian desert, at Maralinga, to the New Zealand servicemen who were sent up in the navy ships, the Rotoiti and the Pukaki, in the late 1950s, to stand on deck while the British exploded their bombs [at Christmas Island in what is today Kiribati].

    “These poor guys were still seeking compensation when I was PM with the illnesses you [Ena] described in French Polynesia.

    Former NZ prime minister Helen Clark .
    Former NZ prime minister Helen Clark . . . “I remember one of the slogans in the 1970s and 1980s was ‘if it is so safe, test them in France’.” Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Testing ground for ‘others’
    “So the Pacific was a testing ground for ‘others’ far away and I remember one of the slogans in the 1970s and 1980s was ‘if it is so safe, test them in France’. Right? It wasn’t so safe.

    “Mind you, they regarded French Polynesia as France.

    “David Robie asked me to write the foreword to the new edition of his book, Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, and it brought back so many memories of those times because those of you who are my age will remember that the 1980s were the peak of the Cold War.

    “We had the Reagan administration [in the US] that was actively preparing for war. It was a terrifying time. It was before the demise of the Soviet Union. And nuclear testing was just part of that big picture where people were preparing for war.

    “I think that the wonderful development in New Zealand was that people knew enough to know that we didn’t want to be defended by nuclear weapons because that was not mutually assured survival — it was mutually assured destruction.”

    New Zealand took a stand, Clark said, but taking that stand led to the attack on the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour by French state-backed terrorism where tragically Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira lost his life.

    “I remember I was on my way to Nairobi for a conference for women, and I was in Zimbabwe, when the news came through about the bombing of a boat in Auckland harbour.

    ‘Absolutely shocking’
    “It was absolutely shocking, we had never experienced such a thing. I recall when I returned to New Zealand, [Prime Minister] David Lange one morning striding down to the party caucus room and telling us before it went public that it was without question that French spies had planted the bombs and the rest was history.

    “It was a very tense time. Full marks to Greenpeace for keeping up the struggle for so long — long before it was a mainstream issue Greenpeace was out there in the Pacific taking on nuclear testing.

    “Different times from today, but when I wrote the foreword for David’s book I noted that storm clouds were gathering again around nuclear weapons and issues. I suppose that there is so much else going on in a tragic 24 news cycle — catastrophe day in and day out in Gaza, severe technology and lethal weapons in Ukraine killing people, wherever you look there are so many conflicts.

    “The international agreements that we have relied are falling into disrepair. For example, if I were in Europe I would be extremely worried about the demise of the intermediate range missile weapons pact which has now been abandoned by the Americans and the Russians.

    “And that governs the deployment of medium range missiles in Europe.

    “The New Start Treaty, which was a nuclear arms control treaty between what was the Soviet Union and the US expires next year. Will it be renegotiated in the current circumstances? Who knows?”

    With the Non-proliferation Treaty, there are acknowledged nuclear powers who had not signed the treaty — “and those that do make very little effort to live up to the aspiration, which is to negotiate an end to nuclear weapons”.

    Developments with Iran
    “We have seen recently the latest developments with Iran, and for all of Iran’s many sins let us acknowledge that it is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” she said.

    “It did subject itself, for the most part, to the inspections regime. Israel, which bombed it, is not a party to the treaty, and doesn’t accept inspections.

    “There are so many double standards that people have long complained about the Non-Proliferation Treaty where the original five nuclear powers are deemed okay to have them, somehow, whereas there are others who don’t join at all.

    “And then over the Ukraine conflict we have seen worrying threats of the use of nuclear weapons.”

    Clark warned that we the use of artificial intelligence it would not be long before asking it: “How do I make a nuclear weapon?”

    “It’s not so difficult to make a dirty bomb. So we should be extremely worried about all these developments.”

    Then Clark spoke about the “complications” facing New Zealand.

    Mangareva researcher and advocate Ena Manuireva
    Mangareva researcher and advocate Ena Manuireva . . . “My mum died of lung cancer and the doctors said that she was a ‘passive smoker’. My mum had not smoked for the last 65 years.” Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Teariki’s message to De Gaulle
    In his address, Ena Manuireva started off by quoting the late Tahitian parliamentarian John Teariki who had courageously appealed to General Charles De Gaulle in 1966 after France had already tested three nuclear devices:

    “No government has ever had the honesty or the cynical frankness to admit that its nuclear tests might be dangerous. No government has ever hesitated to make other peoples — preferably small, defenceless ones — bear the burden.”

    “May you, Mr President, take back your troops, your bombs, and your planes.

    “Then, later, our leukemia and cancer patients would not be able to accuse you of being the cause of their illness.

    “Then, our future generations would not be able to blame you for the birth of monsters and deformed children.

    “Then, you would give the world an example worthy of France . . .

    “Then, Polynesia, united, would be proud and happy to be French, and, as in the early days of Free France, we would all once again become your best and most loyal friends.”

    ‘Emotional moment’
    Manuireva said that 10 days earlier, he had been on board Rainbow Warrior III for the ceremony to mark the bombing in 1985 that cost the life of Fernando Pereira – “and the lives of a lot of Mā’ohi people”.

    “It was a very emotional moment for me. It reminded me of my mother and father as I am a descendant of those on Mangareva atoll who were contaminated by those nuclear tests.

    “My mum died of lung cancer and the doctors said that she was a ‘passive smoker’. My mum had not smoked for the last 65 years.

    “French nuclear testing started on 2 July 1966 with Aldebaran and lasted 30 years.”

    He spoke about how the military “top brass fled the island” when winds start blowing towards Mangareva. “Food was ready but they didn’t stay”.

    “By the time I was born in December 1967 in Mangareva, France had already exploded 9 atmospheric nuclear tests on Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls, about 400km from Mangareva.”

    France’s most powerful explosion was Canopus with 2.6 megatonnes in August 1968. It was a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb — 150 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

    Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman
    Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman . . . a positive of the campaign future. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    ‘Poisoned gift’
    Manuireva said that by France “gifting us the bomb”, Tahitians had been left “with all the ongoing consequences on the people’s health costs that the Ma’ohi Nui government is paying for”.

    He described how the compensation programme was inadequate, lengthy and complicated.

    Manuireva also spoke about the consequences for the environment. Both Moruroa and Fangataufa were condemned as “no go” zones and islanders had lost their lands forever.

    He also noted that while France had gifted the former headquarters of the Atomic Energy Commission (CEP) as a “form of reconciliation” plans to turn it into a museum were thwarted because the building was “rife with asbestos”.

    “It is a poisonous gift that will cost millions for the local government to fix.”

    Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman spoke of the impact on the Greenpeace organisation of the French secret service bombing of their ship and also introduced the guest speakers and responded to their statements.

    A Q and A session was also held to round off the stimulating evening.

    A question during the open mike session on board the Rainbow Warrior.
    A question during the open mike session on board the Rainbow Warrior. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • PSNA calls on NZ to urgently condemn Israeli weaponisation of starvation

    Asia Pacific Report

    The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on the New Zealand government to immediately condemn Israel’s weaponisation of starvation and demand an end to the siege of Gaza.

    It has also called for a permanent ceasefire and unrestricted humanitarian access to the besieged enclave.

    “All political parties and elected officials must break their silence and act with urgency to prevent further loss of life,” said PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal in a statement.

    The Gaza Health Ministry reports that 18 people have died of hunger in a 24 hour period due to the blockade as aid officials report a catastrophic situation in the enclave.

    “Hospitals and emergency clinics in Gaza are overwhelmed. Unprecedented numbers of Palestinians, children, women, and the elderly, are collapsing from hunger and exhaustion,” said Nazzal.

    “Medical professionals warn that hundreds face imminent death, their bodies unable to survive the severe famine conditions created by Israel’s ongoing siege and deliberate starvation tactics.

    “This is not a natural disaster. This is the result of a man-made blockade, a deliberate policy of collective punishment, and it constitutes a grave violation of international law.”

    This was an urgent last-minute appeal, Nazzal said.

    “The people of Aotearoa must stand up and speak out. Protest. Write. Donate. Mobilise.

    “The media need to stop turning away, to report on the famine and the mass suffering of civilians in Gaza with the urgency and humanity it demands.”

    “As New Zealanders, we have a proud tradition of standing against injustice and apartheid.

    “Now is the time to uphold that legacy — not with words, but with action.

    “Gaza is starving. We cannot delay. We must not look away.”

    "This is cruelty - this is not a war," says this young girl's placard quoting the Pope
    “This is cruelty – this is not a war,” says this young New Zealand girl’s placard in Auckland quoting the late Pope Francis. Image: APR


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

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Pacific leaders demand respectful involvement in memorial for unmarked graves

    By Mary Afemata, of PMN News and RNZ Pacific

    Porirua City Council is set to create a memorial for more than 1800 former patients of the local hospital buried in unmarked graves. But Pacific leaders are asking to be “meaningfully involved” in the process, including incorporating prayer, language, and ceremonial practices.

    More than 50 people gathered at Porirua Cemetery last month after the council’s plans became public, many of whom are descendants of those buried without headstones.

    Cemeteries Manager Daniel Chrisp said it was encouraging to see families engaging with the project.

    LOCAL DEMOCRACY REPORTING

    Chrisp’s team has placed 99 pegs to mark the graves of families who have come forward so far. One attendee told him that it was deeply moving to photograph the site where two relatives were buried.

    “It’s fantastic that we’ve got to this point, having the descendants of those in unmarked graves encouraged to be involved,” he said.

    “These plots represent mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children and other relatives, so it’s important to a lot of people.”

    The Porirua Lunatic Asylum, which later became Porirua Hospital, operated from 1887 until the 1990s. At its peak in the 1960s, it was one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest hospitals, housing more than 2000 patients and staff.

    As part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, the government has established a national fund for headstones for unmarked graves.

    Porirua City Council has applied for $200,000 to install a memorial that will list every known name.

    Some pegs that mark the resting places of former patients buried in unmarked graves.
    Some pegs that mark the resting places of former patients buried in unmarked graves at Porirua Cemetery. Image: Porirua Council/RNZ/LDR

    Criticism over lack of Pacific consultation
    Some Pacific community leaders say they were never consulted, despite Pacific people among the deceased.

    Porirua Cook Islands Association chairperson Teurukura Tia Kekena said this was the first she had heard of the project, and she was concerned Pacific communities had not been included in conversations so far.

    “If there was any unmarked grave and the Porirua City Council is aware of the names, I would have thought they would have contacted the ethnic groups these people belonged to,” she said.

    “From a Cook Islands point of view, we need to acknowledge these people. They need to be fully acknowledged.”

    Kekena learned about the project only after being contacted by a reporter, despite the council’s ongoing efforts to identify names and place markers for families who have come forward.

    The council’s application for funding is part of its response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

    A photograph shows Porirua Hospital in the early 1900s. Photo/Porirua City Council
    A photograph shows Porirua Hospital in the early 1900s. Image: Porirua City Council/LDR

    Kekena said it was important how the council managed the memorial, adding that it mattered deeply for Cook Islands families and the wider Pacific community, especially those with relatives buried at the site.

    Reflect Pacific values
    She believed that a proper memorial should reflect Pacific values, particularly the importance of faith, family, and cultural protocol.

    “It’s huge. It’s connecting us to these people,” she said. “Just thinking about it is getting me emotional.

    “Like I said, the Pākehā way of acknowledging is totally different from our way. When we acknowledge, when we go for an unveiling, it’s about family. It’s about family. It’s about family honouring the person that had passed.

    “And we do it in a way that we have a service at the graveside with the orometua [minister] present. Yeah, unveil the stone by the family, by the immediate family, if there were any here at that time.”

    She also underscored the connection between remembering the deceased and healing intergenerational trauma, particularly given the site’s history with mental health.

    Healing the trauma
    “It helps a lot. It’s a way of healing the trauma. I don’t know how these people came to be buried in an unmarked grave, but to me, it’s like they were just put there and forgotten about.

    “I wouldn’t like to have my family buried in a place and be forgotten.”

    Kekena urged the council to work closely with the Cook Islands community moving forward and said she would bring the matter back to her association to raise awareness and check possible connections between local families and the names identified.

    Yvonne Underhill‑Sem, a Cook Islands community leader and professor of Pacific Studies at the University of Auckland, said the memorial had emotional significance, noting her personal connection to Whenua Tapu as a Porirua native.

    “In terms of our Pacific understandings of ancestry, everybody who passes away is still part of our whānau. The fact that we don’t know who they are is unsettling,” she said.

    “It would be a real relief to the families involved and to the generations that follow to have those graves named.”

    Council reponse
    A Porirua City Council spokesperson said they had been actively sharing the list of names with the public and encouraged all communities — including Pacific groups, genealogists, and local iwi — to help spread the word.

    So far, 99 families have come forward.

    “We would encourage any networks such as Pacific, genealogists and local iwi to share the list around for members of the public to get in touch,” the spokesperson said.

    The list of names is available on the council’s website and includes both a downloadable file and a searchable online tool here.

    Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo say the memorial must reflect Pacific values.
    Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo say the memorial must reflect Pacific values. Image: Porirua Council/RNZ/LDR

    Porirua councillors Izzy Ford and Moze Galo, two of the three Pacific members on the council, said Pacific families must be central to the memorial process. Ford said burial sites carried deep cultural weight for Pacific communities.

    “We know that burial sites are more than just places of rest, they are sacred spaces that hold our stories, our ancestry and dignity — they are our connection to those who came before us.”

    She said public notices and websites were not enough.

    “If we are serious about finding the families of those buried in unmarked graves here in Porirua, we have to go beyond public notices and websites.”

    Funding limited
    Ford said government funding would be limited, and the council must work with trusted Pacific networks to reach families.

    “It means partnering with groups who carry trust in our community . . . Pacific churches, elders, and organisations, communicating in our languages through Pacific radio, social media, community events, churches, and health providers.”

    Galo agreed and said the memorial must reflect Pacific values in both design and feeling.

    “It should feel warm, colourful, spiritual, and welcoming. Include Pacific designs, carvings, and symbols . . .  there should be room for prayer, music, and quiet reflection,” he said.

    “Being seen and heard brings healing, honour, and helps restore our connection to our ancestors. It reminds our families that we belong, that our history matters, and that our voice is valued in this space.”

    Galo said the work must continue beyond the unveiling.

    “Community involvement shouldn’t stop after the memorial is built, we should have a role in how it’s maintained and used in the future.

    “These were real people, with families, love, and lives that mattered. Some were buried without names, without ceremony, and that left a deep pain. Honouring them now is a step toward healing, and a way of saying, you were never forgotten.”

    Members of the public who recognise a family name on the list are encouraged to get in touch by emailing cemeteries@poriruacity.govt.nz.

    LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air. Asia Pacific Report is a partner in the project.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Cook Islanders flock from outer islands for 60th anniversary celebrations

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    The Cook Islands’ outer islands, or Pa Enua, are emptying as people make the pilgrimage to Rarotonga for constitution celebrations.

    This year is particularly significant, August 4 marks 60 years of the Cook Islands being in free association with New Zealand.

    Cook Islands Secretary of Culture Emile Kairua said this year’s Te Maeva Nui, which is the name for the annual celebrations, is going to be huge.

    “For the first time in a long time, we are able to bring all our people together for a long-awaited reunion, from discussions with the teams that have already arrived, there’s only handful of people that’s been left on each of our outer islands,” Kairua said.

    “Basically, the outer islands have been emptied out.”

    According to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, more than 900 people are making the trip to Rarotonga from the Pa Enua which are spread across an area similar to the size of Mexico.

    Cook Islands News reports that the government has allocated $4.1 mllion for event transport.

    Biggest calendar event
    Kairua said Te Maeva Nui is the biggest event on the Cook Islands’ calendar.

    “Te Maeva Nui has become an iconic event for the Cook Islands, for the nation, as well as the diaspora.”

    A comparable event was in 2015 when 50 years was marked.

    Kairua said for many people it will be the first time visiting Rarotonga since the start of the covid-19 pandemic.

    “Sixty years looks like it’s going to be a lot bigger than 50 for a number of reasons, because we’ve had that big gap since covid hit. If we liken it to covid it’s like the borders being lifted, and everyone now has that freedom to come to Raro.”

    Two ships, one from Tonga and the other from Tuvalu, are tasked with transporting people from the Northern Group islands to Rarotonga.

    While, Air Rarotonga has the job of moving people from the Southern Group.

    Tourist season peak
    The airline’s general manager Sarah Moreland said Te Maeva Nui comes during the peak of the tourism season, making July a very busy month.

    “We’ve got about 73 people from Mauke, 76 passengers from Mangaia, 88 from Aitutaki, 77 from Atiu and even 50 coming from the small island of Mitiaro, Nukuroa,” Moreland said.

    She said transporting people for Te Maeva Nui is a highlight for staff.

    “They love it, I think it’s so cool that we get to bring the Pa Enua from the islands, they just come to Rarotonga, they bring a whole different vibe. They’re so energetic, they’re ready for the competition, it just adds to the buzz of the whole Te Maeva Nui, it’s actually awesome.”

    The executive officer of Atiu Taoro Brown said two months of preparation had gone into the performances which represents the growth of the nation over the past 60 years.

    “It’s an exciting time, we come together, we’re meeting all our cousins and all our families from all the other islands, our sister islands, it’s a special moment.”

    Brown said this year the island had given performance slots to people from Atiu living in Rarotonga, Australia and New Zealand.

    “We wanted everybody from around the region to participate in celebrations.”

    Friendly competition
    Food is another big part of the event, an area Brown said there’s a bit of friendly competition in between islands.

    Pigs, taro, and “organic chicken” had all been sent to Rarotonga from Atiu.

    “Everyone likes to think they’ve got this the best dish but the food I feel, it’s all the same, you know, the island foods, it’s about the time that you put in.”

    For Kairua and his team at the Ministry of Culture, he said they needed to mindful to not allow the event to pass in a blur.

    “Otherwise we end up organising the whole thing and not enjoying it.

    “This is not our first big rodeo, or mine. I was responsible for taking away probably the biggest contingency to Hawai’i for the FestPAC and because we got so busy with organising it and worrying about the minor details, many of us at the management desk forgot to enjoy it, but this time, we are aware.”

    Turbulent relationship
    In the backdrop of celebrations, the Cook Islands and New Zealand’s relationship is in turbulent period.

    Last month, New Zealand paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the nation, citing a lack of consultation over several controversial deals with China.

    Unlike for the 50th celebrations, New Zealand’s prime minister and foreign minister will not attend the celebrations, with the Governor-General representing New Zealand.

    A statement from the Cook Islands Office of the Prime Minister last week said officials from the country have reconfirmed their commitment to restore mutual trust with New Zealand in a meeting on 10 July.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Cook Islanders flock from outer islands for 60th anniversary celebrations

    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    The Cook Islands’ outer islands, or Pa Enua, are emptying as people make the pilgrimage to Rarotonga for constitution celebrations.

    This year is particularly significant, August 4 marks 60 years of the Cook Islands being in free association with New Zealand.

    Cook Islands Secretary of Culture Emile Kairua said this year’s Te Maeva Nui, which is the name for the annual celebrations, is going to be huge.

    “For the first time in a long time, we are able to bring all our people together for a long-awaited reunion, from discussions with the teams that have already arrived, there’s only handful of people that’s been left on each of our outer islands,” Kairua said.

    “Basically, the outer islands have been emptied out.”

    According to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Management, more than 900 people are making the trip to Rarotonga from the Pa Enua which are spread across an area similar to the size of Mexico.

    Cook Islands News reports that the government has allocated $4.1 mllion for event transport.

    Biggest calendar event
    Kairua said Te Maeva Nui is the biggest event on the Cook Islands’ calendar.

    “Te Maeva Nui has become an iconic event for the Cook Islands, for the nation, as well as the diaspora.”

    A comparable event was in 2015 when 50 years was marked.

    Kairua said for many people it will be the first time visiting Rarotonga since the start of the covid-19 pandemic.

    “Sixty years looks like it’s going to be a lot bigger than 50 for a number of reasons, because we’ve had that big gap since covid hit. If we liken it to covid it’s like the borders being lifted, and everyone now has that freedom to come to Raro.”

    Two ships, one from Tonga and the other from Tuvalu, are tasked with transporting people from the Northern Group islands to Rarotonga.

    While, Air Rarotonga has the job of moving people from the Southern Group.

    Tourist season peak
    The airline’s general manager Sarah Moreland said Te Maeva Nui comes during the peak of the tourism season, making July a very busy month.

    “We’ve got about 73 people from Mauke, 76 passengers from Mangaia, 88 from Aitutaki, 77 from Atiu and even 50 coming from the small island of Mitiaro, Nukuroa,” Moreland said.

    She said transporting people for Te Maeva Nui is a highlight for staff.

    “They love it, I think it’s so cool that we get to bring the Pa Enua from the islands, they just come to Rarotonga, they bring a whole different vibe. They’re so energetic, they’re ready for the competition, it just adds to the buzz of the whole Te Maeva Nui, it’s actually awesome.”

    The executive officer of Atiu Taoro Brown said two months of preparation had gone into the performances which represents the growth of the nation over the past 60 years.

    “It’s an exciting time, we come together, we’re meeting all our cousins and all our families from all the other islands, our sister islands, it’s a special moment.”

    Brown said this year the island had given performance slots to people from Atiu living in Rarotonga, Australia and New Zealand.

    “We wanted everybody from around the region to participate in celebrations.”

    Friendly competition
    Food is another big part of the event, an area Brown said there’s a bit of friendly competition in between islands.

    Pigs, taro, and “organic chicken” had all been sent to Rarotonga from Atiu.

    “Everyone likes to think they’ve got this the best dish but the food I feel, it’s all the same, you know, the island foods, it’s about the time that you put in.”

    For Kairua and his team at the Ministry of Culture, he said they needed to mindful to not allow the event to pass in a blur.

    “Otherwise we end up organising the whole thing and not enjoying it.

    “This is not our first big rodeo, or mine. I was responsible for taking away probably the biggest contingency to Hawai’i for the FestPAC and because we got so busy with organising it and worrying about the minor details, many of us at the management desk forgot to enjoy it, but this time, we are aware.”

    Turbulent relationship
    In the backdrop of celebrations, the Cook Islands and New Zealand’s relationship is in turbulent period.

    Last month, New Zealand paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the nation, citing a lack of consultation over several controversial deals with China.

    Unlike for the 50th celebrations, New Zealand’s prime minister and foreign minister will not attend the celebrations, with the Governor-General representing New Zealand.

    A statement from the Cook Islands Office of the Prime Minister last week said officials from the country have reconfirmed their commitment to restore mutual trust with New Zealand in a meeting on 10 July.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Is the international community finally speaking up about Israel’s Gaza genocide?

    Al Jazeera

    International public opinion continues to turn against Israel for its war on Gaza, with more governments slowly beginning to reflect those voices and increase their own condemnation of the country.

    In the last few weeks, Israeli government ministers have been sanctioned by several Western countries, with the United Kingdom, France and Canada issuing a joint statement condemning the “intolerable” level of “human suffering” in Gaza.

    Last week, a number of countries from the Global South — “The Hague Group” — collectively agreed on a number of measures that they say will “restrain Israel’s assault on the Occupied Palestinian Territories”.

    Across the world, and in increasing numbers, the public, politicians and, following an Israeli strike on a Catholic church in Gaza, religious leaders are speaking out against Israel’s killings in Gaza.

    So, are world powers getting any closer to putting enough pressure on Israel for it to stop?

    Here is what we know.

    What is the Hague Group?
    According to its website, the Hague Group is a global bloc of states committed to “coordinated legal and diplomatic measures” in defence of international law and solidarity with the people of Palestine.

    Made up of eight nations; South Africa, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia and Senegal, the group has set itself the mission of upholding international law, and safeguarding the principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations, principally “the responsibility of all nations to uphold the inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, that it enshrines for all peoples”.

    Last week, the Hague Group hosted a meeting of about 30 nations, including China, Spain and Qatar, in the Colombian capital of Bogota. Australia and New Zealand failed to attend in spite of invitations.

    Also attending the meeting was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who characterised the meeting as “the most significant political development in the past 20 months”.

    Albanese was recently sanctioned by the United States for her criticism of its ally, Israel.

    At the end of the two-day meeting, 12 of the countries in attendance agreed to six measures to limit Israel’s actions in Gaza. Included in those measures were blocks on supplying arms to Israel, a ban on ships transporting weapons and a review of public contracts for any possible links to companies benefiting from Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

    Have any other governments taken action?
    More and more.

    Last Wednesday, Slovenia barred far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from entering its territory after the wider European Union failed to agree on measures to address charges of widespread human rights abuses against Israel.

    Slovenia’s ban on the two government ministers builds upon earlier sanctions imposed upon Smotrich and Ben-Gvir in June by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK and Norway over their “incitement to violence”.

    The two men have been among the most vocal Israeli ministers in rejecting any compromise in negotiations with Palestinians, and pushing for the Jewish settlement of Gaza, as well as the increased building of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

    In May, the UK, France, and Canada issued a joint statement describing Israel’s escalation of its campaign against Gaza as “wholly disproportionate” and promising “concrete actions” against Israel if it did not halt its offensive.

    Later that month, the UK followed through on its warning, announcing sanctions on a handful of settler organisations and announcing a “pause” in free trade negotiations with Israel.

    Also in May, Turkiye announced that it would block all trade with Israel until the humanitarian situation in Gaza was resolved.

    South Africa first launched a case for genocide against Israel at the International Court of Justice in late December 2023, and has since been supported by other countries, including Colombia, Chile, Spain, Ireland, and Turkiye.

    In January of 2024, the ICJ issued its provisional ruling, finding what it termed a “plausible” case for genocide and instructing Israel to undertake emergency measures, including the provision of the aid that its government has effectively blocked since March of this year.

    What other criticism of Israel has there been?
    Israel’s bombing on Thursday of the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, killing three people, drew a rare rebuke from Israel’s most stalwart ally, the United States.

    Following what was reported to be an “angry” phone call from US President Trump after the bombing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement expressing its “deep regret” over the attack. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    To date, Israel has killed more than 62,000 people in Gaza, the majority women and children.

    Has the tide turned internationally?
    Mass public protests against Israel’s war on Gaza have continued around the world for the past 21 months.

    And there are clear signs of growing anger over the brutality of the war and the toll it is taking on Palestinians in Gaza.

    In Western Europe, a survey carried out by the polling company YouGov in June found that net favourability towards Israel had reached its lowest ebb since tracking began.

    A similar poll produced by CNN last week found similar results among the American public, with only 23 percent of respondents agreeing Israel’s actions in Gaza were fully justified, down from 50 percent in October 2023.

    Public anger has also found voice at high-profile public events, including music festivals such as Germany’s Fusion Festival, Poland’s Open’er Festival and the UK’s Glastonbury festival, where both artists and their supporters used their platforms to denounce the war on Gaza.

    Has anything changed in Israel?
    Protests against the war remain small but are growing, with organisations, such as Standing Together, bringing together Israeli and Palestinian activists to protest against the war.

    There has also been a growing number of reservists refusing to show up for duty. In April, the Israeli magazine +972 reported that more than 100,000 reservists had refused to show up for duty, with open letters from within the military protesting against the war growing in number since.

    Will it make any difference?
    Netanyahu’s hard-right coalition has been pursuing its war on Gaza despite its domestic and international unpopularity for some time.

    The government’s most recent proposal, that all of Gaza’s population be confined into what it calls a “humanitarian city”, has been likened to a concentration camp and has been taken by many of its critics as evidence that it no longer cares about either international law or global opinion.

    Internationally, despite its recent criticism of Israel for its bombing of Gaza’s one Catholic church, US support for Israel remains resolute. For many in Israel, the continued support of the US, and President Donald Trump in particular, remains the one diplomatic absolute they can rely upon to weather whatever diplomatic storms their actions in Gaza may provoke.

    In addition to that support, which includes diplomatic guarantees through the use of the US veto in the UN Security Council and military support via its extensive arsenal, is the US use of sanctions against Israel’s critics, such as the International Criminal Court, whose members were sanctioned by the US in June over the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on war crimes charges.

    That means, in the short term, Israel ultimately feels protected as long as it has US support. But as it becomes more of an international pariah, economic and diplomatic isolation may become more difficult to handle.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Palestine solidarity rally greeted by Rainbow Warrior Gaza protest

    Asia Pacific Report

    Palestinian supporters and protesters against the 21 months of Israeli genocide in Gaza marched after a rally in downtown Auckland today across the Viaduct to the Greenpeace environmental flagship Rainbow Warrior — and met a display of solidarity.

    Several people on board the campaign ship, which has been holding open days over last weekend and this weekend, held up Palestinian flags and displayed a large banner declaring “Sanction Israel — Stop the genocide”.

    About 300 people were in the vibrant rally and Greenpeace Aotearoa oceans campaigner Juan Parada came out on Halsey Wharf to speak to the protesters in solidarity over Gaza.

    “Greenpeace stands for peace and justice, and environmental justice, not only for the environmental damage, but for the lives of the people,” said Parada, a former media practitioner.

    Global environmental campaigners have stepped up their condemnation of the devastation in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories as well as the protests over the genocide, which has so far killed almost 59,000 people, most of them women and children, according to the Gaza Health Department, although some researchers say the actual death toll is far higher.

    Greenpeace campaigner Juan Parada (left) and one of the Palestine rally facilitators, Youssef Sammour, at today's rally
    Greenpeace campaigner Juan Parada (left) and one of the Palestine rally facilitators, Youssef Sammour, at today’s rally as it reached Halsey Wharf. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Gaza war emissions condemned
    New research recently revealed that the carbon footprint of the first 15 months of Israel’s war on Gaza would be greater than the annual planet-warming emissions of 100 individual countries, worsening the global climate emergency on top of the huge civilian death toll.

    The report cited by The Guardian indicated that Israel’s relentless bombardment, blockade and refusal to comply with international court rulings had “underscored the asymmetry of each side’s war machine, as well as almost unconditional military, energy and diplomatic support Israel enjoys from allies, including the US and UK”.

    The Israeli war machine has been primarily blamed.

    The report, titled “War on the Climate: A Multitemporal Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Israel-Gaza Conflict” and published by the Social Science Research Network, is part of a growing movement to hold states and businesses accountable for the climate and environmental costs of war and occupation.

    "This is cruelty - this is not a war", says the young girl's placard on the Viaduct
    “This is cruelty – this is not a war”, says the young girl’s placard on the Viaduct today. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    Greenpeace open letter
    Greenpeace Aotearoa recently came out with strong statements about the genocidal war on Gaza with executive director Russel Norman earlier this month writing an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters, expressing his grave concerns about the “ongoing genocide in Gaza being carried out by Israeli forces” — and the ongoing failure of the New Zealand Government to impose meaningful sanctions on Israel.

    He referred to the mounting death toll of starving Palestinians being deliberately shot at the notorious Israeli-US backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) food distribution sites.

    Norman also cited an Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz report that Israeli soldiers had been ordered to deliberately shoot unarmed Palestinians seeking aid, quoting one Israeli soldier saying: “It’s a killing field.”

    Today’s rally featured many Palestinians wearing thobe costumes in advance of Palestinian Traditional Dress Day on July 25.

    This is a day to showcase and celebrate the rich Palestinian cultural heritage through traditional clothing that is intricately embroidered.

    Traditional thobes are a symbol of Palestinian resilience.

    "Israel-USA - blood on your hands" banner at today's rally in Auckland
    “Israel-USA – blood on your hands” banner at today’s rally in Auckland. Image: Asia Pacific Report

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • ICE deportation action lands Marshallese, Micronesians in Guantánamo ‘terror’ base

    By Giff Johnson, editor, Marshall Islands Journal/RNZ Pacific correspondent

    United States immigration and deportation enforcement continues to ramp up, impacting on Marshallese and Micronesians in new and unprecedented ways.

    The Trump administration’s directive to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest and deport massive numbers of potentially illegal aliens, including those with convictions from decades past, is seeing Marshallese and Micronesians swept up by ICE.

    The latest unprecedented development is Marshallese and Micronesians being removed from the United States to the offshore detention facility at the US Navy base in Guantánamo Bay — a facility set up to jail terrorists suspected of involvement in the 9/11 airplane attacks in the US in 2001.

    Marshall Islands Ambassador to the US Charles Paul this week confirmed a media report that one Marshallese was currently incarcerated at Guantánamo, which is also known as “GTMO”.

    The same report from nationnews.com said 72 detainees from 26 countries had been sent to GTMO last week, including from the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia.

    A statement issued by the US Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE operations, concerning detention of foreigners with criminal records at GTMO said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was using “every tool available to get criminal illegal aliens off our streets and out of our country.”

    But the action was criticised by a Marshallese advocate for citizens from the Compact countries in the US.

    ‘Legal, ethical concerns’
    “As a Compact of Free Association (COFA) advocate and ordinary indigenous citizen of the Marshallese Islands, I strongly condemn the detention of COFA migrants — including citizens from the Republic of the Marshall Islands — at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay,” Benson Gideon said in a social media post this week.

    “This action raises urgent legal, constitutional, and ethical concerns that must be addressed without delay.”

    Since seeing the news about detention of a Marshallese in this US facility used to hold suspected terrorists, Ambassador Paul said he had “been in touch with ICE to repatriate one Marshallese being detained.”

    Paul said he was “awaiting all the documents pertaining to the criminal charges, but we were informed that the individual has several felony and misdemeanor convictions. We are working closely with ICE to expedite this process.”

    Gideon said bluntly the detention of the Marshallese was a breach of Compact treaty obligations.

    “The COFA agreement guarantees fair treatment. Military detention undermines this commitment,” he said.

    Gideon listed the strong Marshallese links with the US — service in high numbers in the US military, hosting of the Kwajalein missile range, US military control of Marshall Islands ocean and air space — as examples of Marshallese contributions to the US.

    ‘Treated as criminals’
    “Despite these sacrifices, our people are being treated as criminals and confined in a facility historically associated with terrorism suspects,” he said.

    “I call on the US Embassy in Majuro to publicly address this injustice and work with federal agencies to ensure COFA Marshallese residents are treated with dignity and fairness.

    “If we are good enough to host your missile ranges, fight in your military, and support your defence strategy, then we are good enough to be protected — not punished. Let justice, transparency, and respect prevail.”

    There were 72 immigration detainees at Guantánamo Bay, 58 of them classified as high-risk and 14 in the low-risk category, reported nationnews.com.

    The report added that the criminal records of the detainees include convictions for homicide; sexual offences, including against children; child pornography; assault with a weapon; kidnapping; drug smuggling; and robbery.

    Civil rights advocates have called the detention of immigration detainees at Guantanamo Bay punitive and unlawful, arguing in an active lawsuit that federal law does not allow the government to hold those awaiting deportation outside of US territory.

    In other US immigration and deportation developments:

    • The delivery last month by US military aircraft of 18 Marshallese deported from the US and escorted by armed ICE agents is another example of the ramped-up deportation focus of the Trump administration. Since the early 2000s more than 300 Marshall Islanders have been deported from the US. Prior to the Trump administration, past deportations were managed by US Marshals escorting deportees individually on commercial flights.
    • According to Marshall Islands authorities, there have not been any deportations since the June 10 military flight to Majuro, suggesting that group deportations may be the way the Trump administration handles further deportations.
    • Individual travellers flying into Honolulu whose passports note place of birth as Kiribati are reportedly now being refused entry. This reportedly happened to a Marshallese passport holder late last month who had previously travel
    • led in and out of the US without issue.

    Most Marshallese passport holders enjoy visa-free travel to the US, though there are different levels of access to the US based on if citizenship was gained through naturalisation or a passport sales programme in the 1980s and 1990s.

    US Ambassador to the Marshall Islands Laura Stone said, however, that “the visa-free travel rules have not changed.”

    She said she could not speak to any individual traveller’s situation without adequate information to evaluate the situation.

    She pointed out that citizenship “acquired through naturalisation, marriage, investment, adoption” have different rules. Stone urged all travellers to examine the rules carefully and determine their eligibility for visa-free travel.

    “If they have a question, we would be happy to answer their enquiry at ConsMajuro@state.gov,” she added.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Systematic bias: how Western media reproduces the Israeli narrative

    COMMENTARY: By Refaat Ibrahim

    “If words shape our consciousness, then the media holds the keys to minds.”

    This sentence is not merely a metaphor, but a reality we live daily in the coverage of the Israeli aggression on Gaza, where the crimes of the occupation are turned into “acts of violence”, the siege targeting civilians into “security measures”, and the legitimate resistance into “terrorist acts”.

    This linguistic distortion is not innocent; it is part of a “systematic mechanism” practised by major Western media outlets, through which they perpetuate a false image of a “conflict between two equal sides”, ignoring the fact that one is an occupier armed with the latest military technology, and the other is a people besieged in their land for decades.

    Here, the ethical question becomes urgent: how does the media shift from conveying truth to becoming a tool for justifying oppression?

    Western media institutions promote a colonial narrative that reproduces the discourse of Israeli superiority, using linguistic and legal mechanisms to justify genocide.

    But the rise of global awareness through social media platforms and documentaries like We Are Not Numbers, produced by youth in Gaza, exposes this bias and brings the Palestinian narrative back to the forefront.

    Selective coverage . . .  when injustice becomes an opinion
    “Terrorism”, “self-defence”, “conflict” . . . are all terms that place the responsibility for violence on Palestinians while presenting Israel as the perpetual victim. This linguistic shift contradicts international law, which considers settlements a war crime (according to Article 8 of the Rome Statute), yet most reports avoid even describing the West Bank as “occupied territory”.

    More dangerously, the issue is reduced to “violent events” without mentioning their contexts: how can the Palestinian people’s resistance be understood without addressing 75 years of displacement and the siege of Gaza since 2007? The media is like someone commenting on the flames without mentioning who ignited them.

    The Western media coverage of the Israeli war on Gaza represents a blatant model of systematic bias that reproduces the Israeli narrative and justifies war crimes through precise linguistic and media mechanisms. Below is a breakdown of the most prominent practices:

    Stripping historical context and portraying Palestinians as aggressor

    Ignoring the occupation: Media outlets like the BBC and The New York Times ignored the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories since 1948 and focused on the 7 October 2023 attack as an isolated event, without linking it to the daily oppression such as home demolitions and arrests in Jerusalem and the West Bank.

    Misleading terms: The war has often been described as a “conflict between Israel and Hamas”, while Gaza is considered the largest open-air prison in the world under Israeli siege since 2007. Example: The Economist described Hamas’s attacks as “bloody”, while Israeli attacks were called “military operations”.

    Dehumanising Palestinians
    Language of abstraction: The BBC used terms like “died” for Palestinians versus “killed” for Israelis, according to a quantitative study by The Intercept, weakening sympathy for Palestinian victims.

    Victim portrayal: While Israeli death reports included names and family ties (like “mother” or “grandmother”), Palestinians were shown as anonymous numbers, as seen in the coverage of Le Monde and Le Figaro.

    Israeli political rhetoric: Media outlets reported statements by Israeli leaders such as dismissed defence minister Yoav Gallant, who described Palestinians as “human animals”, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who called them “children of darkness”, without critically analysing this rhetoric that strips them of their humanity.

    Distorting resistance and linking it to terrorism
    Misleading comparisons: The October 7 attack was compared to “9/11” and described as a “terrorist attack” in The Washington Post and CNN, reinforcing the “war on terror” narrative and justifying Israel’s excessive response.

    Fake news: Papers like The Sun and Daily Mail promoted the story of “beheaded Israeli babies” without evidence, a story even adopted by US president Joe Biden, only to be disproven later by videos showing Hamas’ humane treatment of captives.

    Selective coverage and suppression of the Palestinian narrative
    Silencing journalists: Journalists such as Zahraa Al-Akhras (Global News) and Bassam Bounni (BBC) were dismissed for criticising Israel or supporting Palestine, while others were pressured to adopt the Israeli narrative.

    Defaming Palestinian institutions: The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal claimed the Palestinian death toll figures were “exaggerated”, ignoring UN and human rights organisations’ reports that confirmed their accuracy.

    Manipulating legal and ethical terms
    Denying war crimes: Deutsche Welle stated that Israeli attacks are “not considered war crimes”, despite the destruction of hospitals and the killing of tens of thousands of civilians.

    Legal misinformation: The BBC referred to Israeli settlements in the West Bank as “disputed territories”, despite the UN declaring them illegal.

    Double standards in conflict coverage
    Comparison with Ukraine: Western media linked support for Ukraine and Israel as “victims of aggression”, while ignoring that Israel is an occupying power under international law. Terminology shifted immediately: “invasion”, “war crimes”, “occupation” were used for Ukraine but omitted when speaking of Palestine.

    According to a 2022 study by the Arab Media Monitoring Project, 90 percent of Western reports on Ukraine used language blaming Russia for the violence, compared to only 30 percent in the Palestinian case.

    This contradiction exposes the underlying “racist bias”: how is killing in Europe called “genocide”, while in Gaza it is termed a “complicated conflict”? The answer lies in the statement of journalist Mika Brzezinski: “The only red line in Western media is criticising Israel.”

    False neutrality: Sky News claimed it “could not verify” the Baptist Hospital massacre, despite video documentation, yet quickly adopted the Israeli narrative.

    Consequences: legitimising genocide and marginalising Palestinian rights
    Western media practices have contributed to normalising Israeli violence by portraying it as “legitimate defence”, while resistance is labelled as “terrorism.”

    Deepening Palestinian isolation: By stripping them of the right to narrate, as shown in an academic study by Mike Berry (Cardiff University), which found emotional terms used exclusively to describe Israeli victims.

    Undermining international law: By ignoring reports from organisations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which confirm Israel’s commission of war crimes.

    Violating journalistic ethics . . .  when the journalist becomes the occupation’s lawyer
    Journalistic codes of ethics — such as the charter of the “International Federation of Journalists” — unanimously agree that the media’s primary task is “to expose the facts without fear”. But the reality proves the opposite:

    In 2023, CNN deleted an interview with a Palestinian survivor of the Jenin massacre after pressure from the Israeli lobby (according to an investigation by Middle East Eye).

    The Guardian was forced to edit the headline of an article that described settlements as “apartheid” after threats of legal action.

    This self-censorship turns journalism into a “copier of official statements”, abandoning the principle of “not compromising with ruling powers” emphasised by the “International Journalists’ Network”.

    Toward human-centred journalism
    Fixing this flaw requires dismantling biased language: replacing “conflict” with “military occupation”, and “settlements” with “illegal colonies”.

    Relying on international law: such as mentioning Articles 49 and 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention when discussing the displacement of Palestinians.

    Giving space to victims’ voices: According to an Amnesty report, 80% of guests on Western TV channels discussing the conflict were either Israeli or Western.

    Holding media institutions accountable: through pressure campaigns to enforce their ethical charters (such as obligating the BBC to mention “apartheid” after the HRW report).

    Conclusion
    The war on Gaza has become a stark test of media ethics. While platforms like Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye have helped expose violations, major Western media outlets continue to reproduce a colonial discourse that enables Israel. The greatest challenge today is to break the silence surrounding the crimes of genocide and impose a human narrative that restores the stolen humanity of the victims.

    “Occupation doesn’t just need tanks, it needs media to justify its existence.” These were the words of journalist Gideon Levy after witnessing how his camera turned war crimes into “normal news”.

    If Western media is serious about its claim of neutrality, it must start with a simple step: call things by their names. Words are not lifeless letters, they are ticking bombs that shape the consciousness of generations.

    Refaat Ibrahim is the editor and creator of The Resistant Palestinian Pens website, where you can find all his articles. He is a Palestinian writer living in Gaza, where he studied English language and literature at the Islamic University. He has been passionate about writing since childhood, and is interested in political, social, economic, and cultural matters concerning his homeland, Palestine. This article was first published at Pearls and Irritations social policy journal in Australia.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Palestine Action – terrorists or the real heroes of our time?

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    Nobody has a bad word to say about the French Resistance in the Second World War, right?  Who would criticise a group confronting fascism, right?

    Yet this month the UK group Palestine Action has been proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation by their government for their non-violent direct action against UK-based industries supplying technology to fuel Israel’s destruction of the Palestinian people.

    Are they terrorists or the very best of us in the West?

    Stéphane Hessel, a leading member of the French Resistance, survived time in Nazi concentration camps, including Buchenwald. After the war he was one of the co-authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a pillar of international law to this day.

    The Declaration affirms the inherent dignity and equal rights of all humans. In later years Hessel (d. 2013), who was Jewish, saw the treatment of the Palestinians as an affront to this and repeatedly called Israel out for crimes against humanity.

    Hessel argued people needed to be outraged just as he and his fellow fighters had been during the war.

    In 2010, he said: “Today, my strongest feeling of indignation is over Palestine, both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The starting point of my outrage was the appeal launched by courageous Israelis to the Diaspora: you, our older siblings, come and see where our leaders are taking this country and how they are forgetting the fundamental human values of Judaism.”

    In his book Indignez-vous (Time for Outrage!) he called for a “peaceful insurrection” and pointed to some of the non-violent forms of protests Palestinians had used over the years.

    Supporting Palestine Action
    In Kendal, UK, this fellow wasn’t arrested. In Cardiff, this woman was. Perhaps the “terrorism” isn’t saying you support Palestine Action – it’s saying you oppose genocide?! Image: Private Eye/X/@DefendourJuries

    “The Israeli authorities have described these marches as ‘nonviolent terrorism’. Not bad . . .  One would have to be Israeli to describe nonviolence as terrorism.”

    How wrong Stéphane Hessel was on this point. The British Parliament has just proscribed Palestine Action as “terrorists” despite them having never attacked anyone, never used weapons, but only undertaken destruction of property linked to the arms industry.

    Does Palestine Action really bear resemblance to Al Qaeda or ISIS, or Israel’s Stern Gang or the IDF? Or, like the French Resistance, will they eventually be recognised as heroes of our time? Will Hollywood romanticise them in their usual tardy way in 50 years time?

    In respect to the Palestinians, Hessel was clear that resistance could take many forms: “We must recognise that when a country is occupied by infinitely superior military means, the popular reaction cannot be only nonviolent,” he said.

    In his time, he lived by those words.

    Resistance – a precious band of brothers and sisters
    Here’s a statistic that should make you think.  In the Second World War less than 2 percent of French people played any active role in the Resistance.  Most people just sat back and got on with their lives whether they liked the Germans or didn’t.

    The Jews and others were dealt to, stamped on and shipped out, while most of the French could trundle on unharassed.  The heavy lifting of resistance was done by a small band of brothers and sisters who took it to the enemy.

    History salutes them, as we now salute the Suffragettes, the anti-Apartheid activists, the American civil rights groups and Irish liberation fighters. We’re living through something similar now — and our governments are the bad guys.

    I first learned that shocking fact about the composition of the Resistance from my history teacher at l’Université de Franche-Comté, in France in the 1980s.  He was the distinguished historian Antoine Casanova, a specialist on Napoleon, Corsica and the Resistance.

    Perhaps the low level of resistance is not surprising.  Most of the people who put their bodies on the line in Occupied France during the Second World War were either communists or Jews.  Good on them. Jewish people made up as much as 20 percent of the French Resistance despite numbering only about 1 percent of the population. This massive over-representation can, understandably, be explained as recognition of the existential threat they faced — but many were also passionate communists or socialists, the ideological enemies of the racist, fascist ideology of their occupiers.

    Looking at the Israeli State today, many of those same Jewish Resistance fighters would instantly recognise the racism and fascism that they opposed in the 1940s.  We should remember our leaders tell us we share values with Israel.

    For anyone not in the United Kingdom (where it is illegal to show any support for Palestine Action) I highly recommend the recently released documentary To Kill A War Machine which gives an absolutely riveting account of both the direct action the group has undertaken and the moral and ideological underpinnings of their actions.

    Having seen the documentary I can see why the British Labour government is doing everything in its power to silence and censor them.  They really do expose who the true terrorists are.  Stéphane Hessel would be proud of Palestine Action.

    This week a former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made clear what is going on in Gaza.

    The “humanitarian city” Israel is planning to build on the ruins of Rafah would be, in his words, a concentration camp. Others have described it as a Warsaw-ghetto or a “death camp”.  Olmert says Israel is clearly committing war crimes in both Gaza and the West Bank and that the concentration camp for the Gazan population would mark a further escalation.

    It would go beyond ethnic cleansing and take the Jewish State of Israel shoulder-to-shoulder with other regimes that built such camps.  Israel, we should never forget, is our close ally.

    Millions of people have hit the streets in Western countries.  A majority clearly repudiate what the US and Israel are doing.  But the political leadership of the big Western countries continues to enable the racist, fascist genocidal state of Israel to do its evil work. Lesser powers of the white-dominated broederbond, like Australia and New Zealand, also provide valuable support.

    Until our populations in the West mobilise in sufficient numbers to force change on our increasingly criminal ruling elites, the heavy-lifting done by groups like Palestine Action will remain powerful forms of the resistance.

    I grew up in the Catholic faith.  One of the lines indelibly printed on my consciousness was: “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”  Palestine Action is doing that.  Francesca Albanese is doing that.  Justice for Palestine and Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa are doing this.

    The real question, the burning question each of us must answer is — given there is no middle ground, there is no fence to sit on when it comes to genocide — whose side are you on? And what are you going to do about it?  Vive la Resistance! Vive the defenders of the Palestinian cause!

    Rest in Peace Stéphane Hessel. Le temps passe, le souvenir reste.

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Flying the flags for Palestine – NZ protesters take message to Devonport

    The Devonport Flagstaff

    About 200 people marched in Devonport last Saturday in support of Palestine.

    Pro-Palestine flags and placards were draped on the band rotunda at Windsor Reserve as speakers, including Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick and the people power manager of Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand Margaret Taylor, a Devonport local, encouraged the crowd to continue to fight for peace in the Middle East.

    The Devonport Out For Gaza rally progressed up Victoria Rd to the Victoria Theatre, crossed the road, came down to the ferry terminal, then marched along the waterfront to the New Zealand Navy base.

    Swarbrick said the New Zealand government and New Zealanders could not turn a blind eye to what was happening in Palestine.

    The rally, organised by the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), marked the 92nd consecutive week that a march has been held in Auckland in support of Palestine.

    Republished with permission from The Devonport Flagstaff.

    Call to action . . . Devonport peace activist Ruth Coombes (left) and Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick at the microphone (right). Image: The Devonport Flagstaff
    Call to action . . . Devonport peace activist Ruth Coombes (left) and Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick at the microphone (right). Image: The Devonport Flagstaff

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Police protection for New Caledonian politicians following death threats

    By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    New Caledonian politicians who inked their commitment to a deal with France last weekend will be offered special police protection following threats, especially made on social media networks.

    The group includes almost 20 members of New Caledonia’s parties — both pro-France and pro-independence — who took part in deal-breaking negotiations with the French State that ended on 12 July 2025, and a joint commitment regarding New Caledonia’s political future.

    The endorsed document envisages a roadmap in the coming months to turn New Caledonia into a “state” within the French realm.

    It is what some legal experts have sometimes referred to as “a state within the state”, while others say this was tantamount to pushing the French Constitution to its very limits.

    The document is a commitment by all signatories that they will stick to their respective positions from now on.

    The tense but conclusive negotiations took place behind closed doors in a hotel in the small city of Bougival, near Paris, under talks driven by French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls and a team of high-level French government representatives and advisers.

    It followed Valls’ several unsuccessful attempts earlier this year to reach a consensus between parties who want New Caledonia to remain part of France and others representing the pro-independence movement.

    Concessions from both sides
    But to reach a compromise agreement, both sides have had to make concessions.

    The pro-French parties, for instance, have had to endorse the notion of a State of New Caledonia or that of a double French-New Caledonian nationality.

    Pro-independence parties have had to accept the plan to modify the rules of eligibility to vote at local elections so as to allow more non-native French nationals to join the local electoral roll.

    They also had to postpone or even give up on the hard-line full sovereignty demand for now.

    Over the past five years and after a series of three referendums (held between 2018 and 2021) on self-determination, both camps have increasingly radicalised.

    This resulted in destructive and deadly riots that broke out in May 2024, resulting in 14 deaths, more than 2 billion euros (NZ$3.9 billion) in damage, thousands of jobless and the destruction of hundreds of businesses.

    Over one year later, the atmosphere in New Caledonia remains marked by a sense of tension, fear and uncertainty on both sides of the political chessboard.

    Since the deal was signed and made public, on July 12, and even before flying back to New Caledonia, all parties have been targeted by a wide range of reactions from their militant bases, especially on social media.

    Some of the reactions have included thinly-veiled death threats in response to a perception that, on one side or another, the deal was not up to the militants’ expectations and that the parties’ negotiators are now regarded as “traitors”.

    Since signing the Paris agreement, all parties have also recognised the need to “sell” and “explain” the new agreement to their respective militants.

    Most of the political parties represented during the talks have already announced they will hold meetings in the coming days, in what is described as “an exercise in pedagogy”.

    “In a certain number of countries, when you sign compromises after hundreds of hours of discussions and when it’s not accepted [by your militants], you lose your reputation. In our country . . . you can risk your life,” said moderate pro-France Calédonie Ensemble leader Philippe Gomès told public broadcaster NC La Première on Wednesday.

    Pro-independence FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) chief negotiator Emmanuel Tjibaou was the first to face negative repercussions back in New Caledonia.

    Tjibaou’s fateful precedent
    “To choose this difficult and new path also means we’ll be subject to criticism. We’re going to get insulted, threatened, precisely because we have chosen a different path,” he told a debriefing meeting hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron.

    In 1988, Tjibaou’s father, pro-independence leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou, also signed a historic deal (known as the Matignon-Oudinot accords) with pro-France’s Jacques Lafleur, under the auspices of then Prime Minister Michel Rocard.

    The deal largely contributed to restoring peace in New Caledonia, after a quasi-civil war during the second half of the 1980s.

    The following year, he and his deputy, Yeiwéné Yeiwéné, were both shot dead by Djubelly Wéa, a hard-line member of the pro-independence movement, who believed the signing of the 1988 deal had been a “betrayal” of the indigenous Kanak people’s struggle for sovereignty and independence.

    ‘Nobody has betrayed anybody’
    “Nobody has betrayed anybody, whichever party he belongs to. All of us, on both sides, have defended and remained faithful to their beliefs. We had to work and together find a common ground for the years to come, for Caledonians. Now that’s what we need to explain,” said pro-France Rassemblement-LR leader Virginie Ruffenach.

    In an interview earlier this week, Valls said he was very aware of the local tensions.

    “I’m aware there are risks, even serious ones. And not only political. There are threats on elections, on politicians, on the delegations. What I’m calling for is debate, confrontation of ideas and calm.

    “I’m aware that there are extremists out there, who may want to provoke a civil war . . . a tragedy is always possible.

    “The risk is always there. Since the accord was signed, there have been direct threats on New Caledonian leaders, pro-independence or anti-independence.

    “We’re going to act to prevent this. There cannot be death threats on social networks against pro-independence or anti-independence leaders,” Valls said.

    Over the past few days, special protection French police officers have already been deployed to New Caledonia to take care of politicians who took part in the Bougival talks and wish to be placed under special scrutiny.

    “They will be more protected than (French cabinet) ministers,” French national public broadcaster France Inter reported on Tuesday.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • 12 countries agree to confront Israel collectively over Gaza after Bogotá summit

    ANALYSIS: By Mick Hall

    Collective measures to confront Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people have been agreed by 12 nations after an emergency summit of the Hague Group in Bogotá, Colombia.

    A joint statement today announced the six measures, which it said were geared to holding Israel to account for its crimes in Palestine and would operate within the states’ domestic legal and legislative frameworks.

    Nearly two dozen other nations in attendance at the summit are now pondering whether to sign up to the measures before a September deadline set by the Hague Group.

    New Zealand and Australia stayed away from the summit.

    The measures include preventing the provision or transfer of arms, munitions, military fuel and dual-use items to Israel and preventing the transit, docking or servicing of vessels if there is a risk of vessels carrying such items. No vessel under the flag of the countries would be allowed to carry this equipment.

    The countries would also “commence an urgent review of all public contracts, in order to prevent public institutions and public funds, where applicable, from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territory which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory, to ensure that our nationals, and companies and entities under our jurisdiction, as well as our authorities, do not act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.

    The countries will prosecute “the most serious crimes under international law through robust, impartial and independent investigations and prosecutions at national or international levels, in compliance with our obligation to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes”.

    They agreed to support universal jurisdiction mandates, “as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestine Territory”.

    This will mean IDF soldiers and others accused of war crimes in Palestine would face arrest and could go through domestic judicial processes in these countries, or referrals to the ICC.

    The statement said the measures constituted a collective commitment to defend the foundational principles of international law.

    It also called on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to commission an immediate investigation of the health and nutritional needs of the population of Gaza, devise a plan to meet those needs on a continuing and sustained basis, and report on these matters before the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

    Following repeated total blockades of Gaza since October 7, 2023, Gazans have been dying of starvation as they continue to be bombed and repeatedly displaced and their means of life destroyed.

    The official death toll stands at nearly 59,000, mostly women and children, although some estimates put that number at over 200,000.

    The joint statement recognised Israel as a threat to regional peace and the system of international law and called on all United Nations member states to enforce their obligations under the UN charter.

    It condemned “unilateral attacks and threats against United Nations mandate holders, as well as key institutions of the human rights architecture and international justice” and committed to build “on the legacy of global solidarity movements that have dismantled apartheid and other oppressive systems, setting a model for future co-ordinated responses to international law violations”.

    Countries face wrath of US
    Ministers, high-ranking officials and envoys from 30 nations attended the two-day event, from July 15-16, called to come up with the measures. It is now hoped some of those attendees will sign up to the statement by September.

    For countries like Ireland, which sent a delegation, signing up would have profound implications. The Irish government has been heavily criticised by its own citizens for continuing to allow Shannon Airport as a transit point for military equipment from the United States to be sent to Israel.

    It would also face the prospect of severe reprisals by the US, as would others thinking of adding their names to the collective statement. The US is now expected to consult with nations that attended and warn them of the consequences of signing up.

    The summit had been billed by the UN Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, as “the most significant political development of the last 20 months”.

    Albanese had told attendees that “for too long, international law has been treated as optional — applied selectively to those perceived as weak, ignored by those acting as the powerful”.

    “This double standard has eroded the very foundations of the legal order. That era must end,” she said.

    Co-chaired by Colombia and South Africa, the Hague group was established by nine nations in late January at The Hague in the Netherlands to hold Israel to account for its crimes and push for Palestinian self-determination.

    Colombia last year ended diplomatic relations with Israel, while South Africa in late December 2023 filed an application at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide, which was joined by nearly two dozen countries.

    The ICJ has determined a plausible genocide is taking place and issued orders for Israel to protect Palestinians and take measures to stop genocide taking place, a call ignored by the Zionist state.

    Representatives from the countries arrived in Bogota this week in defiance of the United States, which last week sanctioned Albanese for attempts to have US and Israeli political officials and business leaders prosecuted by the ICC over Gaza.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it an illegitimate “campaign of political and economic warfare”.

    It followed the sanctioning of four ICC judges after arrest warrants were issued in November last year for Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

    Ahead of the Bogota meeting, the US State Department accused The Hague Group of multilateral attempts to “weaponise international law as a tool to advance radical anti-Western agendas” and warned the US would “aggressively defend” its interests.

    Signs of division in the West
    Most of those attending came from nations in the Global South, but not all.

    Founding Hague Group members Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa attended the Summit. Joining them were Algeria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iraq, Republic of Ireland, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

    However, in a sign of increasing division in the West, NATO members Spain, Portugal, Norway, Slovenia and Turkey also attended.

    Inside the summit, former US State Department official Annelle Sheline, who resigned in March over Gaza, defended the right of those attending “to uphold their obligations under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.

    “This is not the weaponisation of international law. This is the application of international law,” she told delegates.

    The US and Israel deny accusations that genocide is taking place in Gaza, while Western media have collectively refused to adjudicate the claims or frame stories around Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the strip, despite ample evidence by the UN and genocide experts.

    Since 7 October 2023, US allies have offered diplomatic cover for Israel by repeating it had “a right to defend itself” and was engaged in a legitimate defensive “war against Hamas”.

    Israel now plans to corral starving Gazans into a concentration camp in the south of the strip, with many analysts expecting the IDF to exterminate anyone found outside its boundaries, while preparing to push those inside across the border into Egypt.

    Asia Pacific and EU allies shun Bogota summit
    Addressing attendees at the summit yesterday, Albanese criticised the EU for its neo-colonialism and support for Israel, criticisms that can be extended to US allies in the Asia Pacific region.

    Independent journalist Abby Martin reported Albanese as saying: “Europe and its institutions are guided more by colonial mindset than principle, acting as vessels to US Empire even as it drags us from war to war, misery to misery.

    “The Hague Group is a new moral centre in world politics. Millions are hoping for leadership that can birth a new global order, rooted in justice, humanity and collective liberation. It’s not just about Palestine. This is about all of us.”

    The Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was asked why Foreign Minister Penny Wong did not take up an invite to attend the Hague Group meeting. In a statement to Mick Hall in Context, a spokesperson said she had been unable to attend, but did not explain why.

    She said Australia was a “resolute defender of international law” and added: “Australia has consistently been part of international calls that all parties must abide by international humanitarian law. Not enough has been done to protect civilians and aid workers.

    “We have called on Israel to respond substantively to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

    “We have also called on Israel to comply with the binding orders of the ICJ, including to enable the unhindered provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale.”

    When asked why New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters had failed to take up the invitation or send any of his officials, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) spokesperson simply refused to comment.

    She said MFAT media advisors would only engage with “recognised news media outlets”.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, as well as a number of his ministers, have been referred to the ICC by domestic legal teams, accused of complicity in the genocide.

    Evidence against Albanese was accepted into the ICC’s wider investigation of crimes in Gaza in October last year, while Luxon’s referral earlier this month is being assessed by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office.

    Delegates told humanity at stake
    Delegates heard several impassioned addresses from speakers on what was at stake during the two-day event in Bogota.

    Palestinian-American trauma surgeon, Dr Thaer Ahmad, told the gathering that Palestinians seeking food were being met with bullets, describing aid distribution facilities set up by the US contractor-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) as “slaughterhouses”. More than 800 starving Gazans have been killed at the GHF aid points so far.

    “People know they could die but cannot sit idly by and watch their families starve,” he said.

    “The bullets fired by GHF mercenaries are just one part of the weaponisation of aid, where Palestinians are ghettoised into areas where somebody in military fatigues decides if you are worthy of food or not.”

    Palestinian diplomat Riyad Mansour had urged the summit attendees to take decisive action to not only save the Palestinian people, but redeem humanity.

    “Instead of outrage at the crimes we know are taking place, we find those who defend, normalise, and even celebrate them,” he said.

    “The core values we believed humanity agreed were universal are shattered, blown to pieces like the tens of thousands of starved, murdered and injured civilians in Palestine.

    “The mind and heart cannot fathom or process the immense pain and horror that has taken hold of the lives of an entire people. We must not fail — not just for Palestine’s sake — but for humanity’s sake.”

    At the beginning of the summit, Colombian Deputy Foreign Minister Mauricio Jaramillo Jassir told summit delegates the Palestinian genocide threatened the entire international system.

    Colombian President Gustavo Petro wrote in The Guardian last week: “We can either stand firm in defence of the legal principles that seek to prevent war and conflict, or watch helplessly as the international system collapses under the weight of unchecked power politics.”

    Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers, as well as Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Syrian counterpart, Asaad Hassan al-Shaibani, met in Brussels at the same time as the Bogota summit, to discuss Middle East co-operation, but also possible options for action against Israel.

    At the EU–Southern Neighbourhood Ministerial Meeting, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas put forward potential actions after Israel was found to have breached the EU economic cooperation deal with the bloc on human rights grounds. As expected, no sanctions, restricted trade or suspension of the co-operation deal were agreed.

    The EU has been one of Israel’s most strident backers in its campaign against Gaza, with EU members Germany and France in particular supplying weapons, as well as political support.

    The UK government has continued to supply arms and operate spy planes over Gaza over the past 21 months, launched from bases in Cyprus, while its military has issued D-Notices to censor media reports that its special forces have been operating inside the occupied territories.

    Mick Hall is an independent Irish-New Zealand journalist, formerly of RNZ and AAP, based in New Zealand since 2009. He writes primarily on politics, corporate power and international affairs. This article is republished from his substack Mick Hall in Context with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Susi Newborn among activists featured in Pacific ‘nuclear free heroes’ video

    Pacific Media Watch

    Greenpeace pioneer and activist Susi Newborn is among the “nuclear free heroes” featured in a video tribute premiered this week in an exhibition dedicated to a nuclear-free Pacific.

    The week-long exhibition at Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’s Ellen Melville Centre, titled “Legends of the Pacific: Stories of a Nuclear-Free Moana 1975-1995,” closes tomorrow afternoon.

    A segment dedicated to the Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement features Newborn making a passionate speech about the legend of the “Warriors of the Rainbow” on the steps of the Auckland Museum in July 2023 just weeks before she died.

    Newborn was an Aotearoa New Zealand author, documentary film-maker, environmental activist and a founding director of Greenpeace UK and co-founder of Greenpeace International.

    She was an executive director of the New Zealand non-for-profit group Women in Film and Television.

    Newborn was also one of the original crew members on the first Rainbow Warrior which was bombed in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 2025.

    The ship’s successor, Rainbow Warrior III, a state-of-the-art environmental campaign ship, has been docked at Halsey Wharf this month for a memorial ceremony to honour the 40th anniversary of the loss of photographer Fernando Pereira and the ship, sabotaged by French secret agents.

    Effective activists
    In a tribute after her death, Greenpeace stalwart Rex Weyler wrote: “Susi Newborn [was] one of the most skilled and effective activists in Greenpeace’s 52-year history.”

    “In 1977, when Susi arrived in Canada for her first Greenpeace action to protect infant harp seal pups in Newfoundland, she was already something of a legend,” Weyler wrote.

    “Journalistic tradition would have me refer to her as ‘Newborn’, a name that rang with significance, but I can only think of her as Susi, the tough, smart activist from London.”

    The half hour video collage, produced and directed by the Whānau Community Centre’s Nik Naidu, is titled Legends of a Nuclear-Free & Independent Pacific (NFIP).


    Legends of a Nuclear-Free and Independent Pacific.     Video: Talanoa TV

    Among other activists featured in the video are NFIP academic Dr Marco de Jong; Presbyterian minister Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua; Professor Vijay Naidu, founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG); Polynesian Panthers founder Will ‘Ilolahia; NFIP advocate Hilda Halkyard-Harawira (Ngāti Hauā, Te Rarawe); community educator and activist Del Abcede; retired media professor, journalist and advocate Dr David Robie; Anglican priest who founded the Peace Squadron, Reverend George Armstrong; and United Liberation Movement for West Papua vice-president Octo Mote, interviewed at the home of peace author and advocate Maire Leadbeater.

    The video sound track is from Herbs’ famous French Letter about nuclear testing in the Pacific.

    “It is so important to record our stories and history — especially for our children and future generations,” said video creator Nik Naidu.

    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.
    Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific . . . an early poster.

    “They need to hear the truth from our “legends” and “leaders”. Those who stood for justice and peace.

    “The freedoms and benefits we all enjoy today are a direct result of the sacrifice and activism of these legends.”

    The video has been one of the highlights of the “Legends” exhibition, created by Heather Devere, Del Abcede and David Robie of the Asia Pacific Media Network; Nik Naidu of the APMN as well as co-founder of the Whānau Community Hub; Antony Phillips and Tharron Bloomfield of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga; and Rachel Mario of the Auckland Rotuman Fellowship Group and Whānau Hub.

    Support has also come from the Ellen Melville Centre (venue and promotion), Padet (for the video series), Pax Christi, Women’s International League for Peace Freedom (WILPF) Aotearoa, and the Quaker Peace Fund.

    The exhibition was opened by Labour MP for Te Atatu and disarmament spokesperson Phil Twyford last Saturday.

    The video collage and the individual video items can be seen on the Talanoa TV channel: https://www.youtube.com/@talanoatv

    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific
    Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific . . . founding president of the Fiji Anti-Nuclear Group (FANG), one of the core groups in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement. Image: APR

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • [Joint Statement] INDONESIA: Amendment of Criminal Procedure Code Must Address Existing Violations and Strengthen the Accountability and Redress Mechanisms for Victims 

    GENEVA, Switzerland (17 July 2025) – The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) and the undersigned organizations call on the government of Indonesia to immediately halt the ongoing legislative process to pass an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (“Code”) until meaningful consultations with civil society, academia, and the broader public are ensured.

    “The initiative to amend the Criminal Procedure Code must undergo a rigorous and inclusive review process, particularly on the specific provisions that have caused or could further jeopardize the people’s rights to due process of law,” said Mary Aileen Diez-Bacalso, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

    We urge the Indonesian government to ensure  inclusive participation of the public in the drafting and decision making process, and to ensure that the revised Code upholds international human rights standards and strengthens mechanisms for accountability and redress.

     

    Development of the Draft Code 

    The initiative to amend the Code has been put on the Parliament’s agenda since 2004. However, meaningful progress has stalled since 2012. In 2025, the revision process has been prioritized, allegedly to align with the  implementation of the 2022 amended Criminal Code, which is  set to take effect in January 2026.

    On 8 July, the Civil Society Coalition for the Criminal Procedure Code Reform (hereafter “the Coalition”)  held a press conference to raise concerns  over the  rushed drafting process, which has excluded meaningful public scrutiny. Although the government claims to have held approximately 50 meetings of public consultations, the Coalition noted that key inputs from civil society were not reflected in the working draft.

    The government’s motives remain unclear, whether this process genuinely aims to address systemic weakness in the current Code or is simply an attempt to expand and consolidate powers without sufficient oversight.

    On the same day, the Ministry of Law formally submitted the List of Inventory of Issues (Daftar Inventarisasi Masalah, DIM) to the House of Representatives’ Commission on Law and Legislation, Human Rights and Security Affairs officially kick-starting the parliamentary discussion to amend the Code. Despite the document containing 1,676 issues, it is yet to be made accessible for the public. The parliament also announced that it concluded discussions on the document just two days later, on 10 July, without public oversight.

    Civil society reports indicate that the amendment is likely to be approved within the next few weeks, raising urgent concerns about its democratic legitimacy.

     

    Substantive and procedural Issues observed 

    The Coalition has identified nine major concerns to the government’s version of the draft namely:

    1. Lack of judicial oversight over the dismissal or inaction on individual complaints.
    2. Inadequate mechanism for victims of procedural violations to seek accountability for coercive measures (e.g. arrests, detention, search, seizure and wiretapping).
    3. Failure to adopt human rights-based approaches to coercive measures.
    4. Restricted access for legal aid providers to evidence and case files during pre-trial proceedings, undermining access to fair trials.
    5. The adoption of special investigative techniques such as entrapments for drug  cases without judicial approval  heightening risk of arbitrary arrest and detention, case fabrication, and manipulation.
    6. Problematic evidentiary standards, with overemphasis on quantity over relevance of evidence.
    7. Improper guidelines on online trials and hearings and lack of mechanism to challenge verdicts affected by technical issues.
    8. Misinterpretation of restorative justice, reducing it to case diversion rather than a  mechanism to restore the victim’s rights.
    9. Lack of clarity on responsible authorities and operational procedures for safeguarding the  rights of victims, witnesses, suspects, defendants and vulnerable groups.

    It remains unknown  whether the latest draft has addressed these concerns, due to its inaccessibility for the public. The current amendment process echoes previous trends of rushed, non-transparent lawmaking, including the passage of the amendments to the National Armed Forces Law and the Omnibus Law on Job Creation.

     

    The people’s resistance to the problematic legislation 

    In response ,the Coalition has released a counter-draft,challenging and resisting the government’s version, which has deviated from the principles of rule of law, human rights, and democracy.

    The counter-draft, developed collectively by numerous civil society organizations, includes  fundamental  protections for witnesses and victims, including those with disabilities, strict judicial supervision on coercive measures, strengthened access to legal aid, a restorative justice framework, , and mechanisms for objection and redress victims of abuse of power by state authorities.

     

    Call to action 

    The undersigned organizations below urge  the Indonesian government to immediately suspend the rushed process of amending the Code. While there is a legitimate need to reform outdated provisions, any revision must prioritize the protection of human rights and strengthen, rather than weaken, due process guarantees.

    We call on the government to ensure full transparency and inclusive participation in the legislative process, including engaging with civil society. The government must also take the  Coalition’s counter-draft into serious consideration to strengthen its own version of the Code.

    Indonesia must  ensure that any amended provisions are in full compliance with its international human rights standards. This includes commitments that Indonesia has undertaken under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) as well as to adhere to recommendations from the United Nations Special Mandate Holders

    “The Criminal Procedure Code is one of the most vital legal instruments, as it directly governs and regulates how state authorities  enforce the law on individuals. As a country that is supposedly guided by the principle of the rule of law, Indonesia must ensure that the revised Code does not infringe human rights, but rather, prioritizes it.” Said Mary Aileen Diez Bacalso, Executive Director of FORUM-ASIA.

     

    Signatories: 

    1. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
    2. Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI)
    3. Alliance of Independent Journalists  (AJI)
    4. Human Rights Working Group (HRWG)
    5. Indonesia Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI)
    6. The Commission on the Disappeared and Victim of Violence (KontraS)
    7. The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM)
    8. The Indonesian Human Rights Monitor (IMPARSIAL)

    ‘

    For the full PDF of this statement, click here

    The post [Joint Statement] INDONESIA: Amendment of Criminal Procedure Code Must Address Existing Violations and Strengthen the Accountability and Redress Mechanisms for Victims  first appeared on FORUM-ASIA.

    This post was originally published on FORUM-ASIA.