Thirty two years ago, I and some other good friends of Martin Ennals decided to create an award in the name of this human rights pioneer [see: https://youtu.be/tAhUi2gOHmU?si=6RxI5TduzLfLeJym]. I am very proud and happy that in two weeks time I wil be in Geneva to participate in the 30th edition of the award ceremony. I very much hope that many others wil be able to join, in person or via the live-stream.
The Award was given out for the first time in 1994 to recognize, promote and protect human rights defenders at risk or from under-reported contexts. It culminates every year in a public ceremony in Geneva, co-hosted with the City of Geneva. Over the years, the Award has offered defenders a platform to issues that are of global concern and the connections to steer the movement for human rights and larger freedoms.
The Jury has recognized 53 defenders in the past 30 years, from 37 countries and from all walks of life: lawyers, journalists, academics, medical practitioners, religious practitioners, housewives, students and grassroots activists. Their voices have illustrated some of the most important human rights demands of the past decades: free and fair justice for violations committed by security forces; access to information and freedom of expression to denounce repressive practices and authorities; the fight against gender discrimination and the importance of women’s full and equal participation in society; the essential role of civil society in conflict and post conflict resolution; the role of businesses in exploiting natural resources against the rights to land of indigenous people; or the role of global powers in the violations of the right to life of migrants.
The 2024 Martin Ennals Award continues the legacy and will honour two outstanding human rights defenders who have made it their life mission to protect human rights in their communities and countries despite evolving in deeply repressive environments.
A public discussion with Jury members later in the evening of ceremony will also be the opportunity to showcase the issues that will shape the future of the Award.
Get to know the 2024 Laureates by joining our traditional Award ceremony on Thursday 21 November at 18:30 CET, in Salle communale de Plainpalais, Rue de Carouge 52, Geneva.
The ceremony, co-hosted together with the City of Geneva, is the opportunity to learn about the two 2024 Laureates: who they are, their aspirations and what they have been doing to bring human rights at the forefront. Their inspiring stories illustrate key human rights struggles that the world needs to hear, for peace, dignity and equality of all. The Award ceremony will be followed by a cocktail offered by the City of Geneva.
You cannot join in person? We got you! The ceremony and the debate will be livestreamed on our media platforms.
JURY INSIGHTS
A public discussion on current global issues
Festivities will continue on Thursday 21 November with a late-night discussion to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Martin Ennals Award. Since 1994, it is the careful deliberations of the Jury that have led to the recognition of some of the most outstanding human rights defenders and organisations. The Foundation is pleased to offer a special opportunity to listen in the inner thoughts of leading organisations on the state of human rights in the world and how to reclaim them.
The one-hour discussion will start at 21:15 CET in Salle communale de Plainpalais, after the cocktail, and will be the occasion for a young human rights defender to ask everyone’s most burning questions!
Just one day after President Prabowo Subianto’s inauguration, a minister announced plans to resume the transmigration programme in eastern Indonesia, particularly in Papua, saying it was needed for enhancing unity and providing locals with welfare.
Transmigration is the process of moving people from densely populated regions to less densely populated ones in Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s most populous country with 285 million people.
The ministry intends to revitalise 10 zones in Papua, potentially using local relocation rather than bringing in outsiders.
The programme will resume after it was officially paused in Papua 23 years ago.
“We want Papua to be fully united as part of Indonesia in terms of welfare, national unity and beyond,” Muhammad Iftitah Sulaiman Suryanagara, the Minister of Transmigration, said during a handover ceremony on October 21.
Iftitah promised strict evaluations focusing on community welfare rather than on relocation numbers. Despite the minister’s promises, the plan drew an outcry from indigenous Papuans who cited social and economic concerns.
Papua, a remote and resource-rich region, has long been a flashpoint for conflict, with its people enduring decades of military abuse and human rights violations under Indonesian rule.
Human rights abuses
Prabowo, a former army general, was accused of human rights abuses in his military career, including in East Timor (Timor-Leste) during a pro-independence insurgency against Jakarta rule.
Simon Balagaize, a young Papuan leader from Merauke, highlighted the negative impacts of transmigration efforts in Papua under dictator Suharto’s New Order during the 1960s.
“Customary land was taken, forests were cut down, and the indigenous Malind people now speak Javanese better than their native language,” he told BenarNews.
The Papuan Church Council stressed that locals desperately needed services, but could do without more transmigration.
“Papuans need education, health services and welfare – not transmigration that only further marginalises landowners,” Reverend Dorman Wandikbo, a member of the council, told BenarNews.
Transmigration into Papua has sparked protests over concerns about reduced job opportunities for indigenous people, along with broader political and economic impacts.
Apei Tarami, who joined a recent demonstration in South Sorong, Southwest Papua province, warned of consequences, stating that “this policy affects both political and economic aspects of Papua.”
We firmly reject Indonesia’s new transmigration policy to relocate Indonesians to West Papua, along with the world’s biggest deforestation project in Merauke, as it threatens the survival of West Papuans.
— Free West Papua Campaign (Nederland) (@FreeWestPapuaNL) November 4, 2024
Human rights ignored
Meanwhile, human rights advocate Theo Hasegem criticised the government’s plans, arguing that human rights issues are ignored and non-Papuans could be endangered because pro-independence groups often target newcomers.
“Do the president and vice-president guarantee the safety of those relocated from Java,” Hasegem told BenarNews.
The programme, which dates to 1905, has continued through various administrations under the guise of promoting development and unity.
Indonesia’s policy resumed post-independence on December 12, 1950, under President Sukarno, who sought to foster prosperity and equitable development.
It also aimed to promote social unity by relocating citizens across regions.
Transmigration involving 78,000 families occurred in Papua from 1964 to 1999, according to statistics from the Papua provincial government. That would equal between 312,000 and 390,000 people settling in Papua from other parts of the country, assuming the average Indonesian family has 4 to 5 people.
The programme paused in 2001 after a Special Autonomy Law required regional regulations to be followed.
Students hold a rally at Abepura Circle in Jayapura, the capital of Indonesia’s Papua Province, yesterday to protest against Indonesia’s plan to resume a transmigration programme, Image: Victor Mambor/BenarNews
Legality questioned
Papuan legislator John N.R. Gobay questioned the role of Papua’s six new autonomous regional governments in the transmigration process. He cited Article 61 of the law, which mandates that transmigration proceed only with gubernatorial consent and regulatory backing.
Without these clear regional regulations, he warned, transmigration lacks a strong legal foundation and could conflict with special autonomy rules.
He also pointed to a 2008 Papuan regulation stating that transmigration should proceed only after the Indigenous Papuan population reaches 20 million. In 2023, the population across six provinces of Papua was about 6.25 million, according to Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS).
Gobay suggested prioritising local transmigration to better support indigenous development in their own region.
‘Entrenched inequality’ British MP Alex Sobel, chair of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua, expressed concern over the programme, noting its role in drastic demographic shifts and structural discrimination in education, land rights and employment.
“Transmigration has entrenched inequality rather than promoting prosperity,” Sobel told BenarNews, adding that it had contributed to Papua remaining Indonesia’s poorest regions.
Pramono Suharjono, who transmigrated to Papua, Indonesia, in 1986, harvests oranges on his land in Arso II in Keerom regency last week. Image: Victor Mambor/BenarNews]
Pramono Suharjono, a resident of Arso II in Keerom, Papua, welcomed the idea of restarting the programme, viewing it as positive for the region’s growth.
“This supports national development, not colonisation,” he told BenarNews.
A former transmigrant who has served as a local representative, Pramono said transmigration had increased local knowledge in agriculture, craftsmanship and trade.
However, research has shown that longstanding social issues, including tensions from cultural differences, have marginalised indigenous Papuans and fostered resentment toward non-locals, said La Pona, a lecturer at Cenderawasih University.
Papua also faces a humanitarian crisis because of conflicts between Indonesian forces and pro-independence groups. United Nations data shows between 60,000 and 100,000 Papuans were displaced between and 2022.
As of September 2024, human rights advocates estimate 79,000 Papuans remain displaced even as Indonesia denies UN officials access to the region.
Pizaro Gozali Idrus in Jakarta contributed to this report. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.
Amnesty International has called on authorities in Iran to ‘immediately and unconditionally’ release a female student who was arrested after stripping to her underwear in what the human rights group described as a public protest against harassment relating to the country’s strict dress code. The incident took place after the woman, who has not been identified, reportedly had a confrontation with members of the Basij paramilitary force who ripped her headscarf and tore at her clothes inside Tehran’s Islamic Azad University. Local reports alleged that she was beaten during the arrest
The national chair of one of New Zealand’s leading pro-Palestine advocacy groups has condemned New Zealand over remaining “totally silent” over Israeli military and diplomatic attacks on the United Nations, blaming this on a “refusal to offend” Tel Aviv.
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) chair John Minto said he was appalled at the New Zealand response to the Israeli parliamentary vote last week to ban UNRWA operations in Israel and East Jerusalem.
The Israeli government followed up on this today by cancelling the UNRWA agreement, effectively closing down the major Palestinian refugee aid organisation’s desperately needed work in the Gaza Strip.
“UNRWA was set up by the United Nations to assist the hundreds of thousands Palestinian refugees expelled by Israel in 1948, pending their right of return — which Israel refuses to recognise,” Minto said in a statement.
“Israel sees UNRWA as an unwelcome reminder of Palestinian national rights and has always aimed to get rid of it. Support for banning UNRWA came from the Zionist New Zealand Jewish Council earlier this year.”
Israel has also recently shelled United Nations peacekeeping positions in Lebanon and has killed an estimated 230 UNRWA workers in Gaza.
“Our government has previously stated how important UNRWA relief work is for Palestinian refugees in Gaza. The US government says the UNRWA supply of food, water and medicine is ‘irreplaceable’,” Minto said.
NZ role ‘shallow, non-existent’
“Yet, under no doubt as a result of Israeli lobbying, our commitment to the UN and its work is increasingly exposed as somewhere between shallow and non-existent.”
Israel cancels agreement with UNRWA. Video: Al Jazeera
Minto said other Western governments had been critical of the UNRWA ban and the recent Israeli refusal to allow the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to enter Israel.
Despite New Zealand having UN peacekeepers in the Lebanon border areas, it failed to join more than 40 countries which condemned the military attacks on a number of UNIFIL bases in south Lebanon last month.
“Our government refuses to offend Israel in any way. Even major arms suppliers to Israel, particularly the US, France and the UK, have been sometimes critical of what is a genocide by Israel in Gaza,” Minto said.
“In contrast, the New Zealand government blames Hamas for all the killing and destruction committed by Israel, though it also finds space to condemn Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran.”
Previous New Zealand governments have formally rebuked Israel for its violence, most recently former Foreign Minister Murry McCully in 2010 and former Prime Minister John Key in 2014 — “both by summoning in the Israeli ambassador”.
“This time, when Israeli attacks on Gaza are becoming even more savage and sadistic by the day, our Foreign Minister and his government remains inactive and silent,” Minto said.
Israeli ethnic cleansing
He said the Israeli war crimes in Gaza now clearly included ethnic cleansing.
“Reports of what is called the Israeli ‘General’s Plan’ are now widespread in our news media,” Minto said.
“The General’s Plan is a vile combination of military assault, starvation and exclusion of both aid workers and news media, to hide and facilitate the ‘death march’ of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from north of the Netzarim Corridor.
“This is to prepare for a resumption of illegal Israeli colonisation in northern Gaza.”
“What is not welcome is for New Zealand to then stand by when genocidal Israel carries out ethnic cleansing on a massive scale to once again spit on the UN and increase its occupation of Palestinian lands.”
England and Wales abolished these draconian sentences in 2012 – but our crumbling prisons still hold offenders trapped in horrifying stasis
On a Thursday evening last June, I found myself standing in a packed room in the House of Commons. The space had been turned into a temporary art gallery showcasing work made by a selection of IPP prisoners – the acronym stands for imprisonment for public protection – who had spent years in prison beyond their sentences or remained there, under the terms of the long-abolished indeterminate sentence, which had by then collectively been agreed upon as a point of national disgrace. Much of the art was, unsurprisingly, darkly hued and themed, a mesh of heavy greys and nightmare landscapes.
Donna Mooney – whose brother Tommy Nicol took his own life in prison in 2015, having lost hope of ever being released after serving two extra years over his four-year minimum tariff for a car robbery – had given a short, understated address. Words to the effect that the renewed interest in IPP was welcome, but there were still hundreds of people lingering in prisons across England and Wales. Her speech was greeted with the applause it deserved. I remember noting how impressively cool her performance was, and how hard won that control must have been.
Western publics are being subjected to a campaign of psychological warfare, where genocide is classed as ‘self-defence’ and opposition to it ‘terrorism’. Jonathan Cook reports as the world marked the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists at the weekend.
ANALYSIS:By Jonathan Cook
Israel knew that, if it could stop foreign correspondents from reporting directly from Gaza, those journalists would end up covering events in ways far more to its liking.
They would hedge every report of a new Israeli atrocity – if they covered them at all – with a “Hamas claims” or “Gaza family members allege”. Everything would be presented in terms of conflicting narratives rather than witnessed facts. Audiences would feel uncertain, hesitant, detached.
Israel could shroud its slaughter in a fog of confusion and disputation. The natural revulsion evoked by a genocide would be tempered and attenuated.
For a year, the networks’ most experienced war reporters have stayed put in their hotels in Israel, watching Gaza from afar. Their human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians.
That is why Western audiences have been forced to relive a single day of horror for Israel, on October 7, 2023, as intensely as they have a year of greater horrors in Gaza — in what the World Court has judged to be a “plausible” genocide by Israel.
That is why the media have immersed their audiences in the agonies of the families of some 250 Israelis — civilians taken hostage and soldiers taken captive — as much as they have the agonies of 2.3 million Palestinians bombed and starved to death week after week, month after month.
That is why audiences have been subjected to gaslighting narratives that frame Gaza’s destruction as a “humanitarian crisis” rather than the canvas on which Israel is erasing all the known rules of war.
Western media’s human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians. Image: www.jonathan-cook.net
While foreign correspondents sit obediently in their hotel rooms, Palestinian journalists have been picked off one by one — in the greatest massacre of journalists in history.
Israel is now repeating that process in Lebanon. On the night of October 24, it struck a residence in south Lebanon where three journalists were staying. All were killed.
In an indication of how deliberate and cynical Israel’s actions are, it put its military’s crosshairs on six Al Jazeera reporters last month, smearing them as “terrorists” working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They are reportedly the last surviving Palestinian journalists in northern Gaza, which Israel has sealed off while it carries out the so-called “General’s Plan”.
Israel wants no one reporting its final push to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza by starving out the 400,000 Palestinians still there and executing anyone who remains as a “terrorist”.
These six join a long list of professionals defamed by Israel in the interests of advancing its genocide — from doctors and aid workers to UN peacekeepers.
Sympathy for Israel Perhaps the nadir of Israel’s domestication of foreign journalists was reached last month in a report by CNN. Back in February whistleblowing staff there revealed that the network’s executives have been actively obscuring Israeli atrocities to portray Israel in a more sympathetic light.
In a story whose framing should have been unthinkable — but sadly was all too predictable — CNN reported on the psychological trauma some Israeli soldiers are suffering from time spent in Gaza, in some cases leading to suicide.
Committing a genocide can be bad for your mental health, it seems. Or as CNN explained, its interviews “provide a window into the psychological burden that the war is casting on Israeli society”.
In its lengthy piece, titled “He got out of Gaza, but Gaza did not get out of him”, the atrocities the soldiers admit committing are little more than the backdrop as CNN finds yet another angle on Israeli suffering. Israeli soldiers are the real victims — even as they perpetrate a genocide on the Palestinian people.
One bulldozer driver, Guy Zaken, told CNN he could not sleep and had become vegetarian because of the “very, very difficult things” he had seen and had to do in Gaza.
What things? Zaken had earlier told a hearing of the Israeli Parliament that his unit’s job was to drive over many hundreds of Palestinians, some of them alive.
CNN reported: “Zaken says he can no longer eat meat, as it reminds him of the gruesome scenes he witnessed from his bulldozer in Gaza.”
Doubtless some Nazi concentration camp guards committed suicide in the 1940s after witnessing the horrors there — because they were responsible for them. Only in some weird parallel news universe, would their “psychological burden” be the story.
After a huge online backlash, CNN amended an editor’s note at the start of the article that originally read: “This story includes details about suicide that some readers may find upsetting.”
Readers, it was assumed, would find the suicide of Israeli soldiers upsetting, but apparently not the revelation that those soldiers were routinely driving over Palestinians so that, as Zaken explained, “everything squirts out”.
Banned from Gaza Finally, a year into Israel’s genocidal war, now rapidly spreading into Lebanon, some voices are being raised very belatedly to demand the entry of foreign journalists into Gaza.
This week — in a move presumably designed, as November’s elections loom, to ingratiate themselves with voters angry at the party’s complicity in genocide — dozens of Democratic members of the US Congress wrote to President Joe Biden asking him to pressure Israel to give journalists “unimpeded access” to the enclave.
Don’t hold your breath.
Western media have done very little themselves to protest their exclusion from Gaza over the past year — for a number of reasons.
Given the utterly indiscriminate nature of Israel’s bombardment, major outlets have not wanted their journalists getting hit by a 2000lb bomb for being in the wrong place.
That may in part be out of concern for their welfare. But there are likely to be more cynical concerns.
Having foreign journalists in Gaza blown up or executed by snipers would drag media organisations into direct confrontation with Israel and its well-oiled lobby machine.
The response would be entirely predictable, insinuating that the journalists died because they were colluding with “the terrorists” or that they were being used as “human shields” — the excuse Israel has rolled out time and again to justify its targeting of doctors in Gaza and UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.
But there’s a bigger problem. The establishment media have not wanted to be in a position where their journalists are so close to the “action” that they are in danger of providing a clearer picture of Israel’s war crimes and its genocide.
The media’s current distance from the crime scene offers them plausible deniability as they both-sides every Israeli atrocity.
In previous conflicts, western reporters have served as witnesses, assisting in the prosecution of foreign leaders for war crimes. That happened in the wars that attended the break-up of Yugoslavia, and will doubtless happen once again if Russian President Valdimir Putin is ever delivered to The Hague.
But those journalistic testimonies were harnessed to put the West’s enemies behind bars, not its closest ally.
The media do not want their reporters to become chief witnesses for the prosecution in the future trials of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, at the International Criminal Court. The ICC’s Prosecutor, Karim Khan, is seeking arrest warrants for them both.
After all, any such testimony from journalists would not stop at Israel’s door. They would implicate Western capitals too, and put establishment media organisations on a collision course with their own governments.
The Western media does not see its job as holding power to account when the West is the one committing the crimes.
Censoring Palestinians Journalist whistleblowers have gradually been coming forward to explain how establishment news organisations — including the BBC and the supposedly liberal Guardian — are sidelining Palestinian voices and minimising the genocide.
An investigation by Novara Media recently revealed mounting unhappiness in parts of The Guardian newsroom at its double standards on Israel and Palestine.
Its editors recently censored a commentary by preeminent Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa after she insisted on being allowed to refer to the slaughter in Gaza as “the holocaust of our times”.
Senior Guardian columnists such as Jonathan Freedland made much during Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour party that Jews, and Jews alone, had the right to define and name their own oppression.
That right, however, does not appear to extend to Palestinians.
As staff who spoke to Novara noted, The Guardian’s Sunday sister paper, The Observer, had no problem opening its pages to British Jewish writer Howard Jacobson to smear as a “blood libel” any reporting of the provable fact that Israel has killed many, many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza.
One veteran journalist there said: “Is The Guardian more worried about the reaction to what is said about Israel than Palestine? Absolutely.”
Another staff member admitted it would be inconceivable for the paper to be seen censoring a Jewish writer. But censoring a Palestinian one is fine, it seems.
Other journalists report being under “suffocating control” from senior editors, and say this pressure exists “only if you’re publishing something critical of Israel”.
According to staff there, the word “genocide” is all but banned in the paper except in coverage of the International Court of Justice, whose judges ruled nine months ago that a “plausible” case had been made that Israel was committing genocide. Things have got far worse since.
Whistleblowing journalists Similarly, “Sara”, a whistleblower who recently resigned from the BBC newsroom and spoke of her experiences to Al Jazeera’s Listening Post, said Palestinians and their supporters were routinely kept off air or subjected to humiliating and insensitive lines of questioning.
Some producers have reportedly grown increasingly reluctant to bring on air vulnerable Palestinians, some of whom have lost family members in Gaza, because of concerns about the effect on their mental health from the aggressive interrogations they were being subjected to from anchors.
According to Sara, BBC vetting of potential guests overwhelmingly targets Palestinians, as well as those sympathetic to their cause and human rights organisations. Background checks are rarely done of Israelis or Jewish guests.
She added that a search showing that a guest had used the word “Zionism” — Israel’s state ideology — in a social media post could be enough to get them disqualified from a programme.
Even officials from one of the biggest rights group in the world, the New York-based Human Rights Watch, became persona non grata at the BBC for their criticisms of Israel, even though the corporation had previously relied on their reports in covering Ukraine and other global conflicts.
Israeli guests, by contrast, “were given free rein to say whatever they wanted with very little pushback”, including lies about Hamas burning or beheading babies and committing mass rape.
An email cited by Al Jazeera from more than 20 BBC journalists sent last February to Tim Davie, the BBC’s director-general, warned that the corporation’s coverage risked “aiding and abetting genocide through story suppression”.
Upside-down values These biases have been only too evident in the BBC’s coverage, first of Gaza and now, as media interest wanes in the genocide, of Lebanon.
Headlines — the mood music of journalism, and the only part of a story many of the audience read — have been uniformly dire.
For example, Netanyahu’s threats of a Gaza-style genocide against the Lebanese people last month if they did not overthrow their leaders were soft-soaped by the BBC headline: “Netanyahu’s appeal to Lebanese people falls on deaf ears in Beirut.”
Reasonable readers would have wrongly inferred both that Netanyahu was trying to do the Lebanese people a favour (by preparing to murder them), and that they were being ungrateful in not taking up his offer.
It has been the same story everywhere in the establishment media. In another extraordinary, revealing moment, Kay Burley of Sky News announced last month the deaths of four Israeli soldiers from a Hezbollah drone strike on a military base inside Israel.
With a solemnity usually reserved for the passing of a member of the British royal family, she slowly named the four soldiers, with a photo of each shown on screen. She stressed twice that all four were only 19 years old.
Sky News seemed not to understand that these were not British soldiers, and that there was no reason for a British audience to be especially disturbed by their deaths. Soldiers are killed in wars all the time — it is an occupational hazard.
And further, if Israel considered them old enough to fight in Gaza and Lebanon, then they were old enough to die too without their age being treated as particularly noteworthy.
But more significantly still, Israel’s Golani Brigade to which these soldiers belonged has been centrally involved in the slaughter of Palestinians over the past year. Its troops have been responsible for many of the tens of thousands of children killed and maimed in Gaza.
Each of the four soldiers was far, far less deserving of Burley’s sympathy and concern than the thousands of children who have been slaughtered at the hands of their brigade. Those children are almost never named and their pictures are rarely shown, not least because their injuries are usually too horrifying to be seen.
It was yet more evidence of the upside-down world the establishment media has been trying to normalise for its audiences.
It is why statistics from the United States, where the coverage of Gaza and Lebanon may be even more unhinged, show faith in the media is at rock bottom. Fewer than one in three respondents — 31 percent — said they still had a “great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media”.
Crushing dissent Israel is the one dictating the coverage of its genocide. First by murdering the Palestinian journalists reporting it on the ground, and then by making sure house-trained foreign correspondents stay well clear of the slaughter, out of harm’s way in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
And as ever, Israel has been able to rely on the complicity of its Western patrons in crushing dissent at home.
Last week, a British investigative journalist, Asa Winstanley, an outspoken critic of Israel and its lobbyists in the UK, had his home in London raided at dawn by counter-terrorism police.
Though the police have not arrested or charged him — at least not yet — they snatched his electronic devices. He was warned that he is being investigated for “encouragement of terrorism” in his social media posts.
Police told Middle East Eye that his devices had been seized as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism offences of “support for a proscribed organisation” and “dissemination of terrorist documents”.
The police can act only because of Britain’s draconian, anti-speech Terrorism Act.
Section 12, for example, makes the expression of an opinion that could be interpreted as sympathetic to armed Palestinian resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation — a right enshrined in international law but sweepingly dismissed as “terrorism” in the West — itself a terrorism offence.
Those journalists who haven’t been house-trained in the establishment media, as well as solidarity activists, must now chart a treacherous path across intentionally ill-defined legal terrain when talking about Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Winstanley is not the first journalist to be accused of falling foul of the Terrorism Act. In recent weeks, Richard Medhurst, a freelance journalist, was arrested at Heathrow airport on his return from a trip abroad. Another journalist-activist, Sarah Wilkinson, was briefly arrested after her home was ransacked by police.
Their electronic devices were seized too.
Meanwhile, Richard Barnard, co-founder of Palestine Action, which seeks to disrupt the UK’s supply of weapons to Israel’s genocide, has been charged over speeches he has made against the genocide.
It now appears that all these actions are part of a specific police campaign targeting journalists and Palestinian solidarity activists: “Operation Incessantness”.
The message this clumsy title is presumably supposed to convey is that the British state is coming after anyone who speaks out too loudly against the British government’s continuing arming and complicity in Israel’s genocide.
Notably, the establishment media have failed to cover this latest assault on journalism and the role of a free press — supposedly the very things they are there to protect.
The raid on Winstanley’s home and the arrests are intended to intimidate others, including independent journalists, into silence for fear of the consequences of speaking up.
This has nothing to do with terrorism. Rather, it is terrorism by the British state.
Once again the world is being turned upside down.
Echoes from history The West is waging a campaign of psychological warfare on its populations: it is gaslighting and disorientating them, classing genocide as “self-defence” and opposition to it a form of “terrorism”.
This is an expansion of the persecution suffered by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who spent years locked up in London’s Belmarsh high-security prison.
His unprecedented journalism — revealing the darkest secrets of Western states — was redefined as espionage. His “offence” was revealing that Britain and the US had committed systematic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, on the back of that precedent, the British state is coming after journalists simply for embarrassing it.
Late last month I attended a meeting in Bristol against the genocide in Gaza at which the main speaker was physically absent after the British state failed to issue him an entry visa.
The missing guest — he had to join us by zoom — was Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, who was locked up for decades as a terrorist before becoming the first leader of post-apartheid South Africa and a feted, international statesman.
Mandla Mandela was until recently a member of the South African Parliament.
A Home Office spokesperson told Middle East Eye that the UK only issued visas “to those who we want to welcome to our country”.
Media reports suggest Britain was determined to exclude Mandela because, like his grandfather, he views the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid as intimately linked to the earlier struggle against South Africa’s apartheid.
The echoes from history are apparently entirely lost on officials: the UK is once again associating the Mandela family with terrorism. Before it was to protect South Africa’s apartheid regime. Now it is to protect Israel’s even worse apartheid and genocidal regime.
The world is indeed turned on its head. And the West’s supposedly “free media” is playing a critical role in trying to make our upside-down world seem normal.
That can only be achieved by failing to report the Gaza genocide as a genocide. Instead, Western journalists are serving as little more than stenographers. Their job: to take dictation from Israel.
Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist. He was based in Nazareth, Israel, for 20 years and returned to the UK in 2021. He is the author of three books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (2008). In 2011, Cook was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism for his work on Palestine and Israel. This article was first published in Middle East Eye and is republished with the author’s permission.
This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Israel’s deadly siege on northern Gaza has entered a 30th day. Early week, the World Health Organisation managed to deliver some medical supplies to the Kamal Adwan Hospital, but on Thursday, Israeli fighter jets bombed the hospital’s third floor, where the supplies were being stored.
Al Jazeera reports Israeli forces are continuing to shell Beit Lahia, the scene of multiple massacres last week. On Wednesday, an Israeli attack on a market in Beit Lahia killed at least 10 Palestinians. Earlier in the week, Israel struck a five-story residential building, killing at least 93 people, including 25 children.
Meanwhile, at the United Nations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Francesca Albanese, has released a major report accusing Israel of committing genocide.
Albanese concludes that Israel’s war on Gaza is part of a campaign of, “long-term intentional, systematic, state-organised forced displacement and replacement of the Palestinians” . The report is titled Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
AMY GOODMAN:Francesca Albanese is now facing intensifying personal attacks from Israeli and US officials. She was set to brief Congress earlier last week, but the briefing was cancelled. On Tuesday, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on social media, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.”
On Wednesday, Francesca Albanese spoke at the United Nations and responded to the US attacks.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: I have the same shock that you have, looking at how the United States is behaving in this context, in the context of the genocide that is unfolding in Gaza. I’m not — I’m not surprised that they attack anyone who speaks to the facts that are, frankly, on our watch in Gaza. And they do that so brutally because they feel called out, because it’s not that it’s that the United States is simply an observer. The United States is being an enabler in what Israel has been doing.
AMY GOODMAN: That was UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday. She joins us here in our studio.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks so much for joining us.
Well, before we get you to further respond to what the US and Israel is saying, can you lay out the findings of your report?
Colonial Erasure’: UN expert Francesca Albanese on Israel’s “intent to destroy” Gaza Video: Democracy Now!
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. First of all, thank you for having me.
I have to say that this report is the second I write on — and I present to the United Nations on the topic of genocide. And it has been very reluctantly that I’ve taken on the responsibility to be the chronicler of — the chronicler of an unfolding genocide in Gaza.
In March this year, I concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Israel had committed at least three acts of genocide in Gaza, like killing members of the protected group, Palestinians; inflicting severe bodily and mental harm; and creating conditions of life that would lead to the destruction of the group. And the reason why I identified these were not just war crimes and crimes against humanity is because I identified an intent to destroy.
And I understand that even in this country, people are quite confused about what is genocidal intent, because it’s not a motive. One can have many motives to commit a crime. And I understand genocide is a very insidious one, and it’s difficult to identify what’s a motive. But this is not about the motives. The intent to commit genocide is the determination to destroy, which is fully evident in — especially in the Gaza Strip, as I identified in — as argued in March already.
The reason why I continue to write about genocide — and, in fact, this report walks on the heels of the previous one — is in order to better explain the intent, especially state intent, because there is another misunderstanding that there should be a trial of the alleged perpetrators in order to have — to attribute responsibility to a state.
No, because not only you have had acts committed that should have been prevented by the — in a rule of law, in a proclaimed rule of law system like Israel, where there is the government, the Parliament, the judiciary, working as checks and balances, genocide has not only been not prevented, [it] has been enabled through the various organs of the state.
And I explain what has happened as of October 7, which has provided the opportunity to escalate violence, to build on the rage and on the fury of many Israelis, turning the soldiers into willful executioners, is that there was already a plan, hatred.
I mean, the Palestinians, like Ilan Pappé says, are victims not of war, but of a political ideology that has been unleashed. Palestinians have always been an unwanted encumbrance in the Israeli mindset, because they are an obstacle both as an identity and as legal status to the realisation of Greater Israel as a state for Jewish Israelis only.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:So, we’ll go back to — because I do want to ask about the Israeli state institutions that you name and the branches of the Israeli state that have been involved in forming this state’s intent. But if you could elaborate on the point that you make, the difference between intent and motive, and in particular what you say in the report about how it’s critical to determine genocidal intent, “by way of inference”?
You know, that’s a different phrasing than one has heard in all of this conversation about genocide so far. If you explain what you mean by that and what such a determination makes possible? So, rather than just looking at genocidal intent in other forms, what it means to infer genocidal intent?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: So, first of all, what constitutes genocide is established by Article II of the Genocide Convention, which creates a twofold obligation for member states, to prevent genocide so genocide doesn’t have to complete itself. When there is a manifestation of intent, even genocidal intent, there is already an obligation to intervene, because a crime is unfolding.
And then there is an obligation to punish. How the jurisprudence, especially after Rwanda and after former Yugoslavia, there have been cases both for criminal proceedings, where individual perpetrators have been investigated and tried, and [the] responsibility of the state, litigated before the International Court of Justice. This is how the jurisprudence on genocide has developed.
And the intent has been further elaborated upon what the Genocide Convention says. And while it might be difficult to have direct intent, meaning to have — it’s difficult but not impossible, in fact, to have a state official say, “Yes, let’s go and destroy everyone” — although I do believe that there is direct intent in this genocide in Gaza.
But the court also established that genocide can be inferred from the scale of the attack on the people, the nature of the attack, the general conduct. And what it says is that normally there should be a holistic approach in order to identify intent, which is exactly what I’ve done.
And indeed, this is why I proposed in this report what I called the triple lens approach. We need to look at the conduct, like the totality of the conduct, instead of studying with a microscope each and every crime. We need to look at the whole, against the totality of the people, the Palestinians as such, in the totality of the land, that Israel has slated as its own by divine design.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: No, absolutely. And then, if you could — the other precedent you’ve just spoken about — of course, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia — another case that you cite in the International Court of Justice is The Gambia v. Myanmar. So, how is that comparable to what we see happening in Gaza? Why is that a relevant example and different from both Rwanda and former Yugoslavia?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Let me tell you what I see as the major differences in the case of Israel, because it’s a very complex discussion. But in all four cases, there is a toxic combination of hatred, ideological hatred, which has informed political doctrines. And this is true in all the various contexts we are mentioning. The other common element is that there is [a] combination of crimes. Like, forced displacement is not an act of genocide per se, but the jurisprudence says that it can contribute to corroborate the intent.
But, again, mass killing or mass destruction of property, torture and other crimes against a person, which translate into an infliction of physical and mental harm to the group, not individuals as such, but individuals as part of the group, these are common elements to all genocides.
What I find characteristic in this one is, first of all, this is not — I mean, the state of Israel is not Myanmar and is not Rwanda 30 years ago. This is not war-torn former Yugoslavia. This is a state which has a separation of powers, different organs, as I said, checks and balances. And let me give you a specific example, because you asked me to comment on the state functions.
In January this year, the International Court of Justice issued a set of preliminary measures in the context of its identification, before even looking at the merits of the case initiated by South Africa for Israel’s breach, alleged breach, of the Genocide Convention, which identified the plausibility of risk for the rights protected — of the rights of the Palestinians protected under the Genocide Convention, which means plausibility — it’s semantics, but it’s plausibility that genocide might be committed against the Palestinians in Gaza.
And the provisional measures included an obligation to investigate and prosecute the various cases of incitement, genocidal incitement, that the court had already identified. And it mentions leaders, senior leaders, of the Israeli state. Has there been any investigation? Has there been any prosecution?
But I’m telling you more. The genocidal statements didn’t resonate as shocking in the Israeli public, not only because there was rage, an enormous rage and animosity, of course. I mean, this is understandable, that the facts of October 7 were brutal and traumatized the people.
But at the same time, hatred against the Palestinians and hate speech, it’s not something that started on October 7. I do remember, and I do remember the shock I felt because no one was reacting, and years ago, there were Israeli ministers talking of — freely, of killing, justifying the killing of Palestinians’ mothers and children because they would turn into terrorists.
AMY GOODMAN: Francesca Albanese, talk about the title of your report, Genocide as Colonial Erasure.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: This is another element which I think — and, in fact, it’s the most important, where we see the difference between this genocide and others, because there is a settler-colonial component. And again, if you look at what the International Court of Justice in July this year concluded, when it decided that the — when it found that Israel’s 57 years of occupation in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful and needs to be withdrawn totally and unconditionally, as rapidly as possibly, which the General Assembly says by September 2025.
The court said that it amounts to — that the colonies amount to — have led to a process of annexation and racial segregation and apartheid. And these are the features of settler colonialism, the taking of the land, the taking of the resources, displacing the local population and replacing it. This has been a feature.
Now, it is in this context that we need to analyse what is happening today. And by the way, don’t believe, don’t listen only to Francesca Albanese. Listen to what these Israeli leaders and ministers are saying — reoccupying Gaza, retaking Gaza, recolonising Gaza, reconquesting Gaza. This is what they are saying.
And there are settlers on expeditions, not only to Gaza but also to Lebanon. So, this is why I say that the main difference, the main feature of this genocide, apart all the horrible aspects of it, is that this is the first settler-colonial genocide to be ever litigated before a court, an international court.
And this is why coming to this country, which is a country birthed from a genocide, when I meet the Native Americans, for example, I feel the pain of these people. And I say if we manage to build on the intersectionality of Indigenous struggle, the cry for justice behind this case for Palestine will resonate even louder, because it will somewhat be an act of atonement from the settler-colonial endeavor, which has sprouted out of Europe, toward Indigenous peoples. So there is a lot of symbolism behind it.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, you know, the analogy — first of all, you talked about the case brought by South Africa, so what they share, apart from South Africa and Israel-Palestine, is both the fact that they were colonial-settler states, as well as the fact that apartheid has been established as having occurred in both places.
Now, in the case of South Africa, it was a decision that was taken by the United Nations at the time of apartheid, was unseating South Africa from the General Assembly. There have been calls now to do the same with Israel. So, if you could — if you could comment on that?
And then, I just want to quote another short sentence from your report, in which you say, “As the world watches the first live-streamed settler-colonial genocide, only justice can heal the wounds that political expedience has allowed to fester.” So, if you could talk about the International Court of Justice’s case in that context, what role you think they can play, South Africa’s case, in resolving or addressing — seeing and addressing this wound?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: First of all, let me unpack the question of the unseating Israel, because this is one of the recommendations I made in my report. Under Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member state can be suspended of its credentials or its membership by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the UN Security Council. And the first criticism I got is that we cannot do that, because every states commit international law violations. Absolutely. Absolutely.
But there are two striking features here. First, Israel is quite unique in maintaining an unlawful occupation, which has deemed such by — in at least one full occasion, but again, there was already a case brought before the ICJ in 2004, so there have been two ICJ advisory opinions.
There is a pending case for genocide. There has been the violations of hundreds of resolutions by the — on Israel — over occupied Palestinian territory, by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, and steady violation of international humanitarian law, human rights law, the Apartheid Convention, the Genocide Convention. So this is quite unique.
But all the more, this year alone, Israel has conducted an attack, an unprecedented attack, against the United Nations. It has attacked physically, through artillery, weapons, bombs, UN premises. Seventy percent of UNRWA offices and UNRWA buildings, clinics, distribution centers have been hit and shelled by the Israeli army.
Two hundred and thirty UN staff members have been killed by Israel in Gaza alone. UN peacekeepers in Lebanon have been attacked. And this doesn’t even take into account the smear, the defamation against senior UN officials, the declaration of the secretary-general as persona non grata, the referring to the General Assembly as a “cloak of antisemites”.
Again, this has mounted to a level — the hubris against the United Nations and international law has been unchecked and unbounded forever, but now, especially after the Knesset passed a law outlawing UNRWA, declaring UNRWA a terrorist organisation, and therefore disabling it from its capacity to deliver aid and assistance especially in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem, this is the nail in the coffin of the UN Charter.
And it can also contribute to that sense of colonial erasure, because here it’s not just at stake the function of a UN body — and UNRWA is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, so it’s even more serious. But there is the capacity of UNRWA to deliver humanitarian aid in a desperate situation, and also the fact that UNRWA is seen by Israel as the symbol of Palestinian identity, especially the Palestinian refugees. So there is an attempt to erase Palestinianness, including by hitting UNRWA.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about your trip here, as we begin to wrap up. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, quoted on — tweeted on Tuesday, “As UN Special Rapporteur Albanese visits New York, I want to reiterate the US belief she is unfit for her role. The United Nations should not tolerate antisemitism from a UN-affiliated official hired to promote human rights.” If you can further address their charge of antisemitism against you?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And talk about what happened. You were supposed to come to Congress and speak and brief them, but that was cancelled this week.
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Yes, it was canceled. But let me — first of all, I’m very embarrassed to read this, because a senior US official who writes this, I mean, it shows a little bit of desperation. I’m sorry, but, you know, I’m very candid.
And let me unpack my antisemitism for the audience. So, what I’ve been accused of — the reason why I’ve been accused of antisemitism — is because I’ve allegedly compared the Jews to the Nazis. Never done. Never done.
What I’ve said, what I’ve done is saying, and I keep on saying, that history is repeating itself. I’ve never done such a comparison where I draw the parallel. It’s on the behaviour of member states who have the legal and moral obligation to prevent atrocities, including an unfolding genocide.
In the past, they have done nothing — nothing — until the end of the Second World War, to prevent the genocide of the Jews and the Roma and Sinti. And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Bosnians.
And they’ve done nothing to prevent the genocide of the Rwandans. And they are doing the same today. This is where I insist that now, compared to when there was the Holocaust, now we have a human rights framework that should prevent this. The Genocide Convention to prevent this. So, this is one of the points.
The second point, — which leads to portray me as an antisemite, which is really offensive — is that I’ve said that October 7 was not — I’ve contested, I’ve challenged the argument that October 7 was an antisemitic attack. October 7 was a crime, was heinous. And again, I’ve condemned the acts that were directed against the Israeli civilians, and expressed solidarity with the victims, with the families. I’ve been in contact with the families of the hostages.
But I’ve also said the hatred that led that attack, that prompted that attack, to the extent it hit civilians, not the military, but it was prompted not by the fact that the Israelis are Jews, but the fact that the Israelis — I mean, the Israelis are part of that endeavor that has kept the Palestinians in a cage for 17 years and, before, under martial law for 37 years. And Palestinians have tried — it’s true they have used violence, but before violence, they have tried dialogue. They have tried collaboration. They have tried a number of means to access justice, and they have gone nowhere.
I can — I mean, let me relate just this case, because last year I worked with children. And someone who was 17 years old before October 7 last year had never set foot out of Gaza. This is the reality. And I spoke with children while I was writing my report on “unchilding”, the experience of Palestinians under Israeli occupation. And one of them — I mean, there were these two girls fighting, because one of them had been able to go to Israel and the West Bank because she had cancer and could be treated, and the other was jealous, because, she said, “At least she was sick, and she could go, she could travel. I’ve never seen the mountains.”
And again, this doesn’t justify violence, but, please, please, put things in context. And even Israeli scholars have said claiming that October 7 was prompted by antisemitism is a way to decontextualize history and to deresponsibilise Israel.
I condemn Israel not because it’s a Jewish state. It’s not about that, but because it’s in breach of international law through and through. And were the majority of Israelis Buddhists, Christians, atheists, it would be the same. I would be as vocal as I am now.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Francesca, just one last question, and we only have a minute. Your recent book, J’Accuse, you take the title, of course, from the letter Émile Zola wrote during the Dreyfus Affair to the French president. You came under severe criticism for the choice of that title. Could you explain why you chose it and what it means in this context?
FRANCESCA ALBANESE: Absolutely. I have the sense that whatever I say comes under scrutiny and criticism. But J’Accuse is — first of all, it’s the title that was proposed by the editor, the publisher. And I was against it until October 7.
When I saw the narrative, the dehumanization of the Palestinians after October 7, and what it was legitimising, I said, “This is the title. We need to use it,” because I draw the parallel between what is happening to the Palestinians and what has happened to other groups, particularly the Jewish people in Europe.
I say the Holocaust was not just about the concentration camps. The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of discrimination, and the previous decades had led the Jewish people in Europe to be kicked out of jobs, professions, to be treated like subhumans, as animals. And it’s this dehumanisation that we need to look at in the face today, in the eyes today, and recognise as leading to atrocity crimes.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
On the orders of Mohammed bin Salman, Clifford Chance – a “magic circle” legal giant with headquarters in London – was reported to have facilitated the forced transfer of assets from a Saudi TV station to the government.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has returned from New Caledonia saying it is not a simple “black and white situation”.
Brown returned from a three-day Pacific fact-finding mission in the French Pacific territory alongside the Prime Ministers of Solomon Islands, Tonga and Fiji.
New Caledonia has been going through a period of turmoil with violence and arson since May, resulting in 13 deaths and the destruction of many businesses.
“There’s no doubt there is a call and a need for the easing of tensions in the country,” Brown said.
“This would enable more dialogue to take place between the various vested groups to find a pathway forward for New Caledonia.”
Brown said Kanaky New Caledonia’s population was diverse, made up of indigenous Kanak, French, and Pacific diaspora.
Almost all of these groups want greater autonomy from France with some also wanting full independence or to remain a French territory, he said.
“But you have quite a large group between those two extremes that want a way forward that enables New Caledonians, all of them, to be able to determine their own future.”
Pacific policing France ‘may wish to consider’ Brown said Australia’s newly proposed regional policing initiative is “an option that New Caledonians may wish to consider”.
“At the moment that’s being done by the state government through France through its gendarmes and police force.”
The last time regional policing was used was in Solomon Islands after ethnic unrest in the 2000s, he said.
When asked whether France had “militarised” New Caledonia, Brown said France sent a lot of support “to help maintain law and order” but the focus now was on the reduction of tensions and dialogue.
France’s Ambassador to the Pacific Véronique told the ABC she doubted French authorities would see the need for Pacific police to be deployed to New Caledonia.
Brown said the other issue was the need for an urgent financial package.
“Unlike most other Pacific countries in cases of disaster whether they be natural disaster or other sorts, Pacific countries have the likes of the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, development partners that would support and assist.
Relying solely on France
“In the case of New Caledonia, it doesn’t have the association with any of those financial institutions and would rely solely on France for its support.”
There needed to first be a reduction of tensions so that any rebuild would not be under threat from more civil unrest, he said.
Brown said Pacific nations had taken different decolonisation paths — with the exception of Tonga which had never been colonised.
Fiji became a republic after a number of coups and Cook Islands is self-governing in free association with New Zealand.
“Each of us took a different path to where we are today to gain our autonomy and our sovereignty and it’s something that we were able to share with New Caledonia.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Another Palestinian journalist, Bilal Rajab, of al-Quds al-Youm TV channel, has been killed in an Israeli bombardment in the Gaza Strip, confirms the Gaza Media Office.
Al Jazeera Arabic earlier reported that a strike in the vicinity of the Firas market in Gaza City had killed three people, among whom local sources said was Rajab.
The office said the total number of journalists and media workers who have been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023, now stands at 183.
Photojournalist Bilal Rajab of al-Quds al-Youm TV . . . killed in a strike near Gaza’s popular Firas market. Image: Palestinian Information Centre
It called on the international community to intervene to stop the killing of Palestinian journalists reporting on the war in Gaza, which is the deadliest conflict for media workers.
“In his message for the day, the secretary-general underscores that a free press is fundamental to human rights, to democracy and to the rule of law,” Dujarric said.
‘Alarming rate of fatalities’
“Recent years have seen an alarming rate of fatalities in conflict zones, particularly in Gaza, which has seen the highest number of killings of journalists and media workers in a war in decades.
“In his message, he warned that journalists in Gaza have been killed at a level unseen by any conflict in modern times.
“The ongoing ban preventing international journalists from Gaza suffocates the truth even further,” he said.
The world’s peoples recoil in shock over the previously unimaginable barbarity of the US-Zionist assault on Palestine. The European Parliament is not impervious to what is transpiring. On the contrary, the body normalizes the cruelty by awarding its highest human rights award, the Sakharov Prize, to dissident Venezuelan genocide supporters.
This is an example of how Western “democracies” fail to respect democracy in the Global South. “Human rights” are weaponized and used to repudiate Venezuela’s right to choose its own leaders, while rewarding those who sell out their country. The US-aligned camp has a clear double standard on when and where upholding “democratic institutions” apply, considering their stances on Venezuela compared to Israel, described below.
The European Union functions as a factotum of the US empire, as is evident regarding its treatment of Venezuela. The European Parliament is a legislative body of the European Union (EU). Of the 27 member states, 23 are also members of the empire’s praetorian guard, aka NATO. The EU and NATO are official “partners” with integrated planning capabilities, closely linking security to the dictates of the US.
EU’s relationship with Venezuela
The EU is Venezuela’s fourth largest trading partner, but the relationship is abusive. The EU punishes Venezuela for being independent of the US empire when they are unwilling to do so themselves.
In 2019, the EU recognized the unelected and US-selected “interim president” of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó. In the same resolution, they imposed additional sanctions on Venezuela, hypocritically lamenting the “need of humanitarian assistance,” while making it more difficult for Venezuela to receive vital food, fuel, and medicines.
Following earlier extensions, in November 2023, the EU further extended its sanctions on Venezuela through May 2024. Then, a day before those sanctions were to expire and two months before the Venezuelan presidential election, the EU again extended their sanctions until January 2025.
The implicit message to the Venezuelan people was that they had better vote for the right candidate. Otherwise, when the new president is inaugurated on January 10, 2025, the sanctions would be extended yet again if not enhanced.
Defying foreign intervention, Venezuelans reelected incumbent President Nicolás Maduro on July 28. But from the EU’s perspective, the only possible explanation for the Venezuelans making what they viewed as the wrong choice is fraud. The EU consequently recognized the runner-up in the election, Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia, as the “legitimate president” of Venezuela. That individual was then awarded the EU’s Sakharov Prize. The Venezuelan opposition had itself renounced the corrupt Guaidó, who had been the EU’s earlier designated president of Venezuela.
A week later, the EU plus 33 individual countries signed a US-led “joint statement” expressing “grave concerns about the urgent situation in Venezuela” and calling for a political “transition” in Venezuela.
The Sakharov Prize
Gonzalez and his co-awardee Maria Corina Machado are typical recipients of the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Such folks are usually dissidents from countries that are targeted for regime change by US – and by default echoed by the European Parliament – such as Venezuela, but also Russia, Syria, Belarus, Cuba, and China.
Previously, the “democratic opposition of Venezuela” received the award in 2017. Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace commented on this “bizarre example of the reactionary nature of the European left [awarding]…a group that has openly attacked journalists and burned alive two dozen people of primarily Black or dark complexions who they assumed were probably government supporters because they were poor and Black.”
This year, beating out semi-finalist Elon Musk (I’m not making this up), the award again went to Venezuelan dissidents. Machado and Gonzalez were honored as fighters for “freedom and democracy.”
Machado’s “democracy” credentials include signing the infamous Carmona Decree, which shuttered Venezuela’s parliament, courts, and executive in a short-lived US-backed coup in 2002. After President Hugo Chávez was returned to his elected post by a popular uprising, he pardoned the coup plotters, including Machado.
Gonzalez’s “freedom” credentials include being implicated in the US-backed death squads in the 1980s when he was a Venezuelan diplomat in El Salvador. TeleSUR reported on Gonzalez’s “past of crimes against humanity.”
According to the EU’s announcement: “Machado won primary elections in 2023 to run as the candidate of the democratic opposition (Unitary Platform) in the 2024 presidential elections, but after she was arbitrarily disqualified by the Venezuelan regime, González became the candidate.”
Machado did in fact win a primary election, but not one conducted by the official Venezuelan electoral authority, the CNE. Rather, it was a private affair administered by the NGO Súmate, a recipient of funds from the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA-cutout.
As Washington’s prechosen candidate, Machado won in a crowded field of 13 candidates with an incredulous 92%. When some of the other candidates called fraud, Machado had the ballots destroyed. She could do so because Súmate is her personal organization.
True, Machado had been barred from running, but that was back in 2015; the disqualification was reconfirmed by the Venezuelan supreme court this year. Far from “arbitrary,” she had accepted a diplomatic post with a foreign power in order to testify against her own country while serving in the Venezuelan parliament. Such treason is constitutionally prohibited in Venezuela as it is in many other countries.
For the US and its junior partner, the EU, Machado’s disbarment was a bonus. They could claim that their candidate was unfairly disqualified, when that was a given to begin with. Their intent was not to encourage a free and fair democratic process, but to delegitimize the one already in place.
Sakharov winners’ “strategic alliance” with Zionists
Venezuela’s far-right opposition, along with their international counterparts, support the US/Zionist campaign of extermination and regional domination in the Middle East.
Literally nothing is known about the political positions of Sakharov-winner Edmundo Gonzalez. Long retired, Gonzalez was personally chosen to run for the presidency by the other Sakharov winner, Maria Corina Machado. While the infirm “grandpa,” as the press dubbed him, convalesced in Caracas, Machado campaigned around Venezuela as his surrogate. After he lost the election, the EU’s designated president of Venezuela voluntarily left Venezuela for Spain.
In comparison, Machado is a well-known scion of one of the wealthiest families in Venezuela. Fluent in English, the photogenic Machado was first vetted for the Venezuelan presidency before the US Congress and given a bipartisan nod before running in her ersatz “opposition primary.”
Machado is a darling of the international far-right with close ties to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. In a leaked document signed by her, Machado requested military support from Netanyahu to overthrow the Venezuelan government in December 2018.
A month later, after Juan Guaidó self-appointed himself “interim president” of Venezuela, Machado publicly thanked Netanyahu for recognizing the US puppet and specifically called on Jews who had left Venezuela to return and help overthrow the elected government.
Machado gushed: “Prime Minister Netanyahu joins our many allies…We certainly have a common enemy with Israel: the criminal forces that undermine freedom and peace in the world.”
Later that year in an interview with the Israeli news outlet Haaretz, Machado appealed for help from Israel in “our goal of dismantling” Venezuela.
Machado’s Vente Venezuela and Netanyahu’s Likud parties publicly signed a cooperative agreement in 2020 to collude on “political, ideological and social issues.”
Venezuelan government supports Palestine
In contrast to the dissidents, the elected Venezuelan government is distinguished as a recognized world leader for, in President Maduro’s words, “unconditional support to the Palestinian cause.” Hugo Chávez cut diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009 in response to response to Israel’s military operations in Gaza back then.
The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, including Venezuela, perhaps more than in any other region have expressed their solidarity with Palestine. Quite the reverse, on September 18, thirteen EU countries either abstained or voted against the UN General Assembly resolution demanding Israel end its “unlawful” occupation of Palestine. Meanwhile, the preponderance of humanity, 124 countries, voted to condemn the Zionist state.
Paulo Paulino Guajajara looks down and off to one side, the Amazon forest lush and dense behind him.
His voice thickens; he clears his throat.
“My mother, she’s unwell. She told me to stop doing this work,” he says, and presses the heel of his hand against his eye to stop a tear.
He looks into the camera:
I told her I’m not scared, that she should let me fight. Because I have a son. And he will need the forest.
Paulo, an Indigenous Amazon Guardian, was shot dead five years ago today (1 November 2019) in the forest he loved – the Arariboia Indigenous Territory, in the Amazon’s north-east.
Paulo Paulino Guajajara
I was on the other side of the camera when he spoke of his mother’s fears. He wanted the world to know his people, his land, were under threat. He knew illegal loggers were paying gunmen to kill Guardians like him, but he continued to track them, leaving his infant son, wife, and his mother at home.
The Guardians are Guajajara people who protect Indigenous land. They confront illegal loggers, force them to leave, then destroy their camps. They do it to protect their families and for the Awá people, their neighbours who share the territory and some of whom shun all outside contact.
Paulo admired the Awá. They are completely self sufficient in their forest, but cannot survive without it.
Paulo and I met in 2017 when we recorded his video. In 2019 I went on a Guardian patrol as a researcher with Survival International, the global movement for Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights.
It was on that journey, deep in the rainforest, that Paulo and I became friends – and he asked me to call him by his Guardian name, Lobo (‘Wolf’ in English). The group assigns a name that reflects a Guardian’s personality and his place. It binds them together, protects their anonymity.
The Guardians gathered in a clearing to prepare for our patrol. They brought several motorbikes and a quad bike. About 15 men chatted casually as they honed their machetes, checked motorbike chains and calculated how much petrol to take.
They wrapped and stowed a big piece of meat – food for the journey. One man drew a map in the earth with a stick and pointed to the illegal logging camp – the object of our patrol. Well-worn bulletproof vests were distributed, then we got on the bikes and headed into the forest.
A wooly hat that will stay with me forever
Lobo was quiet and focused, pitching in with an easy smile. He insisted I travel with him and his cousin on the more comfortable quad bike.
As we rode dirt trails into the thickening forest, he taught me words in Tenetehar, his Indigenous language. He pointed and said, ‘foot’, ‘hand’, ‘elbow’. I repeated, worked to get my mouth around the unfamiliar syllables.
Later, I proudly spoke the words he’d taught me, and the Guardians guffawed. I was saying, ‘blue foot’, ‘fat elbow’, ‘laughing hand’. Lobo just grinned.
We gathered around a fire that night, kept small to prevent detection. The meat was cooked, and Lobo offered it to me on a skewer. He drew his machete, elegantly ran it down the meat’s edge, and urged me to pull away a thin, sinewy slice. It was a welcome treat, dipped in crunchy cassava farinha.
Lobo admired a woolly hat I’d brought from London, so I gave it to him. He cut eye holes and wore it pulled down over his face to keep his identity secret and protect him from the hired assassins. The group spread out and settled on the cold forest floor, wrapped in darkness and sound – the buzz of cicadas and trills of crickets, descants over the rumbling bass line of amorous bullfrogs.
Invading their territory
The next day we travelled on foot. The Guardians inspected every snapped twig – evidence loggers were nearby. They examined tire tracks, noting their age and direction of travel. Tension rose as we got closer.
We passed a pile of stacked logs and arrived at the camp – an oval-shaped clearing where blue and black tarps sheltered cooking and seating areas.
But the loggers had fled. We ate their breakfast – eggs and a pot of pumpkin they’d left cooking on their fire. And when we discovered a barrel of fresh water, Lobo insisted that I be the first to bathe.
He was angry though, disgusted at the loggers’ intrusion, the theft of trees, the destruction of the forest. And he was frustrated they’d escaped. “I want to burn and destroy this camp,” Lobo said, holding his lighter to a tarpaulin’s edge. “We don’t want anything of theirs in our territory.”
One of six
Lobo was out hunting when he was ambushed – shot and killed. Beside him, his friend and fellow Guardian Tainaky Tenetehar was also hit. The impact bent Tainaky over in pain. Straining with every part of his body, he straightened up and ran as blood poured from his right shoulder. Lobo lay dead on the forest floor, still wearing the hat that could not protect him.
Lobo was the sixth Guardian killed by loggers in the Arariboia forest.
News of his death went round the world.
Despite that, none of the killers have been caught or tried. And on this fifth anniversary of his killing, everything Lobo sought to protect is in greater peril – particularly the uncontacted Awá.
They are among more than 150 uncontacted Indigenous Peoples around the world – the most self-sufficient and most vulnerable peoples on the planet. Survival International is fighting to stop miners, loggers, ranchers, other extractive industries, and criminals stealing their territory and resources.
The loggers are still there, while Brazil’s government fails the Awá by not upholding its own and international laws which require their land be protected for their exclusive use.
Justice for Paulo Paulino Guajajara
When I think of Paulo Paulino Guajajara, I remember his easy laugh, the grin that spread slowly across his face. He always carried a pen drive loaded with his tunes. That smile grew ever wider when his favourite came on: Cyndi Lauper’s “Girls Just Want to Have Fun”. He would close his eyes and hum along.
Lobo once said, “Even if they kill me, I won’t stop fighting.”
His fight continues; for there is a little boy growing up without his marvellous father. And he still needs the forest.
Sarah Shenker is a senior researcher and advocacy officer with Survival International which fights alongside Indigenous People for their lands and human rights. Survival supports the work of the Guardians and has campaigned for the Awá’s rights since the 1970s.
The Philippine Supreme Court has granted temporary protection to an environmental activist abducted in Pangasinan earlier this year.
In its resolution dated September 9 — but only made public this week — the court granted Francisco “Eco” Dangla III’s petition for temporary protection, and prohibited the respondents, including high-ranking soldiers and police officers, to be near the activist’s location.
“Furthermore, you, respondents, and all persons and entities acting and operating under your directions, instructions, and orders are PROHIBITED from entering within a radius of one kilometer of the person, places of residence, work, and present locations of petitioner and his immediate family,” the resolution read.
Philippine Army chief Lieutenant General Roy Galido
Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Police General Rommel Francisco Marbil
Brigadier General Gulliver Señires (in his capacity as 702nd Brigade commanding general Brigadier)
Ilocos Region police chief Police Brigadier General Lou Evangelista
Police Colonel Jeff Fanged (in his capacity as Pangasinan police chief)
Aside from giving Dangla temporary protection, the court also granted his petition for writs of amparo and habeas data. A writ of amparo is a legal remedy, which is usually a protection order in the form of a restraining order.
The writ of habeas data compels the government to destroy information that could cause harm.
These extraordinary writs are usually invoked by activists and progressives in the Philippines as they face intimidation from the government and its forces.
Dangla’s abduction Dangla and another activist, Joxelle Tiong, were abducted in Pangasinan last March 24.
According to witnesses, they saw two men who were forced to board a vehicle in Barangay Polo, San Carlos City.
The two activists, who who had been red-tagged for their advocacies, were serving as convenors of the Pangasinan People’s Strike for the Environment.
They “vocally defended the people and ecosystems of Pangasinan against the harms of coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, incinerator plants, and offshore mining in Lingayen Gulf,” at the time of their abduction.
Three days later, several groups announced that Dangla and Tiong were found safe, but that the two had gone through a “harrowing ordeal.”
“Bruised but alive” . . . the environmental activists abducted in Pangasinan but found safe, Francisco ‘Eco’ Dangla III (left) and Joxelle ‘Jak’ Tiong. Image: Rappler
The reality The protection given to Dangla is only temporary as the Court of Appeals still needs to conduct hearings on the petition. In other words, the Supreme Court only granted the writ, but the power to whether grant or deny Dangla the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data lies with the Court of Appeals.
There have been instances where the appellate court granted activists the privilege of writ of amparo, like in the case of labour activists Loi Magbanua and Ador Juat, where the court issued permanent protection orders for them and their immediate families.
Unfortunately, this was not the case for other activists, such as young environmentalists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro.
The two were first reported missing by activist groups. Security forces later said they were “safe and sound” and that they had allegedly “voluntarily surrendered” to the military.
However, Tamano and Castro went off-script during a press conference organised by the anti-insurgency task force and revealed that they were actually abducted.
In February, the High Court granted the two temporary protection and their writs of amparo and habeas data petitions. However, the appellate court in August denied the protection order for Tamano and Castro.
Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito fully dissented in the decision and said: “It would be uncharacteristic for the courts, especially this court, to simply fold their arms and ignore the palpable threats to petitioners’ life, liberty and security and just wait for the irreversible to happen to them.”
Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka says that as far as Fiji is concerned, Fijians of Indian descent are Fijian.
While Fiji is part of the Pacific, Indo-Fijians are not classified as Pacific peoples in New Zealand; instead, they are listed under Indian and Asian on the Stats NZ website.
“The ‘Fijian Indian’ ethnic group is currently classified under ‘Asian,’ in the subcategory ‘Indian’, along with other diasporic Indian ethnic groups,” Stats NZ told RNZ Pacific.
“This has been the case since 2005 and is in line with an ethnographic profile that includes people with a common language, customs, and traditions.
“Stats NZ is aware of concerns some have about this classification, and it is an ongoing point of discussion with stakeholders.”
The Fijian Indian community in Aotearoa has long opposed this and raised the issue again at a community event Rabuka attended in Auckland’s Māngere ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Samoa last month.
“As far as Fiji is concerned, [Indo-Fijians] are Fijians,” he said.
‘A matter of sovereignty’
When asked what his message to New Zealand on the issue would be, he said: “I cannot; that is a matter of sovereignty, the sovereign decision by the government of New Zealand. What they call people is their sovereign right.
“As far as we are concerned, we hope that they will be treated as Fijians.”
More than 60,000 people were transferred from all parts of British India to work in Fiji between 1879 and 1916 as indentured labourers.
Today, they make up over 32 percent of the total population, according to Fiji Bureau of Statistics’ 2017 Population Census.
Sangam community NZ leader and former Nadi mayor Salesh Mudaliar . . . “If you do a DNA or do a blood test, we are more of Fijian than anything else. We are not Indian.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
Now many, like Sangam community NZ leader and former Nadi Mayor Salesh Mudaliar, say they are more Fijian than Indian.
“If you do a DNA or do a blood test, we are more of Fijian than anything else. We are not Indian,” Mudaliar said.
The indentured labourers, who came to be known as the Girmitiyas, as they were bound by a girmit — a Hindi pronunciation of the English word “agreement”.
RNZ Pacific had approached the Viti Council e Aotearoa for their views on the issue. However, they refused to comment, saying that its chair “has opted out of this interview.”
“Topic itself is misleading bordering on disinformation [and] misinformation from an Indigenous Fijian perspective and overly sensitive plus short notice.”
‘Struggling for identity’ “We are Pacific Islanders. If you come from Tonga or Samoa, you are a Pacific Islander,” Mudaliar said.
“When [Indo-Fijians] come from Fiji, we are not. We are not a migrant to Fiji. We have been there for [over 140] years.”
“The community is still struggling for its identity here in New Zealand . . . we are still not [looked after].
He said they had tried to lobby the New Zealand government for their status but without success.
“Now it is the National government, and no one seems to be listening to us in understanding the situation.
“If we can have an open discussion on this, coming to the same table, and knowing what our problem is, then it would be really appreciated.”
Fijians of Indian descent with Prime Minister Rabuka at the community event in Auckland last month. Image: Facebook/Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
Lifting quality of data Stats NZ said it was aware of the need to lift the quality of ethnicity data across the government data system.
“Public consultation in 2019 determined a need for an in-depth review of the Ethnicity Standard,” the data agency said.
In 2021, Stats NZ undertook a large scoping exercise with government agencies, researchers, iwi Māori, and community groups to help establish the scope of the review.
Stats NZ subsequently stood up an expert working group to progress the review.
“This review is still underway, and Stats NZ will be conducting further consultation, so we will have more to say in due course,” it said.
“Classifying ethnicity and ethnic identity is extremely complex, and it is important Stats NZ takes the time to consult extensively and ensure we get this right,” the agency added.
This week, Fijians celebrate the Hindu festival of lights, Diwali. The nation observes a public holiday to mark the day, and Fijians of all backgrounds get involved.
Prime Minister Rabuka’s message is for all Fijians to be kind to each other.
“Act in accordance with the spirit of Diwali and show kindness to those who are going through difficulties,” he told local reporters outside Parliament yesterday.
“It is a good time for us to abstain from using bad language against each other on social media.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Warnings are not enough. After Victoria Roshchyna’s death, we need zero tolerance of the detention and brutal treatment of female reporters
Last summer I began receiving messages about the disappearance of 26-year-old Victoria Roshchyna, a young Ukrainian journalist, who had gone missing while reporting from occupied east Ukraine.
Since we began our Women Press Freedom project, I and my colleagues at the Coalition for Women in Journalism have received a lot of messages of concern about the safety of female journalists all over the world, but I vividly remember the pain and terror that peppered the SOS calls from Roshchyna’s friends and colleagues.
Kiran Nazish is the director and founder of the Coalition for Women in Journalism and Women Press Freedom
Before the formation of the Israel Defence Forces in 1948, there were three underground Zionist militias — The Haganah, the Irgun and the Lehi.
Their methods and tactics have been unpacked in a new Middle East Eye “The Big Picture” podcast this week by New Zealand journalist Mohamed Hassan.
The IDF, which critics brand as the IOF (“Israel Offensive Forces”), claims to be the “most moral army in the world”, but it has killed almost 43,000 Palestinians — mostly women and children — in a year-long war on Gaza and now more than 3000 people in the deadly attacks on Lebanon.
The three Zionist militias differed in tactics and beliefs, and at times fought with each other — but together they terrorised Palestinian villages and executed attacks and bombings against the British to force them to give up control of the land.
They blew up hotels in Jerusalem, embassies in Europe and assassinated a UN mediator in the lead up to what is called the Nakba — the “Catastrophe” — in 1948 when 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly evicted from their towns, villages and countryside.
After Israel declared its independence as a state — the three militias would combine to create the IDF, called Tzahal in the Hebrew-language acronym. The militia leaders would go on to form Israel’s government, become politicians, ambassadors and prime ministers.
And their dark history would be forgotten.
This week “The Big Picture” unpacks that history.
The untold history of the Israel Defence Forces. Podcast: Middle East Eye
In December 2008, I visited the Abepura prison in Jayapura, West Papua, to verify a report sent to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture alleging abuses inside the jailhouse, as well as shortages of food and water.
After prison guards checked my bag, I passed through a metal detector into the prison hall, joining the Sunday service with about 30 prisoners. A man sat near me. He had a thick beard and wore a small Morning Star flag on his chest.
The flag, a symbol of independence for West Papua, is banned by the Indonesian authorities, so I was a little surprised to see it worn inside the prison.
I immediately recognised him. Karma was arrested in 2004 after giving a speech on West Papua nationalism, and had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for “treason”.
It was the beginning of my many interviews with Karma. And I began to understand what made him such a courageous leader.
Born in 1959 in Jayapura, Karma was raised in an elite, educated family.
Student-led protests
In 1998, when Karma returned after studying from the Asian Institute of Management in Manila, he found Indonesia engulfed in student-led protests against the authoritarian rule of President Suharto.
On 2 July 1998, he led a ceremony to peacefully raise the Morning Star flag on Biak Island. It prompted a deadly attack by the Indonesian military that the authorities said killed at least eight Papuans, but Papuans recovered 32 bodies. Karma was arrested and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Karma gradually emerged as a leader who campaigned peacefully but tirelessly on behalf of the rights of Indigenous Papuans. He also worked as a civil servant, training new government employees.
He was invariably straightforward and precise. He provided detailed data, including names, dates, and actions about torture and other mistreatment at Abepura prison.
Human Rights Watch published these investigations in June 2009. It had quite an impact, prompting media pressure that forced the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to investigate the allegations.
In August 2009, Karma became seriously ill and was hospitalised at the Dok Dua hospital. The doctors examined him several times, and finally, in October, recommended that he be sent for surgery that could only be done in Jakarta.
But bureaucracy, either deliberately or through incompetence, kept delaying his treatment. “I used to be a bureaucrat myself,” Karma said. “But I have never experienced such [use of] red tape on a sick man.”
Papuan political prisoners Jefry Wandikbo (left) and Filep Karma (center) chat with the author Andreas Harsono at Abepura prison in Jayapura, Papua, in May 2015. They continued to campaign against arbitrary detention by the Indonesian authorities. Image: Ruth Ogetay/HRW
Health crowdfunding
His health problems, however, drew public attention. Papuan activists started collecting money to pay for the airfare and surgery in Jakarta. I helped write a crowdfunding proposal. People deposited the donations directly into his bank account.
I was surprised when I found out that the total donation, including from some churches, had almost reached IDR1 billion (US$700,000). It was enough to also pay for his mother, Eklefina Noriwari, an uncle, a cousin and an assistant to travel with him. They rented a guest house near the hospital.
Some wondered why he travelled with such a large entourage. The answer is that Indigenous Papuans distrust the Indonesian government. Many of their political leaders had mysteriously died while receiving medical treatment in Jakarta. They wanted to ensure that Filep Karma was safe.
When he was admitted to Cikini hospital, the ward had a small security cordon. I saw many Indonesian security people, including four prison guards, guarding his room, but also church delegates, visiting him.
Papuan students, mostly waiting in the inner yard, said they wanted to make sure, “Our leader is okay.”
After a two-hour surgery, Karma recovered quickly, inviting me and my wife to visit him. His mother and his two daughters, Audryn and Andrefina, also visited my Jakarta apartment. In July 2011, after 11 days in the hospital, he was considered fit enough to return to prison.
In May 2011, the Washington-based Freedom Now filed a petition with the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention on Karma’s behalf. Six months later, the Working Group determined that his detention violated international standards, saying that Indonesia’s courts “disproportionately” used the laws against treason, and called for his immediate release.
President refused to act
But President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono refused to act, prompting criticism at the UN forum on the discrimination and abuses against Papuans.
I often visited Karma in prison. He took a correspondence course at Universitas Terbuka, studying police science. He read voraciously.
He studied Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King on non-violent movements and moral courage. He also drew, using pencil and charcoal. He surprised me with my portrait that he drew on a Jacob’s biscuit box.
His name began to appear globally. Chinese artist Ai Weiwei drew political prisoners, including Karma, in an exhibition at Alcatraz prison near San Francisco. Amnesty International produced a video about Karma.
Interestingly, he also read my 2011 book on journalism, “Agama” Saya Adalah Jurnalisme (My “Religion” Is Journalism), apparently inspiring him to write his own book. He used an audio recorder to express his thoughts, asking his friends to type and to print outside, which he then edited.
His 137-page book was published in November 2014, entitled, Seakan Kitorang Setengah Binatang: Rasialisme Indonesia di Tanah Papua (As If We’re Half Animals: Indonesian Racism in West Papua). It became a very important book on racism against Indigenous Papuans in Indonesia.
The Indonesian government, under new President Joko Widodo, finally released Karma in November 2015, and after that gradually released more than 110 political prisoners from West Papua and the Maluku Islands.
Release from jail celebration
Hundreds of Papuan activists welcomed Karma, bringing him from the prison to a field to celebrate with dancing and singing. He called me that night, saying that he had that “strange feeling” of missing the Abepura prison, his many inmate friends, his vegetable garden, as well as the boxing club, which he managed. He had spent 11 years inside the Abepura prison.
“It’s nice to be back home though,” he said laughing.
He slowly rebuilt his activism, traveling to many university campuses throughout Indonesia, also overseas, and talking about human rights abuses, the environmental destruction in West Papua, as well as his advocacy for an independent West Papua.
Students often invited him to talk about his book.
In Jakarta, he rented a studio near my apartment as his stopping point. We met socially, and also attended public meetings together. I organised his birthday party in August 2018. He bought new gear for his scuba diving. My wife, Sapariah, herself a diving enthusiast, noted that Karma was an excellent diver: “He swims like a fish.”
Filep Karma (right) with his brother-in-law George Waromi at Base G beach, Jayapura, Papua, on 30 October 2022. Karma said he planned to go spearfishing alone. His body washed ashore two days later. Image: Larz Barnabas Waromi/HRW
The resistance of Papuans in Indonesia to discrimination took on a new phase following a 17 August 2019 attack by security forces on a Papuan student dormitory in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, in which the students were subjected to racial insults.
The attack renewed discussions on anti-Papuan racial discrimination and sovereignty for West Papua. Papuan students and others acting through a social media movement called Papuan Lives Matter, inspired by Black Lives Matter in the United States, took part in a wave of protests that broke out in many parts of Indonesia.
The new Human Rights Watch report “If It’s Not Racism, What Is It?”: Discrimination and Other Abuses Against Papuans in Indonesia. Image: HRW screenshot APR
Everyone reading Karma’s book
Everyone was reading Filep Karma’s book. Karma protested when these young activists, many of whom he personally knew, such as Sayang Mandabayan, Surya Anta Ginting and Victor Yeimo, were arrested and charged with treason.
“Protesting racism should not be considered treason,” he said.
The Indonesian government responded by detaining hundreds. Papuans Behind Bars, a nongovernmental organisation that monitors politically motivated arrests in West Papua, recorded 418 new cases from October 2020 to September 2021. At least 245 of them were charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for joining the protests, with 109 convicted of “treason”.
However, while in the past, Papuans charged with political offences typically were sentenced to years — in Karma’s case, 15 years — in the recent cases, perhaps because of international and domestic attention, the Indonesian courts handed down much shorter sentences, often time already served.
The coronavirus pandemic halted his activism in 2020-2022. He had plenty of time for scuba diving and spearfishing. Once he posted on Facebook that when a shark tried to steal his fish, he smacked it on the snout.
On 1 November 2022, my good friend Filep Karma was found dead on a Jayapura beach. He had apparently gone diving alone. He was wearing his scuba diving suit.
His mother, Eklefina Noriwari, called me that morning, telling me that her son had died. “I know you’re his close friend,” she told me. “Please don’t be sad. He died doing what he liked best . . . the sea, the swimming, the diving.”
West Papua was in shock. More than 30,000 people attended his funeral, flying the Morning Star flag, as their last act of respect for a courageous man. Mourners heard the speakers celebrating Filep Karma’s life, and then quietly went home.
It was peaceful. And this is exactly what Filep Karma’s message is about.
In a significant legal victory, Palestinian student Dana Abu Qamar has won her appeal at the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) against the Home Office’s attempt to cancel her student visa in December 2023. This decision comes after court documents showed that then-immigration minister Robert Jenrick personally intervened in the matter, enquiring with the Home Office whether it would be “possible to revoke her student visa”. The case centred around support for Palestinian resistance.
Dana Abu Qamar
The Tribunal’s decision is a landmark ruling, rebuffing the British government’s relentless attempts to conflate solidarity with Palestine with ‘terrorism’ or ‘antisemitism’ and reaffirming the right to support Palestinian resistance under International Humanitarian Law.
The decision was upheld despite a change in government, with the new Labour Party-appointed home secretary, Yvette Cooper, refusing to reverse the initial punitive decision – illustrating how Labour has continued Tory policies that stifle advocacy and solidarity for Palestinian rights.
The decision to cancel Abu Qamar’s visa came in the midst of a major crackdown by the previous government against the growing mobilisation in solidarity with Palestine in the wake of Israel’s genocidal onslaught on Gaza that has now been ongoing for over a year.
Significantly, the Tribunal declared that Abu Qamar was ‘not an extremist’ and ruled that the Home Office had failed to demonstrate that Abu Qamar’s statements in support of Palestinian resistance made her presence in Britain ‘not conducive to the public good’ – the test at the heart of Britain’s sweeping powers to deport individuals and deprive them of British citizenship.
The Tribunal also recognised that Abu Qamar’s description of Israel as an “apartheid state,” aligned with the views of numerous human rights organisations and that references to Palestinians “actively resisting” and as “breaking free” are widely understood to relate to lawful acts of resistance.
Supporting Palestinian resistance does not equal extremism
Subsequently, ruling that support for Palestinian resistance does not constitute extremism and falls within protected free speech pursuant to Article 10 of the ECHR and thus attempts at revocating Dana’s visa under these grounds violates her fundamental rights.
Dana Abu Qamar’s win is a boost for the Palestine solidarity movement and a blow to the British government’s shameless attempts to criminalise protestors and bully them into silence.
The decision raises questions about the deeply politicised use of security and counter-terrorism powers against the Palestine movement and increasingly against those engaging in political activism and protest against the state.
The European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) calls for an end to the punitive use of counter-terrorism measures to suppress critical dissent and urges the UK government to uphold international human rights standards, protecting the rights of all communities to advocate for justice and lawful resistance against settler colonialism freely.
A battle against state repression
Dana Abu Qamar said:
After a year-long legal battle against state repression and disregard of human rights, specifically targeted against pro-Palestinians, justice has prevailed.
This case has reinforced Palestinians’ right to resist occupation in the domestic context; that the expression in support of that right cannot be conflated with support for terrorism; that there is no room for abuse of power by ministers and arbitrary decision-making to undermine the rule of law. I hope that this ruling inspires and strengthens supporters of the Palestinian movement to continue advocating against Israel’s flagrant violations of international law.
I am grateful to the ELSC, my legal team, comrades, friends and family for their support throughout the whole process.
Tasnima Uddin, from ELSC, stated:
Dana Abu Qamar’s landmark legal victory is a powerful reminder that government measures are often wielded to criminalise dissent, particularly within Palestinian, Muslim, and other minority communities.
This decision underscores the misuse of vague security terms—like ‘non-conducive to the public good’—to stifle expressions of solidarity with Palestine, particularly in an atmosphere increasingly charged by racist political agendas, such as those spearheaded by figures like Robert Jenrick.
Abu Qamar’s victory is a crucial step against the erosion of civil liberties and sends a clear message: solidarity with Palestine is not a crime. Supporting Palestinian resistance is internationally recognised and is not extremism.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves presented the Labour Party’s first budget since being elected to government on Wednesday 30 October. However, what has not been widely reported is that she slashed the international aid budget – seemingly veering further to the right.
International aid budget: cutting more than the Tories
As BBC News reported:
Reeves chose not to renew a £2.5bn top-up to the UK’s overseas aid budget introduced by the Tories to compensate for the huge amount of foreign aid being spent housing refugees and asylum seekers in hotels.
The budget includes departmental allocations for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) for 2024-25 and 2025-26 and drops the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget down from 0.58% of gross national income (GNI) in 23-24 to 0.5% of GNI for 24-25 and 25-26, which means a real terms cut for UK aid.
In the Autumn Budget, Reeves’s decision mean that the UK international aid budget will drop from £15.3bn (0.58% of GNI) in 2023 to £13.3bn in 2024-25 and £13.7bn in 2025-26 (0.5% of GNI)
Maintaining UK aid at 0.5% for 24-25, while UK aid spent on refugees within the UK is projected to stay at near record levels (estimated at 28% (£3.8bn) of the total) will result in a significant real- terms cut for UK aid programmes globally.
Reeves made a commitment to bring asylum costs down, including by ending expensive hotel accommodation. However she made no tangible commitment to changing the current approach of using the UK international aid budget to cover the costs.
A commitment to restore UK aid spending to its legally required 0.7% of GNI, but since the government has chosen to keep the previous government’s fiscal rules this means that the OBR’s latest forecast shows that the tests to return to 0.7% will not be met within this Parliament (2024-28/29).
Non-governmental organisations and charities have hit back.
‘Short sighted’ on international aid budget
In response to Reeves’s announcement over the international aid budget, Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, the UK network for NGOs, said:
The government has made the short-sighted decision to slash UK aid in the Autumn budget. By refusing to renew the top-ups made by the previous government to offset the rising costs of housing asylum seekers in the UK, UK aid will plummet this year.
We must support asylum seekers, but funding should come from a dedicated budget – not at the expense of other marginalised communities around the world. By sticking to the previous government’s restrictive fiscal rules for returning to 0.7%, the government not only jeopardises support for those facing poverty, humanitarian crises and climate change, but it also reneges on its promise to return to 0.7% and re-position itself as a reliable development partner ahead of upcoming summits like the G20 and COP29.
Hannah Bond, co-CEO at ActionAid UK said:
We are profoundly disappointed that the Chancellor has chosen not to uplift the Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget in the Autumn statement today. For a government that came to power pledging to reset its global relationships and place tackling climate change at the core of its foreign policy, this statement is an indication it plans to do anything but.
After the previous government took a wrecking ball to projects aimed at tackling gender inequality, Labour is following in their footsteps by further abandoning women and girls when they need it the most. We urge them to rethink this decision and consider what it signals to the rest of the international community.
Labour’s ‘vision’ will fail
Selena Victor, senior director of policy and advocacy for Mercy Corps Europe said:
While it is some relief to see the UK maintain its current level of ODA – this remains at a 17-year low. We urge the government to return to spending 0.7% of GDP on oversees aid urgently. Times are tough indeed, but investing in development – in stability, poverty reduction, disease prevention, education, economic development, peace – is a down payment on our shared future prosperity. While failure to do so is just building future costs – in terms of both humanitarian needs and lives lost.
Tim Wainwright, chief executive of WaterAid said of Reeves’s cut to the international aid budget:
The UK government’s Autumn Budget aims to “fix the foundations to deliver on its promise of change” – a mandate of change that includes delivering a global reset on climate and international development. Yet, todays’ Autumn Statement has failed to progress this agenda.
With 1 in 10 people worldwide lacking access to clean water, Labour’s manifesto vision of a world free from poverty on a liveable planet” will fail unless the UK does more to invest in water – the global foundation of life, prosperity, health and security.
Looking forward, Labour must urgently restore its levels of Official Development Aid to support those on the frontline of the global water and climate crisis and ensure stability and prosperity at home and abroad – only then can we truly fix the foundations of life.
Law firm AS&H Clifford Chance failed to include alleged abuse of migrant workers in assessment for Fifa 2034 bid, say rights groups
A report by the Saudi arm of a global law firm on Saudi Arabia’s 2034 Fifa World Cup bid has “whitewashed” the Gulf kingdom’s record of exploiting and suppressing the rights of migrant workers, rights groups have claimed.
AS&H Clifford Chance was commissioned to independently assess the human rights implications of the bid, but the report “contains no substantive discussion of extensive and relevant abuses in Saudi Arabia”, according to a statement released by 11 organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Israel is the world’s second-worst offender after Haiti in letting the murder of journalists go unpunished, according to a new report from the Committee to Protect Journalists, reports Al Jazeera.
According to the CPJ’s 2024 Global Impunity Index, released yesterday, Somalia, Syria and South Sudan round up the list of the top five countries allowing journalists’ killers to evade justice.
“What’s clear from our index is that Israel is not committed to investigating or punishing those who have killed journalists . . . Israel has deliberately targeted journalists for being journalists,” CPJ chief executive Jodie Ginsberg told Al Jazeera.
The CPJ index also noted that globally, nobody was held accountable for 80 percent of cases related to the murder of journalists, and in at least 241 killings there had been evidence that the journalists were directly targeted for their work.
Rise of criminal gangs
The index — which was launched in 2008 — comprises 13 nations this year and includes both democracies and non-democratic governments.
Haiti, which tops the list, has been challenged by the rise of criminal gangs, who played a role in destabilising the country’s administrative and judicial institutions, resulting in the murders of at least seven journalists remaining unresolved in the country, the index said.
Meanwhile, Israel, which ranks second on the list, has appeared on the index for the first time since its inception.
The CPJ said the country’s “failure to hold anyone to account in the targeted killing of five journalists in Gaza and Lebanon in a year of relentless war”, had resulted in its ranking on the index.
While the press freedom NGO is investigating the killings of at least 10 journalists, the CPJ said the number of murdered journalists might still be higher, considering the scale of Israel’s war in Gaza and Lebanon.
Israel ‘deliberately targeted journalists’ At least 128 journalists and media workers are among the tens of thousands of people Israel has killed in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon over the past year — the deadliest time for journalists since the CPJ began to track the killings more than four decades ago.
The CPJ index also noted that Mexico has recorded the highest overall number of unpunished murders of journalists – 21 – during the index period and ranks eighth on the index because of its sizeable population.
Asian countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar, Pakistan and the Philippines have been appearing on the index regularly since its inception.
Calling on the international community to help journalists, Ginsberg said in a statement: “Murder is the ultimate weapon to silence journalists.”
“Once impunity takes hold, it sends a clear message: that killing a journalist is acceptable and that those who continue reporting may face a similar fate.”
As a three-day fact-finding mission from a group of Pacific leaders drew to a close in New Caledonia, and with the outcomes report not expected before next year, the visit to the riot-hit French Pacific territory seems to have triggered a new sense of awareness locally about the values of Pacific regional mechanisms of “talanoa” embodied by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).
Local President Louis Mapou stressed on several occasions during the visit that New Caledonia’s situation was the “subject of much attention” in the Pacific region.
He suggested that one of the reasons for this could be because of a potential “spillover” effect that could “jeopardise cohesion in the Pacific”.
However, Mapou also stressed that he had received the message conveyed by the PIF “Troika-Plus” group that “they’re ready to take part in [New Caledonia’s] reconstruction”.
‘New Caledonia’s regional integration in its region’
Mapou said that one of the recurrent themes during the PIF visit was “New Caledonia’s regional integration in its region”.
“Whatever might be said, in many ways, New Caledonia does not know its [Pacific] region very well. Because it has this affiliation relationship to Europe and France that has prevailed over all these years,” he told local media.
“So, in a certain way, we’re just discovering our region. And in this process, the Pacific Islands Forum could bring a sort of leverage,” he said.
Kanaky New Caledonia, as well as French Polynesia — both French Pacific entities — became full members of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2016, after several years of “associate members” status.
Mapou said New Caledonia’s current status vis-à-vis France was mentioned during talks with the PIF mission.
“I spoke with them about obstacles that should be removed, that are directly related to our current status. This is part of topics on which we should be working in future,” he said.
“They’re very open-minded, they don’t have any preconceived ideas, they’re happy to talk equally about the concepts of independence, just as they are for keeping [New Caledonia] within the French Republic,” he revealed.
One of the unexpected outcomes, beyond the specific fact-finding mission that brought this PIF “Troika-Plus” leaders’ delegation to New Caledonia, seems to have underlined the values of regionalism, as well as New Caledonia’s long-awaited and genuine integration in its “regional environment”.
These values seem to have been recognised by all sides of New Caledonia’s political spectrum, as well as all walks of life within the civil, economic, educational and religious society.
PIF’s “Troika-Plus” leaders meet with Southern Province President Sonia Backès (third from left) at SPC headquarters last Monday. Image: PIF/RNZ Pacific
Pacific diversity in status During the past few days, informal exchanges with the Pacific leaders have also allowed New Caledonia’s authorities to share and compare possible ways forward regarding the territory’s political status.
“They readily exchanged their own experiences with our government. The Cook Islands, which is a self-governing state in ‘free association’ with New Zealand; Tonga, which has never been colonised; and the Solomon Islands, who have also undergone inter-ethnic conflicts and where the young population was also involved. And Fiji, which obtained independence (in 1970), had decided to withdraw from the Commonwealth and is finally re-discussing its link with Great Britain,” Mapou briefed local media on Tuesday.
The leaders spent three days (October 27-29) in the French Pacific territory to gather information on the ground, after destructive riots broke out in May, resulting in 13 deaths and extensive economic damage estimated at €2.2 billion.
During the three days, the PIF leaders met a wide range of political, business, religious, and civil society leaders to get a first-hand account of the situation.
On Tuesday, the “plus” component of the troika, Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, reiterated the mission’s assigned mantra in a manner of conclusion to their mission.
“We were here to understand and make recommendations. We have heard many extremely different attitudes. We hope it will be possible to find a solution for the people and the government,” Rabuka told religious leaders.
Bitterness from civil society The long series of talks, within a particularly tight schedule, also allowed groups within New Caledonia’s civil society — including traditional chiefs, youth, human rights activists, educationists, mayors and women — to express their views directly during the Pacific leaders’ visit.
Some of these groups also took the opportunity to point out that they were not always listened to in other circumstances.
“Today, peace has just been through a rough episode. And we, women, are being asked to help. But when was the last time we were heard?
“We’ve already said women should be part of all levels of decision-making, including on matters of dealing with violence and access for women to economic empowerment.
“We were ignored. And then, when fire breaks out, we’re being asked for help because this is the foundation of Pacific values,” said Sonia Tonga, the president of the Oceania Union of Francophone Women, which groups women’s groups from New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis-and-Futuna and Vanuatu.
Talking about the youth, she said there was an “ill-being”, “they don’t recognise themselves in this system, including for education. We’re trying to fit an Oceanian society into a framework that has not been designed for them.
“When will we be heard in our country?”.
As part of talks with church leaders, it was also pointed out that there were benefits from sharing experiences with Pacific leaders.
“I’ve been many times in Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and other Pacific islands. They too have had their hard times.
“And they too are familiar with the experience of violence which is difficult to bring back to a path of dialogue,” said 80-year-old Nouméa Catholic Archbishop Michel-Marie Calvet, a respected figure.
In terms of earlier crises in the Pacific region, among PIF member island states, in the early 2000s, civil unrest occurred in both Fiji and the Solomon Islands, with shops being targeted and looted.
Under Pacific Islands Forum mechanisms, especially the declaration of Biketawa, this prompted in 2003 the setting up of “RAMSI” (Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands), with mostly Australia and New Zealand military and police as its main contributors, with additional input from other Pacific island countries.
In Fiji, the mission to defuse the crisis, associated with an attempted coup and a MPs hostage situation within Parliament buildings in May 2000, was mainly achieved by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) through protracted negotiations and without violence.
Forum “Troika-Plus” leaders in New Caledonia conducting a fact-finding mission to assess the situation on ground. Image: X /@ForumSEC/RNZ Pacific
Supporting Pacific dialogue
In the political sphere, there was a recognition of the benefits of a Pacific perspective.
“There is a Pacific tradition of dialogue and talanoa. So, I think [the PIF leaders] can invite pro-independence parties to come to the [negotiating] table,” said New Caledonia’s Mayors’ Association president Pascal Vittori.
“We’re actually expecting PIF will back this notion of dialogue — that’s what’s important now,” he told local media.
Sonia Backès, one of the staunchest defenders of New Caledonia remaining part of France, told reporters on Monday: “We didn’t ask for this [mission]. Now we’re waiting for this (troika) report based on their observing mission.
“We all know that there are biased views on the part of some, one way or the other.
“So we hope the final report will be as fair and neutral as possible so as not to add fuel to the fire.”
Following their visit to New Caledonia and based on the information gathered, the Forum “Troika-Plus” leaders are expected to compile a “comprehensive report” to be submitted to the next annual Forum Leaders’ Summit in the Solomon Islands in 2025.
“The terms of reference of this mission were discussed beforehand between the government of New Caledonia, the Pacific Islands Forum and the (French) State. We all agreed that what was most important was to have an assessment of the situation.
“There is a need to provide information to the public so that it is an informed opinion leader. It’s important in those times of misinformation and manipulation from one side or the other,” French ambassador for the Pacific Véronique Roger-Lacan told public broadcaster NC la 1ère TV on Tuesday evening.
Business sector now needs Pacific market overtures Even the business sector now seems to believe that, as a result of the widespread destruction caused by the riots, which has left more than 800 companies burnt down and looted, as well as thousands jobless, the wider Pacific region has now become a new potentially attractive market.
“Our local market has just shrunk considerably and so we will need to find new openings for our products. In that perspective, our cooperation with the Pacific is very, very strategic”, said business leaders association MEDEF-NC president Mimsy Daly.
She had once again presented a detailed view of the widespread devastation caused by the recent riots and those who took part.
“‘Were they aware of what they were doing?’ is one of the questions I was asked,” she wrote on social networks after her encounter with the “Troika-Plus”.
“A logical question when you know that what has been destroyed equals about 70 percent of the GDP of the Cook Islands, 100 percent of the GDP of the Solomon Islands and 40 percent of the GDP of Fiji.”
But she admitted the response to this complex question was “primordial” and “every light will have to be shed on the matter”.
In a wrap-up of the three days, President Mapou held a final meeting with the group on Tuesday.
Wide circle of ‘concertation’ needed French High Commissioner Louis Le Franc, after a final meeting with the delegation, said: “They have come here to seek the profound causes of what happened on May 13. They have been listening very closely.
“I understand their view is that a wide circle of concertation [cooperation] will be required to reach an agreement,” he said.
He elaborated, saying that the Pacific Forum leaders seemed to place a lot of hope in the notions of “trust”, the “necessity of living together” and the PIF’s “will to help, while saying that, at the same time, the solution lies in the hands of New Caledonia”.
French President Macron (right) with New Caledonia’s President Louis Mapou (left) and former New Caledonia Congress President Roch Wamytan (centre) earlier this year. Image: RNZ Pacific
Next: another ‘concertation and dialogue’ mission Following the PIF “Troika-Plus” mission, another visit is expected in New Caledonia in the next few days — this time coming from Paris.
This new high-level visit will be headed by the presidents of both houses of Parliament in France (Senate and National Assembly), respectively Gérard Larcher and Yaël Braun-Pivet, from November 9-14.
They will lead what is described as a “mission of concertation and dialogue”.
The dates come as a top-level meeting took place last week, presided by French Head of State Emmanuel Macron and attended by French minister for Overseas François-Noël Buffet (who had just returned from New Caledonia), French PM Barnier, Larcher and Braun-Pivet.
The objective, once again, was to reinforce the signal that the time had come to resume political dialogue.
Macron indicated earlier that he still intended to host a meeting in Paris sometime in November.
Buffet was also in New Caledonia earlier this month for four days to assess the situation and try to restore a path to dialogue between all political stakeholders, both pro-independence and pro-France.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Xu is protesting against what he describes as inhumane treatment in prison, including lack of contact with his family
Concerns are growing about the health of Xu Zhiyong, China’s most prominent imprisoned human rights lawyer, who is thought to have been on hunger strike for nearly a month.
Xu, a scholar and leading figure in China’s embattled civil rights movement, started his hunger strike on 4 October, according to Chinese Human Rights Defenders, an NGO. He is protesting against what he describes as inhumane treatment in prison, including lack of contact with his family and intensive surveillance by other prisoners, according to reports released through his relatives.
Writers resign from The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times in protest over the blocking of their editorials by the billionaire owners. Video: Democracy Now!
This is Democracy Now!, “War, Peace and the Presidency.” I am Amy Goodman, with Juan González:
The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post newspapers are facing mounting backlash after the papers’ publishers announced no presidential endorsements would be made this year. The LA Times is owned by billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong, and The Washington Post is owned by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos.
National Public Radio (NPR) is reporting more than 200,000 people have cancelled their Washington Post subscriptions, and counting.
A number of journalists have also resigned, including the editorials editor at the Los Angeles Times, Mariel Garza, who wrote, “How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger — who we previously endorsed for the U.S. Senate?”
Veteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein have also resigned from the L.A. Times editorial board.
At The Washington Post, David Hoffman and Molly Roberts both resigned on Monday from the Post editorial board. Michele Norris also resigned as a Washington Post columnist, and Robert Kagan resigned as editor-at-large.
David Hoffman, who just won a Pulitzer Prize for his series “Annals of Autocracy,” wrote, “I believe we face a very real threat of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump. I find it untenable and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this perilous moment.”
David Hoffman joins us now, along with former Los Angeles Times editorials editor Mariel Garza.
David Hoffman, let’s begin with you. Explain why you left The Washington Post editorial board. Oh, and at the same time, congratulations on your Pulitzer Prize.
DAVID HOFFMAN: Thank you very much.
I worked for 12 years writing editorials in which I said over and over again, “We cannot be silent in the face of dictatorship, not anywhere.” And I wrote about dissidents who were imprisoned for speaking out.
And I felt that I couldn’t write another editorial decrying silence if we were going to be silent in the face of Trump’s autocracy. And I feel very, very strongly that the campaign has exposed his intention to be an autocrat.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, David Hoffman, is there any precedent for the publisher of The Washington Post overruling their own editorial board?
DAVID HOFFMAN: Yeah, there’s lots of precedent. It’s entirely within the right of the publisher and the owner to do this. Previous owners have often told the editorial board what to say, because we are the voice of the institution and its owner. So, there’s nothing wrong with that.
What’s wrong here is the timing. If they had made this decision early in the year and announced, as a principle, they don’t want to issue endorsements, nobody would have even blinked. A lot of papers don’t. People have rightly questioned whether they actually have any impact.
What matters here was, we are right on the doorstep of the most consequential election in our lifetimes. To pull the plug on the endorsement, to go silent against Trump days before the election, that to me was just unconscionable.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Mariel Garza, could you talk about the situation at the LA Times and your reaction when you heard of the owner’s decision?
MARIEL GARZA: Certainly. It was a long conversation over the course of many weeks. We presented our proposal to endorse Kamala Harris. And, of course, there was — to us, there was no question that we would endorse her. We spent nine years talking about the dangers of Trump, called him unfit in 5 million ways, and Kamala Harris is somebody that we know. She’s a California elected official.
We’ve had a lot of conversations with her. We’ve seen her career evolved. We were going to — we were going to endorse her. And there was no indication that we were going to suddenly shift to a neutral position, certainly not within a few weeks or months of the election.
At first, we didn’t get a clear answer — sounds like it’s the same situation that happened at The Washington Post — until we pressed for one. We presented an outline with — these are the points we’re going to make — and an argument for why not only was it important for us, an editorial board whose mission is to speak truth to power, to stand up to tyranny — our readers expect it.
We’re a very liberal paper. There is no — there is no question what the editorial board believes, that Donald Trump should not be president ever.
AMY GOODMAN: Mariel, I wanted to —
MARIEL GARZA: So, it was perplexing. It was mystifying. It was — go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: Mariel, I wanted to get your response to the daughter of the LA Times owner. On Saturday, Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong’s daughter Nika Soon-Shiong posted a message online suggesting that her father’s decision was linked to Kamala Harris’s support for Israel’s war on Gaza.
Nika wrote, “Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process.
“As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children,” she wrote.
Her father, Patrick Soon-Shiong, later disputed her claim, saying that she has no role at the Los Angeles Times. Mariel Garza, your response?
MARIEL GARZA: Look, I really don’t know what to say, because I have — that was — if that was the case, it was never communicated to us. I do not know what goes on in the conversation in the Soon-Shiong household. I know that she is not — she does not participate in deliberations of the editorial board, as far as I know. I’ve never spoken to her.
We all know how she feels about Gaza, because she’s a prolific tweeter. So, I really can’t say. And this is part of the bigger problem, is we were never given a reason for why we were being silent.
If there was a reason — say it was Israel — we could have explained that to readers. Instead, we remain silent. And that’s — I mean, this is not a time in American history where anybody can remain silent or neutral.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, David Hoffman, this whole issue has been raised by some critics of Jeff Bezos that his company has a lot of business with the US government, and whether that had any impact on Bezos’s decision. I’m wondering your thoughts.
DAVID HOFFMAN: I can’t be inside his mind. His company does have big business, and he’s acknowledged it’s a complicating factor in his ownership. But I can’t really understand why he made this decision, and I don’t think it’s been very well explained. His explanation published today was that he wants sort of more civic quiet, and he thought an endorsement would add to the sense of anxiety and the poisonous atmosphere.
But I disagree with that. I think, like in the LA Times, I think readers have come to expect us to be a voice of reason, and they’ve looked to endorsements at least for some clarity. So, frankly, I also feel that we’re still lacking an explanation.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, you have subtitle, the slogan of The Washington Post, of course, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” It’s being mocked all over social media. One person wrote, “Hello Darkness My Old Friend.”
David Hoffman, your response to that? But also, you won the Pulitzer Prize for your series “Annals of Autocracy,” and you talk about digital billionaires, as well, and what this means. How does this fit into your investigations?
DAVID HOFFMAN: You know, I would hope everybody would understand and acknowledge that we’ve done a lot of good for democracy and human rights. You know, I’ve had governments react sharply to a single editorial. When we call them out for imprisoning dissidents, it matters that we are very widely read.
And that’s another reason why I feel this was a big mistake, because we actually were on a path, for decades, of championing democracy and human rights as an institution.
And, you know, I have to tell you, I wrote a book in Russia about oligarchs. I understand how difficult it is when you have a lively and independent group of journalists. And ownership really matters. And, you know, we’re not just another widget company.
This is actually a group of very, very deep-thinking and oftentimes very aggressive people that have a desire to change the world. That’s the kind of journalism that The Washington Post has sponsored and engaged in.
In 2023, we published a series of editorials that took a look deep inside how China, Russia, Burma, you know, other places — how these autocracies function. One of the findings was that many of these dictatorships are using technology to clamp down on dissent, even things as tiny as a single tweet.
Young people, young college students are being thrown in prison in Cuba, in Belarus, in Vietnam. And I documented these to show how this technology actually isn’t becoming a force for freedom, but it’s being turned on its head by dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, David Hoffman, Washington Post reporter, stepped down from the Post editorial board when they refused to endorse a presidential candidate; Mariel Garza, LA Times editorials editor who just resigned.
A three-day fact-finding mission, headed by three Pacific leaders, has wrapped up in Nouméa, and New Caledonia’s President Louis Mapou says the French territory is at a “turning point”.
The semi-autonomous Pacific territory has been riddled with violent unrest since May.
While tensions have reportedly eased for now, the main political decision-making body for the Pacific region has been in Nouméa this week on a “strictly observational” but “critical mission”.
New Caledonia’s President Louis Mapou . . . “They willingly shared their own history.” Image: 1ère TV
Territorial President Louis Mapou told reporters why the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) “troika -plus” visit was so important.
“They have a shared intention with government members, drawing on their own experience in the region: the Cook Islands, which are in free association with New Zealand; Tonga, a country that was never colonised; and the Solomon Islands, which have experienced interethnic conflicts in the northern part, where youth played a significant role,” he said.
“And finally, Fiji, which gained independence, decided to withdraw from the Commonwealth, and is now re-evaluating its connection with the British Crown. So, they willingly shared their own history.
“They pointed out that in each of these histories, it was often the internal decisions of the populations involved that ultimately shaped the choices made about their country’s future.”
Hope and perspective
Local government spokesperson Charles Wea said the visit brought hope and perspective.
“It is important that that people from New Caledonia can arrive to express their views, and also the political perspectives, in terms of political future,” he said.
“The process of decolonisation, for example, which is quite a major subject topic that will be in the discussion with a mission”
Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni led the PPIF troika-plus delegation — Rabuka was the “plus” factor.
“We are not there to judge you or to tell them what to do right now. It is a preliminary visit. So, basically, we just want to listen.”
While it is a fact-finding mission, there are some indisputable facts, such as New Caledonia being on the United Nations Decolonisation List.
Tuvalu MP Simon Kofe has expressed his thoughts on this.
Pacific ‘needs to support decolonisation’
“My position is for independence, we need to continue supporting the decolonisation of the Pacific,” Kofe told RNZ Pacific.
Hu’akavameiliku’s views were somewhat more diplomatic.
“I do believe that there is a way of having some sovereignty and control of your country. There are various models in the Pacific. You have Niue and Cook Islands. Then you have American Samoa.
“We are not the ones who will tell [New Caledonia] what is working and what is not. We respect their sovereignty.”
But amid the politicking, a Kanak leader from the Protestant Church of Kanaky New Caledonia, Billy Wetewea, said people were struggling.
In particular, the indigenous population, who were battling inequities in education, employment and health, he said.
“The destruction that the youth have made since May, was a kind of expression of the frustration towards all of these social injustices,” he said.
“We are fighting for our humanity. So, it’s for the dignity of our humanity, and our humanity is the humanity of everyone.”
‘Neither marginalised nor mistreated’ The pro-France loyalists, however, have a different perspective.
“Contrary to what some separatists suggest, the Kanak people are neither marginalised nor mistreated,” they said in a statement.
“On the contrary, [Kanaky people are] one of the most advantaged in our Oceanian region.”
Wea said the Pacific leaders had the chance to hear from all sides involved in the unrest.
The findings will be presented to the 18 Pacific leaders at next year’s leaders meeting.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Recognising caste oppression’s presence in our country’s south Asian diaspora is the first step towards stamping it out
“Our children are prohibited from joining birthday parties at the same time as other children. They are made to wait outside the place where the ritual is being undertaken. They know which caste we belong to and that’s how they think we are.
“We are untouchables. If we attend their rituals, they and the ritual will get defiled/polluted.”
Asang Wankhede is an author and a DPhil in Law candidate at the University of Oxford. He is the project lead of the National Community Consultation of Caste Discrimination, Australia
Neil O’Brien’s simplistic plan isn’t really about antisocial behaviour. It’s a litany of rightwing gripes aimed at human rights
Some years ago, the Guardian introduced a feature, Dining across the divide, to show that it was still possible to disagree in a constructive manner. The idea was born at a time when it seemed politics was so polarised nothing could ever grow again on the ground between. Happily, it turns out there’s an appetite for common-ground stuff, illustrated not least by the ability of two middle-aged political podcasters determined to talk rationally to fill the O2 Arena, as Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart did a fortnight ago.
Working politicians are taking note. There’s a recognition that many voters don’t like being shouted at, or shouting at all. Take the lament that the Conservative MP Neil O’Brien posted on his Substack page a few days ago – reported by the BBC as a “plan to make Britain vaguely civilised again” – about the decline of orderliness on the streets of Britain. Here’s a surefire winner that’s bound to get everyone to agree. Not even the most effete liberal welcomes “people playing obnoxious music on public transport”, or the mass trip-hazard of abandoned ebikes and scooters on the pavement, or the kind of petty vandalism that makes so many city streets look neglected. He’s right that it’s unsettling and sometimes downright intimidating.
Anne Perkins is a writer and broadcaster, and a former Guardian correspondent
Daughter of Jamshid Sharmahd says family let down by US and German governments’ failure to save him
Germany has recalled its ambassador to Tehran and summoned the Iranian charge d’affaires in Berlin in protest over the execution of a German-Iranian dual national, Jamshid Sharmahd, accused of terrorism by Iran.
His daughter, Gazelle Sharmahd, who had pressed the German and US governments hard to save him, said she and her brother felt let down by the failure of both governments to do more. Sharmahd was executed on Monday.
The United Nations and countries across the globe have denounced Israel after its Parliament — the Knesset — overwhelmingly passed two laws that brands the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) as a “terror” group and bans the humanitarian organisation from operating on Israeli soil.
The legislation, approved yesterday, would — if implemented — take effect in three months, preventing UNRWA from providing life-saving support to Palestinians across Israeli-occupied Gaza and the West Bank.
Reaction ranged from “intolerable”, “dangerous precedent”, “outrageous” and appeared to be setting Tel Aviv on a collision course with the United Nations and the foundation 1945 UN Charter itself.
Australia was among states condemning the legislation, calling on Israel “to comply with the binding orders of the [International Court of Justice] to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale in Gaza”. There was no immediate response from New Zealand.
The condemnation came as an Israeli air strike destroyed a five-storey residential building sheltering displaced families in Gaza’s Beit Lahiya, killing at least 65 Palestinians and wounding dozens.
Dr Hussam Abu Safia, the director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital, said dozens of wounded people had arrived at the facility and urged all surgeons to return there to treat them.
Many of the wounded may die because of the lack of resources at the hospital, he told Al Jazeera.
World ‘must take action’
“The world must take action and not just watch the genocide in the Gaza Strip,” he added.
“We call on the world to send specialised medical delegations to treat dozens of wounded people in the hospital.”
A Middle East affairs analyst warned that the “significant starvation and death” in northern Gaza was because the the international community had been unable “to put pressure on the Israelis”.
Israel’s latest latest strike on a residential building in Beit Lahiya in Gaza being described as a “massacre”. Image: AJ screenshot
“The Israelis have been left to their own devices and are pursuing this campaign of ethnic cleansing [including] starvation — there’s no clean water, even this building that was bombed right now the medics are not allowed to go and save people . . . this is by design collective punishment,” said Adel Abdel Ghafar, of the Middle East Council on Global Affairs.
Ghafar told Al Jazeera in an interview that Israeli tactics were also designed to push out the population in northern Gaza and create “some sort of military buffer zone”.
On the UNRWA ban, Ghafar said that to Israel, the UN agency “perpetuates Palestinians staying [in Gaza] because it provides food, education, facilities . . . the Israelis have had UNRWA in their targets from day one”.
39 strikes on Gaza shelters
The Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said Israel’s military had attacked shelter centres in the Gaza Strip 39 times so far this month in a bid to “displace Palestinians and empty Gaza”.
The assaults have killed 188 people and wounded hundreds more, it said.
The Geneva-based group said Israel had targeted schools, hospitals, clinics and shelter centres in Gaza 65 times since the beginning of August.
Why is Israel really trying to close a UN agency that feeds Palestinians? (And what even is UNRWA?) pic.twitter.com/69vm6JtLqQ
The Palestinian presidency rejected the move, saying the vote of the Knesset reflected Israel’s transformation into “a fascist state”.
Hamas said it considered the bill a “part of the Zionist war and aggression against our people”.
UN chief Antonio Guterres called UNRWA’s work “indispensable” and said there was “no alternative” to the agency.
Chinese envoy to the UN, Fu Cong, called the Israeli move “outrageous”, adding that his country was “firmly opposed to this decision”.
Russia described Israel’s UNRWA ban as “terrible” and said it worsened the situation in Gaza.
The UK expressed grave concern and said the Israeli legislation “risks making UNRWA’s essential work for Palestinians impossible”.
Jordan said it “strongly condemns” the Israeli move, describing it as a “flagrant violation of international law and the obligations of Israel as the occupying power”.
Ireland, Norway, Slovenia and Spain — all four countries have recognised the Palestinan state — said the move set a “very serious precedent for the work of the UN” and for all organisations in the multilateral system.
Australia said UNRWA does life-saving work and Foreign Minister Penny Wong said in an X posting her government opposed the Israeli decision to “severely restrict” the agency’s operations. She called on Israel “to comply with the binding orders of the [International Court of Justice] to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale in Gaza”.
Switzerland said it was “concerned about the humanitarian, political and legal implications” of the Israeli laws banning cooperation with UNRWA.
Footage of Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa swaying along to the siva dance as she sat beside Britain’s King Charles III encapsulated a palpable national pride, well deserved on delivering such a high-profile gathering.
Getting down to the business of dissecting the meeting outcomes — in the leaders’ statement and Samoa communiqué — there are several issues that are significant for the Pacific island members of this post-colonial club.
As expected, climate change features prominently in the text, with more than 30 mentions including three that refer to the “climate crisis”. This will resonate highly for Pacific members, as will the support for COP 31 in 2026 to be jointly hosted by Australia and the Pacific.
Samoa’s Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa opening CHOGM 2024. Video: Talamua Media
One of the glaring contradictions of this joint COP bid is illustrated by the lack of any call to end fossil fuel extraction in the final outcomes.
Tuvalu, Fiji and Vanuatu used the CHOGM to launch the latest Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative report, with a focus on Australia’s coal and gas mining. This reflects the diversity of Commonwealth membership, which includes some states whose economies remain reliant on fossil fuel extractive industries.
As highlighted ahead of CHOGM, this multilateral gave the 56 members a chance to consider positions to take to COP 29 next month in Baku, Azerbaijan. The communiqué from the leaders highlights the importance of increased ambition when it comes to climate finance at COP 29, and particularly to address the needs of developing countries.
Another drawcard
That speaks to all the Pacific island nations and gives the region’s negotiators another drawcard on the international stage.
Then came the unexpected, Papua New Guinea made a surprise announcement that it will not attend the global conference in Baku next month. Speaking at the Commonwealth Ministerial Meeting on Small States, PNG’s Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko framed this decision as a stand on behalf of small island nations as a protest against “empty promises and inaction.”
As promised, a major output of this meeting was the Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration for One Resilient Common Future. This is the first oceans-focused declaration by the Commonwealth of Nations, and is somewhat belated given 49 of its 56 member states have ocean borders.
The declaration has positions familiar to Pacific policymakers and activists, including the recognition of national maritime boundaries despite the impacts of climate change and the need to reduce emissions from global shipping. A noticeable omission is any reference to deep-sea mining, which is also a faultline within the Pacific collective.
The text relating to reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery required extensive negotiation among the leaders, Australia’s ABC reported. While this issue has been driven by African and Caribbean states, it is one that touches the Pacific as well.
‘Blackbirding’ reparative justice
South Sea Islander “blackbirding” is one of the colonial practices that will be considered within the context of reparative justice. During the period many tens-of-thousands of Pacific Islanders were indentured to Australia’s cane fields, Fiji’s coconut plantations and elsewhere.
The trade to Queensland and New South Wales lasted from 1847 to 1904, while those destinations were British colonies until 1901. Indeed, the so-called “sugar slaves” were a way of getting cheap labour once Britain officially abolished slavery in 1834.
The next secretary-general of the Commonwealth will be Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey. Questions have been raised about the quality of her predecessor Patricia Scotland’s leadership for some time and the change will hopefully go some way in alleviating concerns.
Notably, the CHOGM has selected another woman to lead its secretariat. This is an important endorsement of female leadership among member countries where women are often dramatically underrepresented at national levels.
While it received little or no fanfare, the Commonwealth has also released its revised Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance. This is a welcome contribution, given the threats to media freedom in the Pacific and elsewhere. It reflects a longstanding commitment by the Commonwealth to supporting democratic resilience among its members.
These principles do not come with any enforcement mechanism behind them, and the most that can be done is to encourage or exhort adherence. However, they provide another potential buffer against attempts to curtail their remit for publishers, journalists, and bloggers in Commonwealth countries.
The outcomes reveal both progress and persistent challenges for Pacific island nations. While Apia’s Commonwealth Ocean Declaration emphasises oceanic issues, its lack of provisions on deep-sea mining exposes intra-Commonwealth tensions. The change in leadership offers a pivotal opportunity to prioritise equity and actionable commitments.
Ultimately, the success of this gathering will depend on translating discussions into concrete actions that address the urgent needs of Pacific communities facing an uncertain future.
But as the guests waved farewell, the question of what the Commonwealth really means for its Pacific members remains until leaders meet in two years time in Antigua and Barbuda, a small island state in the Caribbean.
Tess Newton Cain is a principal consultant at Sustineo P/L and adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and has more than 25 years of experience working in the Pacific Islands region. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.
